- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 37,525
- Reaction score
- 16,306
We agree with regard to my general conclusion, but let me deal with the nipicks.
1) I believe there is a special provision for a second franchise tag in an uncapped year.
2) You are correct with regard to the high RFA tender. The compensation is ONLY a 1st and 3rd.
3) I also SUSPECT that Seymour will go elsewhere. However, the uncapped rule would allow us to keep him for one more year without hurting the rest of the team with his salary demands.
BTW, I should have included Gostkowksi in the RFA's that could be tendered at a high rate and require a 1st and 3rd as compensation.
1) I believe there is a special provision for a second franchise tag in an uncapped year.
2) You are correct with regard to the high RFA tender. The compensation is ONLY a 1st and 3rd.
3) I also SUSPECT that Seymour will go elsewhere. However, the uncapped rule would allow us to keep him for one more year without hurting the rest of the team with his salary demands.
BTW, I should have included Gostkowksi in the RFA's that could be tendered at a high rate and require a 1st and 3rd as compensation.
Only one player can be franchised.
Wilfork's tag is much less expensive, and should be used if an agreement can not be reached.
I've always felt that Seymour was headed somewhere else after this season. If we are subject to the final 8 plan, this will at least allow us to be players in free agency.
I do not believe there are any CBA provisions that would allow us to tender Hobbs using two firsts, even in an uncapped year.
I still agree with the ultimate conclusion, that we are in good shape for an uncapped year (or at least better shape if 2010 is uncapped than if it is capped), but I think your plan runs astray of the CBA.