An uncapped year discussion

[mgteich]

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.

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.

 

[solman]

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.

There is an extra TRANSITION tag (Meaning that you can either use one Franchise tag and one Transition tag or two Transition tags).

Unfortunately, a Transition tag provides no compensatory draft picks and it has been established that a craftily drafted contract can easily subvert the tag's intended purpose. (i.e. the Jets can draft a contract that gives Seymour a $40M bonus in any year in which he plays more than 4 games in New England. If New England matches that contract, they have to include the $40M bonus provision [and pay out because it turns out that we play more than four games a year in Foxboro]).

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.

A Transition tag is actually not entirely without value in this context. It introduces undesirable procedural hurdles for the acquiring team, and the acquiring owner takes a political hit for using a CBA loophole to hurt a fellow owner at a time when a new CBA is being negotiated [This probably doesn't apply to the Jets and Pats since we are perceived as feuding].

But its not going to let us save millions of dollars. Maybe we could use it to trade Seymour and pick up a third round pick (second round if I'm greedy) just like Miami got an extra 7th for Welker.

Finally keep in mind that the current Franchise and Transition tag numbers for Seymour are around $9M and $8M.* I think that Seymour is worth $9M. But its no bargain. It is very easy for me to imagine him underplaying that number.

[*]These may go up in 2010 (I was going to refer you to Haynesworth, Albert and Freeney, Dwight, but it appears that Haynesworth's contribution to the tag amounts will actually go DOWN by $2M in 2009 thanks to a well designed contract that firmly establishes Dan Snyder's intention to spend like crazy in 2010 [Fortunately he's already giving $25M in 2010 dollars to Haynesworth, so that may slow him down]).

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.

$3M is a lot of money to pay for a kicker. He might be worth it, but I think we should:

1. Try to negotiate a long term deal or

2. Tender him at the first round level [$2.4M] and encourage him to find a team willing to pay the pick.

I'd gladly part with Gost in exchange for a first round pick.