Jennings: I don't want a franchise tag

[HardRightEdge]

Here’s the problem with franchising a player with the intention of trading him: The player has all the leverage in that situation. In order to complete a trade the player has to cooperate with the team interested in acquiring him by agreeing to a contract with that team. Jennings could refuse to do so - or threaten to refuse – and the Packers would be stuck paying him the guaranteed tag amount and have that entire amount go to that season’s cap.

As you note, the player has leverage, and that leverage ends up diminishing (if not wiping out) trade value...potential trading partners have no guarantee they will be able to negotiate out of the tag contract into a more reasonable multi-year deal.

Flynn's tag cost was $14.4 mil. Nobody would want to take that on. To illustrate the point, SEA was the high bidder in free agency, or close to it, signing Flynn to 3 years for $19.5 mil plus incentives. Had Flynn been traded to SEA and they offered him that deal, he could have said "no thanks" and played for the one year under that tag cost.

It's not hard to see the chilling effect on trade value for a guy that's been tagged.

So, how did NE manage to make a sweet tag-and-trade of Cassel to KC, the frequently cited precedent in the Flynn discussions?

Given Mr. Belichicks track record of playing fast and loose with rules, particularly in the time period surrounding the Cassel deal, it is not a stretch to think there was something rotten in Denmark. It is not hard to envision a 3-way conversation between Belichick, KC and Cassel's agent in advance of applying the tag, whereby Cassel and KC had a handshake deal on the multi-year contract he would eventually sign.

This is a great way to take out the risks and everybody gets what they want. One problem...this kind of back door dealing violates about a half dozen league rules.

If you tag a guy, the lessons would be (1) you better be happy to play him and pay him for that one year or (2) be prepared to cheat.

As for Flynn's future, there is a fair amount of bad quarterbacking in this league and the draft pickings this year are slim. Don't be shocked if Flynn is starting somewhere come 2013.

 

[Lunchboxer]

Who would the pack use the tag on?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Who would the pack use the tag on?

Nobody.

 

[ivo610]

Yes, I agree. He is making it sound like he is being pushed out, when in reality he is the one that wants the big payday. IMO, they should tag and trade him. You know he's gone. He doesn't want the tag, however why not get something for him. I know it is not TT's way of doing it, but it sure would be nice to get a 3rd or a 4th for him and have some sort of say in where he is going.

I still think he should have tagged and traded Flynn, but I understand that the risk of paying a backup QB franchise money had they not been able to trade him was too great. With Jennings, I don't think there is that risk if they can not trade him. They would then have him for a year at less than he is demanding.

I believe we could get a very nice comp pick without tagging him. Why risk tagging him over the difference of maybe a round in draft pick.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I believe we could get a very nice comp pick without tagging him. Why risk tagging him over the difference of maybe a round in draft pick.

The highest comp pick awarded is bottom of the third round. At the time Flynn signed with Seattle, it was expected he would start and we'd get a top comp pick or close to it. Now, that seems entirely out of the question. Eggs ain't chickens.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0900...tributes-compensatory-draft-picks-to-15-clubs

Note that losing Jenkins and Colledge, both well compensated starters on their new teams, plus consideration for 3 other FA losses, earned us 2 bottom of the 4th. round picks.

 

[weeds]

Come on....where's that big Greggie smile?? !!!Cha-ching!!! ... ah... there it is .. cha-ching!!!

I'm with Jack. I don't like seeing it because Jennings is a locker room guy... hate to see him go, but I think it's gonna happen. Just wish he'd stop playing the PR game with the media and quietly go with dignity and honor. He has nothing to be ashamed about. I can appreciate that 'greed is good' ... his family wouldn't be hungry or lose their house either way.

 

[13 Times Champs]

This is going to a affect a lot of decisions on a lot of players.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/22/nflpa-expects-small-increase-in-salary-cap/

 

[HardRightEdge]

This is going to a affect a lot of decisions on a lot of players.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/22/nflpa-expects-small-increase-in-salary-cap/

The other side of the coin is the minimum salary cap. Beginning with the 2013 season, teams must pay out a minimum of 89% of the salary cap in cash. There are a few teams that might be bound to add salary through extensions or free agency. The following link shows estimated cap space as of November, which gives some indication of who might need to add payouts:

http://nfltraderumors.co/nfl-team-cap-space/

I would caution that some estimates of team cap space for 2013 based on existing contracts (which would exclude pending FAs) can be quite a bit different. For example, I saw a note that the Colts are slated to be more than $40 mil under the cap next season; I'd presume they have some high-priced guys becoming FAs, though I've not checked it out.

An interesting part of this new CBA provision is the "in cash" element. I've not seen this explained in any detail, but I'd presume the 2013 "cash" would include in full any new signing bonuses, even though they are prorated over the term of the contract for cap purposes. Otherwise, you could not have more than $13 mil in deferred cap (11 % of $121 mil), which might be mathematically impossible for a number of teams.

Here's a piece that describes some long term cap info, in the context of a Cowboys "case study":

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2012...dont-expect-increased-salary-cap-anytime-soon

 

[13 Times Champs]

The other side of the coin is the minimum salary cap. Beginning with the 2013 season, teams must pay out a minimum of 89% of the salary cap in cash. There are a few teams that might be bound to add salary through extensions or free agency. The following link shows estimated cap space as of November, which gives some indication of who might need to add payouts:

http://nfltraderumors.co/nfl-team-cap-space/

I would caution that some estimates of team cap space for 2013 based on existing contracts (which would exclude pending FAs) can be quite a bit different. For example, I saw a note that the Colts are slated to be more than $40 mil under the cap next season; I'd presume they have some high-priced guys becoming FAs, though I've not checked it out.

An interesting part of this new CBA provision is the "in cash" element. I've not seen this explained in any detail, but I'd presume the 2013 "cash" would include in full any new signing bonuses, even though they are prorated over the term of the contract for cap purposes. Otherwise, you could not have more than $13 mil in deferred cap (11 % of $121 mil), which might be mathematically impossible for a number of teams.

Here's a piece that describes some long term cap info, in the context of a Cowboys "case study":

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2012...dont-expect-increased-salary-cap-anytime-soon

Good stuff!!! thanks for the links. I went to the top 50 free agents list. Wow are there a lot of good offensive tackles on it.