The Post Franchise Tag 4pm Deadline Deal Or No Deal Fallout Thread

[Est.1974]

Under the transition tag, I'd expect SF, with its 60mil cap carry over, to offer Kirk a high value short term deal. 

[Skinsinparadise]

20 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

You misunderstood. There are no more "poison pills", like a bonus for playing x number of games in the pacific time zone, etc. But if you match a contract, you pay the same.

 

The way you're describing doesn't even make sense with non-guaranteed contracts. Then you could just do $1 mil, $1 mil, $82 mil and then cut him after 2 years.

 

OK, perhaps I am confused as to your point.  I said the way I understood Cooley is its all about the aggregate figures of the contract, not year by year.  You just gave an example of how you can't manipulate things by messing with the year to year figures.  Aren't you actually making my point?

[Veryoldschool]

Big Ben is talking like 2017 is going to be it. I can't think of better place for Cousins to go than Pitts.  If this happens Cousins ought to go there.  Pitt has a team that can compete for a title now and the organization is smart.     

 

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2017/07/31/ben-roethlisberger-retirement-2017/

 

 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

Big Ben is talking like 2017 is going to be it. I can't think of better place for Cousins to go than Pitts.  If this happens Cousins ought to go there.  Pitt has a team that can compete for a title now and the organization is smart.     

 

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2017/07/31/ben-roethlisberger-retirement-2017/

 

 

 

Hope not but to that point Cousins set a world record 2 season ago throwing tosses to Antonio Brown with him catching the balls behind his back.  If I recall Kirk was asked once who would he like throwing to the most that isn't on the team now (or some question to that effect) and his answer was Brown.

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK, perhaps I am confused as to your point.  I said the way I understood Cooley is its all about the aggregate figures of the contract, not year by year.  You just gave an example of how you can't manipulate things by messing with the year to year figures.  Aren't you actually making my point?

No. If someone signed him to an offer sheet that paid him 82 mil, then 1 mil, then 1 mil, and you match it, then you pay him 82-1-1, period.

 

What I'm saying is what you're describing- "just pay the aggregate"- makes absolutely no sense in an age of non-guaranteed contracts. In your version, the Redskins could then just reverse the yearly numbers and cut him after two years. But they couldn't do that and it wouldn't make any sense for the league to allow them to. 

[Veryoldschool]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Hope not but to that point Cousins set a world record 2 season ago throwing tosses to Antonio Brown with him catching the balls behind his back.  If I recall Kirk was asked once who would he like throwing to the most that isn't on the team now (or some question to that effect) and his answer was Brown.

 

I forgot about that.  I've always admired Pittsburgh.  Since Chuck Knoll took over when I was in high school Pittsburgh has played a brand of football that wins championships because every year they are tough, smart, disciplined, and balanced.  If I was Cousins I'd be willing to walk to Pittsburgh to finish out my career with the Steeler's.

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

No. If someone signed him to an offer sheet that paid him 82 mil, then 1 mil, then 1 mil, and you match it, then you pay him 82-1-1, period.

 

What I'm saying is what you're describing- "just pay the aggregate"- makes absolutely no sense in an age of non-guaranteed contracts. In your version, the Redskins could then just reverse the yearly numbers and cut him after two years. But they couldn't do that and it wouldn't make any sense for the league to allow them to. 

 

Sure, but I didn't say aggregate in non-guaranteed money.  The numbers have to match and that includes guaranteed money.

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Sure, but I didn't say aggregate in non-guaranteed money.  The numbers have to match and that includes guaranteed money.

That doesn't make any sense. 

 

You have to match the contract that was signed. Period. I really don't know what you're even on about here.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Stop floating the Pittsburgh stuff, it's pissing me off just thinking about it.

 

Im not sure why but the eastern panhandle of WV and Frederick, MD where I work are owned by Black and Gold.  Outside of the division foes, I can't think of a worse place for him to walk to.  If he went on to greatness and the Redskins continue to Redskins, I'm not sure I could forgive it.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

That doesn't make any sense. 

