IMPORTANT Research! [Well, maybe not...]

[AzPatsFan]

I have come across a post on another web-page that I thought was very important to all Patriots fans.

Here it is reproduced, including my response. BTW, Does anyone remember the details of the Commissioner's dictum regarding "Poison Pills" in matching contract offers?

I was not aware that the figures were available yet for the 2009 league year for the cost of a franchise QB.
I have heard $14 million on WEEI bandied about. I have seen $14.6 million in this thread, but to my knowledge the official figures haven't been released.
There are two levels of franchise tender: exclusive and non-exclusive.
An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount equal to or greater than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams.
A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount equal to or greater than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position in the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.
Franchise tag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Would love to know how people have arrived at $14 million as the number. Is it published anywhere?
The Pats will likely franchise Cassel as they have the cap space to do so and it buys them time as they figure out how Brady is progressing in his rehab. They can trade Cassel in a franchise-and-trade scenario, but it is unlikely they will get even a single 1st round selection. Maybe swap picks in the first round or a straight second round pick.
Or if Brady isn't coming back this year, they keep him so that they have a quarterback.

Micronin,
Thank You for doing this research! Amidst all the drivel from the mediacracy, not a single one could get off his well-paid fundament, and do this research. I ALSO think it is highly significant that not a single franchise tag in 2008 was of the exclusive variety, as well, by any team. That information is in the Wikipedia source, as well.
So the real price of franchising Matt Cassel is only $10.730 million and not the $14+ million for an "exclusive" tag, as that exclusive tag is simply not used by any NFL Team, in actual practice. And it still requires two First Rounders in payment, even if the other Team puts some "poison pills" into their offer.
As I recall the Commissioners office stepped in after the Seattle Minnesota brouhaha, and said it would not allow "poison pills" in future matching contract offers. But would not change the rules "ex post facto" for these particular existing offers.
So the reality is that the Patriots will have $22-23 million in cap room, with 49 people signed per Miguel's projection spreadsheet,
http://www.patscap.com/futureyears.html
and a Cassel franchise would cut that to only $12-13 million.
That is way more than enough for needs such as rookies and signing post 2009 contract expiration. There would even be enough to resign EVERY front line player, coming free in 2010; Brady, Seymour, Wilfork, Green as well as the few FA like Wright coming free in 2009.
And probably even have money for a single big FA signing too, like Suggs/Dansby. But I don't think there is much FA activity in the cards. Just where can the Pats put the 13 draft picks that they have upcoming? There is simply No Vacancy at the Roster-Inn.
If you don't mind, I want to spread this information far and wide.

 

[pats1]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

So...what's new?

The exclusive and non-exclusive tags are talked about a lot, and the franchise number for a QB is about $14M for 2008 - obviously those numbers are non-exclusive numbers (since exclusive numbers can't be tabulated yet), but that's the only tag the Pats will apply since they would want Cassel to shop for offers.

IIRC, the Colts used the exclusive tag on Freeney in 2007 - I'm not sure what version they used on Clark in 2008.

And teams are still allowed to put poison pills in contract offers, but that doesn't really mean anything in a franchise situation. Team B can offer Team A's player a contract offer with poison pills, but Team A can say "fine, take him," and still receive two first round picks as compensation. The Seattle/Minnesota affair two years ago was a result of Seattle using the transition tag on Steve Hutchinson. The transition tag doesn't have any draft pick compensation, so Seattle couldn't match the contract without the poison pill (based on Walter Jones' higher salary) guaranteeing all of Hutchinson's salary. Then Seattle came back and signed restricted free agent Nate Burleson from Minnesota using their own poison pill. But they haven't been banned, as you've suggested. It's only something that will come up with the next CBA.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

AZPatsFan -
The figures you provided are incorrect. Last year's franchise tag number for quarterbacks was just over 14 million. Miguel is the one who did the estimate of 14.6 million to franchise Cassel with the non-exclusive tag number. The Exclusive tag number would be even HIGHER than the 14.6 million that Miguel mentioned. I don't know where the person got the 10 million number but it is dead WRONG.

It is also FALSE that the compensation "REQUIRED" is 2 first round picks. Tebucky Jones was signed by the Saints and the Saints paid a 3rd and 7th one year and a 2nd the next as compensaton. The 2 1st round picks is the compensation ONLY if the teams can't work out a suitable package prior to the signing.

