And we lost as FAs: Snow Angel; Jabar Gaffney and Lamont Jordon. So we lost three and gained one, Al Johnson, we are still negative in count by two FAs. As it stands right now we are entitled to 2 comp picks, probably sixth or seventh round comp picks in 2010.
Incidently, we traded for Greg Lewis and that is also FAs uncapped neutral in its effect, just as it does not effect the eligibility for comp picks. But on the other hand, we can't modify his EXISTING, ASSUMED, contract and buck it up in 2010 by greater than 30%, to cut his 2009 impact. His is a minor contract, so the issue is moot, but the principle remains the same.
For all those nitpickers about the Haynesworth contract, any Peppers contract could be written with the same legalese features that don't explicitly violate the 30% rules but in actuality do so.
Others have speculated how to change a guaranteed bonus, (subject to 30% rules), to a non-guaranteed option (not subject to 30% rules).
For example, the proposed contract includes two non guaranteed options; an option bonus of $X dollars if the option is exercised; accompanied by an option bonus penalty of $X dollars if not exercised. Neither is guaranteed, but taken together the effect is guaranteed.
Heads I win, is not certain.
Tails you lose, is not certain.
But heads I win, and Tails you lose, is effectively a 100% probability. Contractual legalese that subverts the intent, but accomplishes the effect. That is something we would have to do in any possible Peppers signing, I would think.
If Miguel says there are only a Franchise and one Transition tag or alternatively two Transition tags, I defer to the Miguel's expertise,as that's what I read too. But I have seen several blogs that question this,so I included the three possibility. But the exact count doesn't really matter, the desire is to be able to use effectively the tags, without restriction, is important.