 

You have to match the contract that was signed. Period. I really don't know what you're even on about here.

 

Not sure what you are getting at as to "what I am even on about here" or to your prior post citing its "my version" of the transition tag.  Let me simplify it.  I don't really care.  And, I am not claiming that I read the CBA and I'm some sort of transition tag expert.  

 

I was just repeating some of the things Cooley was saying about the transition tag.  His main point was what Schefter, Graziano and Corry said on his show previously relating to the transition tag were wrong.  That pertains to the poison pill stuff.  Corry, Graziano and Schefter talked about how you can add crazy language to a transition tag like the contract is voided as soon as the player plays in Maryland in year 1 and stuff like that.  Cooley was going on that he learned that's wrong.

 

You do not have to match the actual "language" of the contract.  You have to match the "numbers" and yeah that means both guaranteed and non-guaranteed.  The numbers are the be all and end all.  In addition to that, Cooley in different segments talked up front loading and referred to next year cap room and then in another segment seem to suggest that its the aggregate number not year to year that matters.  So not sure where he was landing on it.    Unless he misspoke or I misheard him.  

 

Personally, I always thought the year to year structure does matter.  And I still do unless I hear otherwise from another source and I'll ultimately do the research and check it out.   But that point isn't a big deal to me.  My main interest in Cooley's take as I pointed out in the post where I talked about it was that he said his take on the transition tag was via a conversion with someone in the "Redskin Office".  I took that as maybe that will be in play next season.  I've been assuming the transition tag is unlikely and the franchise tag is the more likely play. 

 

Having said all that, transition tag conversion is a sidebar at best interest for me.  I am not interested in debating it any more.  So if you want the last word on it, feel free.  I got bigger fish to fry on this subject than speculating about 2018 hypothetical transition tag talk.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I said 'I don't even know what you're on about' because I honestly didn't (still don't). The idea that you're suggesting you can match a contract but then pay a substantially different contract because Cooley pointed out that you can't do poison pills makes no sense to me. I made one example of how unworkable that would be and you suggested (I think) that you could re-do the deal but not the non-guaranteed money. So, I don't get that, or what arcane labyrinth of rules you think the NFL has constructed on this topic, but the rule is simply- you match and pay the contract, or you don't.

 

The poison pill rule was made years ago. I don't know why Schefter wouldn't know that, but that's not my concern. You can't give a restricted FA an offer sheet that would require the matching team to pay more than the offering team would. That's all.

 

I was (and am) responding on the issue of re-doing the contract because, in the context of discussion of this issue, it matters. If we put the Transition Tag on Cousins and another team signs him to an offer sheet, they will do so in a way that's designed to make it as difficult for the Redskins to match as is possible. The mechanism they'll use to make it hard to match will certainly not be the total value, or the average value, of that contract. There is a very good chance it won't even be the guaranteed money, but rather the structure of that deal that is meant to make the Skins choke. So, as the other poster said, it could be that 82 mil + 1mil + 1 mil structure. Or, what I would more expect, something like a $50 mil cap hit each of the first two years. That's how teams will try to pry him away, and we can't just change the details of that offer to fit under our cap easier.

 

So, whether you "care" or not, I am clarifying this point. Because this is exactly the danger we have backed ourselves into for next year. And, a suggestion that it's less of a danger because we could match and then just re-do the deal to terms that better suit us, is simply false and shouldn't be left out there.

[Skinsinparadise]

12 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

The idea that you're suggesting you can match a contract but then pay a substantially different contract because Cooley pointed out that you can't do poison pills makes no sense to me.