 

[pats1]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

AZPatsFan -
The figures you provided are incorrect. Last year's franchise tag number for quarterbacks was just over 14 million. Miguel is the one who did the estimate of 14.6 million to franchise Cassel with the non-exclusive tag number. The Exclusive tag number would be even HIGHER than the 14.6 million that Miguel mentioned. I don't know where the person got the 10 million number but it is dead WRONG.

It is also FALSE that the compensation "REQUIRED" is 2 first round picks. Tebucky Jones was signed by the Saints and the Saints paid a 3rd and 7th one year and a 2nd the next as compensaton. The 2 1st round picks is the compensation ONLY if the teams can't work out a suitable package prior to the signing.

Right, the CBA prescribes two first round picks - but that's only if a team directly signs the player as a free agent. The Pats worked out a trade with the Saints and Tebucky.

 

[Pats726]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

One of the tags offers only a right to MATCH...and that is NOT at all what the Pats want...Interesting but..I feel like Pats1...not all that new news..

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

I ALSO think it is highly significant that not a single franchise tag in 2008 was of the exclusive variety, as well, by any team. T

that is not true Oakland Raiders - Nnamdi Asomugha CB (Exclusive)

But there is no reason for the Patriots to use the exclusive on MC. If your goal is tag and trade and another team grabs him you have basically traded him for 2 first round draft picks. Which is more than anyone realistically predicts he would be worth in trade.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

One of the tags offers only a right to MATCH...and that is NOT at all what the Pats want...Interesting but..I feel like Pats1...not all that new news..

There are 3 tags. The exclusive Franchise tag, the Non-exclusive tag and then the Transition tag. The Transition tag is the only one that limits the team. It basically gives them the right of first refusal. That is the one you see the poison pills in. You don't see them in the franchise offers. At least, none of the teams that have signed franchise players have used that to my knowledge.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

Micronin,
Thank You for doing this research! Amidst all the drivel from the mediacracy, not a single one could get off his well-paid fundament, and do this research. I ALSO think it is highly significant that not a single franchise tag in 2008 was of the exclusive variety, as well, by any team. That information is in the Wikipedia source, as well.

Unfortunately, that's wrong: Raiders slap exclusive franchise tag on CB Asomugha

So the real price of franchising Matt Cassel is only $10.730 million and not the $14+ million for an "exclusive" tag, as that exclusive tag is simply not used by any NFL Team, in actual practice. And it still requires two First Rounders in payment, even if the other Team puts some "poison pills" into their offer.

The poison pills statement is correct, but the $10.73M number is not: the difference between the exclusive and non-exclusive franchise tags is that the exclusive franchise tag requires the average of the top 5 salaries for the current season, while the non-exclusive franchise tag requires the top 5 average for the previous season.

As I recall the Commissioners office stepped in after the Seattle Minnesota brouhaha, and said it would not allow "poison pills" in future matching contract offers. But would not change the rules "ex post facto" for these particular existing offers.

He doesn't want them, but there's nothing, strictly speaking, he can do about it without running the risk of the NFLPA calling foul over collusion.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

that is not true Oakland Raiders - Nnamdi Asomugha CB (Exclusive)

But there is no reason for the Patriots to use the exclusive on MC. If your goal is tag and trade and another team grabs him you have basically traded him for 2 first round draft picks. Which is more than anyone realistically predicts he would be worth in trade.

Good pick up there GIGH. Asomugha was the only EXCLUSIVE franchise contract last year. And that limited him to talking only to the Raiders.

Another item that is absolutely false is the idea that because the Pats have 49 players signed currently that there isn't room for the 10-13 draft picks that they have in the upcoming draft (depending on compensatory picks and what they get for Cassel). The Pats have 31 slots open for training camp. And that is if they don't cut anyone between now and mini-camps. They, almost always, have guys in and cut them between now and then.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

Good pick up there GIGH. Asomugha was the only EXCLUSIVE franchise contract last year. And that limited him to talking only to the Raiders.

Another item that is absolutely false is the idea that because the Pats have 49 players signed currently that there isn't room for the 10-13 draft picks that they have in the upcoming draft (depending on compensatory picks and what they get for Cassel). The Pats have 31 slots open for training camp. And that is if they don't cut anyone between now and mini-camps. They, almost always, have guys in and cut them between now and then.

