Free Agency - Out of the Box

[JesterBlaze]

Peppers can hold out and still count towards the salary cap, correct?

He will count towards the cap. However...

The Bears got a cap credit next year for about $9M of a $10M incentive based contract last season to a minor player where the ridiculous incentives were never reached. I hadn't previously heard about cap credits but if the Bears got it for their CB (Marcus something I think) then I can see the same reasoning following to the Peppers non-deal if he refuses to sign so in 2010 the Panthers would probably get a cap credit equal to his franchised amount this season. And of course Pepper would never get paid since he never signed.

So yea, I don't think it's a bad idea to get rid of the franchise tag next season, i'd think about this but if it was put up for a vote, i'd strongly consider it.

Matt's already stated that we're done official voting for this off-season. The earliest we'd vote on anything new would be after the franchise stage in 2014/2015 off-season and therefore the earliest effective season would be 2016.

[DakotaGeorge]

The franchise tag thing is definitely interesting. In FOF it's very straight forward and somewhat abusive. You can pretty much slap the tag on a player every year without penalty. The top 5 salaries usually aren't that high either, so it's not like it's that big a deal to sign players. The NFL franchise tags are generally $3m+ per position than in the IFL, and we're in 2014 when salaries are supposed to be inflated.

From what I understand, like the Peppers situation, if a team offers the tag, it automatically gets counted towards the salary cap, but the player is not guaranteed yet. Peppers has yet to sign his offer sheet, so the team is basically stuck with him, but they don't have him. He can hold out and still count towards the salary cap, correct?

So yea, I don't think it's a bad idea to get rid of the franchise tag next season, i'd think about this but if it was put up for a vote, i'd strongly consider it.

FWIW, the lack of tag is what helped Torres get on the market, which could help the league.

I thought in this game using the Franchise tag ruined relations with the player and lowered his loyalty. I might be wrong.

[Kobeck]

lol - Tagged Jamison, who held out for less than what he was due as a franchise RB. Guess it was all about the bonus $$s

[Matt]

I thought in this game using the Franchise tag ruined relations with the player and lowered his loyalty. I might be wrong.

you are correct, however if you do it once to sign your "star" you're doing it to have exclusive negotiating rights. Or in the case of LAW, he doesn't want to invest huge future committed cap room to an aging QB. So you're either using the tag for
1. young player whose contract is expiring and wants a big deal that you didn't want to give a new contract to because you knew you could just franchise him and sign him to a new long term deal. If this is done, the effects of loss of loyalty is minimal.
2. Old guy who still has gas in the tank. You didn't want to extend him because of the bonus money he's wanting. You can essentially tag him every year until he retires with little to no problems. i.e. he may hold out, but he'll be there for the games when the season starts. No chance he'll re-sign after this, but it doesn't matter because he's old. You can just tag him as long as he stays around
3. you use the tag on a guy you want to keep around just because you have it and might as well use it.

[JesterBlaze]

Tobias Stanfield's loyalty is now "0" in part due to multiple slaps of the franchise tag.

The actual result of this "0": Nothing I've noticed.

[Pirates]

Maybe to spite you he is refusing to retire and throw a ton of TD's?

[Jave]

Tobias Stanfield's loyalty is now "0" in part due to multiple slaps of the franchise tag.

The actual result of this "0": Nothing I've noticed.

I can tell you from experience as far as signing the player goes, loyalty means NOTHING. Since 07' was released I have had many many players ranging from 85-100 loyalty, and if they become UFA's, they will still sign with the team who offers the most amount of money for the least amount of years.

Maybe the effect the loyalty does have however is the player is more willing to sign longer term deals for cheaper as long as you don't let him hit the FA market? Not sure here.

[JesterBlaze]

Since 07' was released I have had many many players ranging from 85-100 loyalty, and if they become UFA's, they will still sign with the team who offers the most amount of money for the least amount of years.

I think this is probably connected to the amount our offers are above the asking offers for UFAs. A 100 loyalty might make a guy sign with his original team for $15M over $18M if he's asking for around that area but not if he's asking for $300k and that $18M is another 10X his asking salary. I've assumed that Loyalty and Wants Winner both lose weight to $$$ in the balance shift of FOF contract negotiations through time.

I could be wrong as always.

[BOSS]

I can't even think of the last time i used the FRANCHISE tag on anybody. I always have plenty of money laying around the previous season that it never gets that far. I don't see how this would help any.

[Chris Rex]

I would kill to have money laying around each season.

[Pirates]

This should probably be in its own thread but I had no idea the NFL did this. Another example of how even the NFL trys to keep players from leaving via FA. They compensate teams with draft picks based on the amount of players lost through FA.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...s&confirm=true

[JesterBlaze]

This should probably be in its own thread but I had no idea the NFL did this. Another example of how even the NFL trys to keep players from leaving via FA. They compensate teams with draft picks based on the amount of players lost through FA.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...s&confirm=true

I've wanted compensatory picks in video games for a long time but I have yet to see the actual formula used so I can understand why they aren't.


I don't believe the NFL cares if a player changes teams via FA though. They just want a way to compensate the "losing" team. It does show that the spirit of FA is NOT to balance the league's talent, but instead based on U.S. employment realities. FA is more players vs. teams than top-tier teams vs bottom tier teams.


I'm extremely happy that the Bears got pick #99 this season!

[Pirates]

I think they want parity to an extent. So that if teams lose talent they have the ability to replace that through the draft. Again a huge emphasis is on the draft in the NFL, not FA. The draft is really everything and trades to a lesser extent. Much like the NFL in our league if you draft poorly then you will perform poorly. The key is reading the incoming talent.

I am curious to see how the Bears do. I really am a Forte fan and I thought he would be a force in the NFL. So far he is a machine.

[JesterBlaze]

I really am a Forte fan and I thought he would be a force in the NFL. So far he is a machine.

I hope to watch more Bears games next season and see more of Forte. I only found out his height & weight after this past season and was surprised. He seemed to "play small" in the games and highlights that I saw. I can't remember him really cracking anybody for forward progress that I saw.

[Jave]

... my parting words to DG & to this thread: after all of this discourse, you still persist. Frankly, I still find it distateful for you to continue to badmouth some very respected GMs in this league. Perhaps the time is now for you to find another home where you can relentlessly badger and get your instant gratification in the toy store.

To the rest of you, I going back to my cave. I've got Training Camp to deal with tonight & I am so glad this is over. Good luck to all in the upcoming season.

It takes a mighty bear to rouse Rook, and I for one second that motion.

BUT hell! I never seen him post so much!! LOL