 

I lied, I will respond.   I didn't say the point you made above but if that's how you interpret it via segments I said or whatever, that's cool, then I need to do a better job making my point clearer. The numbers have to be the same.  Some ambiguity I said from Cooley about how the numbers break year to year (that was my only point of confusion as I expressed) but regardless even if so it needs to land on the exact same aggregate guaranteed and non-guaranteed numbers.  The poison pill stuff was the overriding point but it has nothing to do with the numbers.   And if I am failing to be clear still, I give up, I'll call it a communication failure on my end and call it a day on the subject and move on.  

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I lied, I will respond.   I didn't say the point you made above but if that's how you interpret it via segments I said or whatever, that's cool, then I need to do a better job making my point clearer. The numbers have to be the same.  Some ambiguity I said from Cooley about how the numbers break year to year (that was my only point of confusion as I expressed) but regardless even if so it needs to land on the exact same aggregate guaranteed and non-guaranteed numbers.  The poison pill stuff was the overriding point but it has nothing to do with the numbers.    But I'll move on, now. 

Which is exactly what I was referring to, and which you are 100% wrong about, no matter what you think Chris Cooley said. There is no ambiguity.

 

For some reason, I wasted a couple of minutes of my time goggling. Some of these are old, but those rules remain the same, and these are the first 3 examples that came up when I searched for examples of restricted FAs signed to offer sheets:

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=2417092

 

Quote

 Manning signed a five-year offer sheet that can be worth as much as $21 million. He will bank about $7.5 million over the next 12 months on a creative deal negotiated by agents Jim Ivler, Bill Heck and Brian Mackler

 

https://www.thescore.com/news/1283292

 

Quote

Perhaps attempting to structure their offer in a manner that could leave Buffalo hesitant to match, the contract reportedly includes $4 million in the first season.

 

http://a.espncdn.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1347760.html

 

Quote

The front-loaded structure of the three-year, $3.525 million offer sheet Craft signed in New Orleans, with 62 percent of the total value of the contract paid out in the first year, all but precludes Jacksonville from matching it.

 

Teams structure offers in a way that makes it harder for the original team to match. Notice there is nothing in any of these articles about "but no worries, the team can just match and then change the terms to something that works better for them." That's obviously the opposite of what's allowed in these situations, otherwise there would be no point in creative structuring.

 

If you want to believe something that's completely wrong, I guess that's your prerogative. But anyone else should know it's nonsense. 

[zCommander]

4 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Under the transition tag, I'd expect SF, with its 60mil cap carry over, to offer Kirk a high value short term deal. 

 

Not going to happen. Kirk would be stupid to go to San Fran. He would rather go to the Steelers after Big Ben retires at the end of the season. He can win there instantly so to speak and that Franchisee is top class something he wanted out of the FO here but never got it. San Fran is still rebuilding and won't be ready in time for Kirk. 

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Hope not but to that point Cousins set a world record 2 season ago throwing tosses to Antonio Brown with him catching the balls behind his back.  If I recall Kirk was asked once who would he like throwing to the most that isn't on the team now (or some question to that effect) and his answer was Brown.

 

To add to that... TP said today that he learned how to be a WR from AB. Kirk and TP go to Pitts with Brown on the field. **** that could be something to watch alright. 

[bobandweave]

Salary caps are manipulated differently team to team. If another team did as said here and front loaded the deal because they have the room it's breaking no rules.

 

And no the Redskins simply could not match anything close to that. The Skins should have about 40 in space next offseason. There are other positions to sign as well. They can't put all the eggs in one basket next year or any year

 

Other teams have the space to box the skins out next offseason. and I think the reason the team drug his contract through the press after the deadline was letting everyone know he won't be back. Why else do that? 

 

Nothing stopping another team from outbidding the redskins in this situation and no way the players association protests any team doing that to the Skins because it would lead to other teams doing it and ultimately leads to more money for the players. 