As a minor point, I see it as a virtual impossibility that the Pats will draft more than 10 players this year; if they end up with even that many picks, I expect to see some of them used to either move up in this year's draft, or, more likely, pushed into 2010.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

The poison pills statement is correct, but the $10.73M number is not: the difference between the exclusive and non-exclusive franchise tags is that the exclusive franchise tag requires the average of the top 5 salaries for the current season, while the non-exclusive franchise tag requires the top 5 average for the previous season.

He doesn't want them, but there's nothing, strictly speaking, he can do about it without running the risk of the NFLPA calling foul over collusion.

CT - the OP got the timeframe for the tags correct, he just has the numbers incorrect.

Also, there has never been a poison pill FRANCHISE contract to my knowledge. The last contract with the "POISON PILL" issues was with Steve Hutchinson and Nate Burleson. The problem with talking about those two is that Hutchinson was NOT franchised. He only had the Transition tag. Burleson, I believe, was an RFA. The Vikings put a poison pill in the contract to prevent the Seahawks from matching and so the Seahawks thought they were getting back at the Vikings by doing the same thing with Burleson.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

As a minor point, I see it as a virtual impossibility that the Pats will draft more than 10 players this year; if they end up with even that many picks, I expect to see some of them used to either move up in this year's draft, or, more likely, pushed into 2010.

I think quite the opposite actually. I think that they will actually draft more this year for 2 reasons.

1) There is just going to be way too much talent in this year's draft since they are talking about 75-100 underclassmen declaring. With that much talent declaring, the 2010 draft is going to be very weak on talent so pushing picks into it makes no sense.

2) Though there are 49 people signed to contracts, there are 8-15 players who are probably on the bubble. Players like Britt, Yates, Robertson, Craig, Malone, Wendell, Connolly, Redd, Ruud, Gutierrez, O'Callaghan, Richardson, Spann, and possibly even Bruschi and Vrabel.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

CT - the OP got the timeframe for the tags correct, he just has the numbers incorrect.

Also, there has never been a poison pill FRANCHISE contract to my knowledge. The last contract with the "POISON PILL" issues was with Steve Hutchinson and Koren Robinson.

True, but almost no one has ever bothered to try and sign a franchise player to an offer sheet. But, for argument's sake, if, say, the JEST really, really wanted Cassel, you don't think they might slip a poison pill into the offer sheet to make sure they get him?

Regardless, the Omissioner wants to see an end to poison pills in all contracts (e.g., RFA tenders).

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

I think quite the opposite actually. I think that they will actually draft more this year for 2 reasons.

1) There is just going to be way too much talent in this year's draft since they are talking about 75-100 underclassmen declaring. With that much talent declaring, the 2010 draft is going to be very weak on talent so pushing picks into it makes no sense.

I guess the question is whether or not the Pats see the talent they want coming out this year. If they do, then you're right. If not, then I may be right.

 

[xmarkd400x]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

I honestly can't believe that the NFL allowed poison pills to happen in the first place. They are uncompetetive by nature and act only as a detriment to the league.

 

[Miguel]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ssel-impact-salary-cap-page4.html#post1178363

I stand by my research.

 

[pats1]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

CT - the OP got the timeframe for the tags correct, he just has the numbers incorrect.

Also, there has never been a poison pill FRANCHISE contract to my knowledge. The last contract with the "POISON PILL" issues was with Steve Hutchinson and Koren Robinson. The problem with talking about those two is that Hutchinson was NOT franchised. He only had the Transition tag. Robinson, I believe, was an RFA. The Vikings put a poison pill in the contract to prevent the Seahawks from matching and so the Seahawks thought they were getting back at the Vikings by doing the same thing with Robinson.

Nate Burleson, actually.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

Unfortunately, that's wrong: Raiders slap exclusive franchise tag on CB Asomugha



The poison pills statement is correct, but the $10.73M number is not: the difference between the exclusive and non-exclusive franchise tags is that the exclusive franchise tag requires the average of the top 5 salaries for the current season, while the non-exclusive franchise tag requires the top 5 average for the previous season.



He doesn't want them, but there's nothing, strictly speaking, he can do about it without running the risk of the NFLPA calling foul over collusion.

And the Wikipedia article referenced shows the "previous" season for upcoming 2009 (i.e. current 2008 franchise tag price), for the QBs to be $10.730 million. The new current 2009 season exclusive tag price WILL BE $14.7 million as Miguel projected.

If Asomugha is an exclusive franchise than he is the first of this year to use it. If you ACTUALLY READ the Wikipedia reference you will see the at the "Non Exclusive " tag was used for every single franchised player by any team in 2008. Freeny was an "Exclusive" tag in 2007 by the Colts, but the only one (see below from Wikipedia )....

2008 franchise-tagged players

• Arizona Cardinals - Karlos Dansby LB (Non-exclusive)[1]
• Baltimore Ravens - Terrell Suggs LB (Non-exclusive)[2]
• Carolina Panthers - Jordan Gross OL (Non-exclusive)[3]
• Cincinnati Bengals - Stacy Andrews OL (Non-exclusive)[4]
• Dallas Cowboys - Ken Hamlin SS (Non-exclusive)[5]
• Green Bay Packers - Corey Williams DT (Non-exclusive)[6]
• Indianapolis Colts - Dallas Clark TE (Non-exclusive)[7]
• Kansas City Chiefs - Jared Allen DE (Non-exclusive)[8]
• Oakland Raiders - Nnamdi Asomugha CB (Exclusive) [9]
• Philadelphia Eagles - L.J. Smith TE (Non-exclusive)[10]
• Seattle Seahawks - Marcus Trufant CB (Non-exclusive)[11]
• Tennessee Titans - Albert Haynesworth DT (Non-exclusive)[12]

[edit] 2008 exclusive franchise player costs by position

PositionCostQuarterback$10.730 millionOffensive Linemen (includes Offensive Tackle, Offensive Guard, Center)$7.455 millionDefensive End$8.879 millionWide Receiver$7.848 millionCornerback$9.465 millionSafety$4.396 millionLinebacker$8.065 millionRunning Back (includes all Fullbacks and Halfbacks)$6.538 millionDefensive Tackle$6.363 millionTight end$4.522 millionPunter or Kicker$2.514 million

[edit] 2007 franchise-tagged players ( Exclusive or non-exclusive)

• Chicago Bears - Lance Briggs LB (Non-exclusive)
• Cincinnati Bengals - Justin Smith DE (Non-exclusive)
• Detroit Lions - Cory Redding DT (Non-exclusive)
• Indianapolis Colts - Dwight Freeney DE (Exclusive)
• New England Patriots - Asante Samuel CB (Non-exclusive)
• New Orleans Saints - Charles Grant DE (Non-exclusive)
• Seattle Seahawks - Josh Brown PK (Non-exclusive)

So despite it all, I think that Micronin, & Wikipedia is correct.

If the Pats franchise Cassel as an "non-exclusive" tag, as the majority of Team always do, it will cost them $10.7 million, not $14 million plus. That would be the going 2009 price for an EXCLUSIVE tag.

 

[pats1]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

Good pick up there GIGH. Asomugha was the only EXCLUSIVE franchise contract last year. And that limited him to talking only to the Raiders.

Another item that is absolutely false is the idea that because the Pats have 49 players signed currently that there isn't room for the 10-13 draft picks that they have in the upcoming draft (depending on compensatory picks and what they get for Cassel). The Pats have 31 slots open for training camp. And that is if they don't cut anyone between now and mini-camps. They, almost always, have guys in and cut them between now and then.

There are actually 51 players currently under contract for 2008 (you may be counting Richardson and Connolly, who Miguel originally had as ERFA and RFA but removed, as they are still under contract). That number includes the recent future contract signings. It does not include the 1 ERFA (Ventrone) and the 2 RFAs (Woods, Britt).

 

[AzPatsFan]

Re: IMPORTANT Research!

There are 3 tags. The exclusive Franchise tag, the Non-exclusive tag and then the Transition tag. The Transition tag is the only one that limits the team. It basically gives them the right of first refusal. That is the one you see the poison pills in. You don't see them in the franchise offers. At least, none of the teams that have signed franchise players have used that to my knowledge.

Thank you DaBruinz, for claryfying the three possible tags. But see my other clarifying answer. Miguel may be correct. If he is (and he usually is), then the Wikipedia article is wrong. But if you read it, it certainly looks authoritative.