 

Why would the league protest another team spending its cap on players? They dictate all teams spend a percentage of the cap so the team would be complying to the rules. Cousins or any player would be a fool to not take guarenteed money like that and it's not a poison pill to front load contracts so what rule does this break? None that I see

 

Poison pills is wording that effect only the team holding the players rights. Say the 49ers wrote in that contract that if Cousins lived in Maryland or D.C. Pennsylvania or Virginia after June 1st the whole deal was guarenteed. That only effects the Redskins and poisons the deal for the Redskins to match. That is illegal. Simply front loading a contract with more guarenteed money then the other guys can match is not illegal. And once the contract is offered it can't be reworked. Match it or don't. No pushing money to future years to keep someone that isn't allowed

 

Thing is no one should think that any team would offer a huge guarenteed deal like that. Teams want players to continue to strive for greatness and if anyone got all the money up front owners think it hurts them as it loses motivation for the player. It won't be like 80 million but will be like 40 year one guarenteed that seals it. If a team like throws that in an offer year one Cousins is gone because they can't match.

 

If the 49ers go into next offseason as reported having 100 million to spend and drop 40 on the QB then they still have 60 to spend. More then we do and that's leverage

[zCommander]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Stop floating the Pittsburgh stuff, it's pissing me off just thinking about it.

 

Im not sure why but the eastern panhandle of WV and Frederick, MD where I work are owned by Black and Gold.  Outside of the division foes, I can't think of a worse place for him to walk to.  If he went on to greatness and the Redskins continue to Redskins, I'm not sure I could forgive it.

 

You can just thank the FO for that as for not seeing just a little greatness that Kirk had. Will just have to feel the pain if he lights it up in Pitts as the Skins pick their QB in the 1st round with their pick #1.

 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

For the record, Pittsburgh wouldn't start off next offseason with much more cap space than we'd have, even assuming Ben's number gets wiped out.   And they have a couple of huge FAs themselves (Bell and Tuitt), so I'm not sure I see them being able to put together an unmatchable offer for Cousins. It also seems somewhat out of character for them to be throwing a couple of truckloads full of guaranteed cash at a FA QB.

[JSSkinz]

The Steelers will not pay $25 mil a year for Cousins, and they definitely don't let players strongarm them into contracts so unless Kirk is willing to play for much less there's no way.

 

They are a smart franchise and they will find another way.

[theTruthTeller]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I lied, I will respond.   I didn't say the point you made above but if that's how you interpret it via segments I said or whatever, that's cool, then I need to do a better job making my point clearer. The numbers have to be the same.  Some ambiguity I said from Cooley about how the numbers break year to year (that was my only point of confusion as I expressed) but regardless even if so it needs to land on the exact same aggregate guaranteed and non-guaranteed numbers.  The poison pill stuff was the overriding point but it has nothing to do with the numbers.   And if I am failing to be clear still, I give up, I'll call it a communication failure on my end and call it a day on the subject and move on.  

I understand that you were relaying what Cooley said, but I want to clarify some things.  The numbers and any other principal terms (incentives, no trade clauses,...) must be exactly the same.  There are no subjective determinations about whether the "matching" offer is just as good or pays just as well in the aggregate.  The poison pill exception applies only to cases where the contract language states rights and obligations for the New Club that would be different from rights and obligations of the Old Club if identical language was used.  Cooley doesn't have any superior knowledge from people he has talked to - right of first refusal is set out in Article 9, Section 3 of the the Collective Bargaining Agreement of 2011.  The poison pill language is defined in Article 9, Section 3(e)(iii):

Quote

(iii) Notwithstanding Subsections (i) and (ii) above, no Offer Sheet may contain a Principal Term that would create rights or obligations for the Old Club that differ in any way (including but not limited to the amount of compensation that would be paid, the circumstances in which compensation would be guaranteed, or the circumstances in which other contractual rights would or would not vest) from the rights or obligations that such Principal Term would create for the Club extending the Offer Sheet (i.e., no “poison pills”).

If Cooley has been talking to people in the FO and they don't know that a matching offer really does need to match, we're in a lot of trouble. 

[Veryoldschool]

4 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Stop floating the Pittsburgh stuff, it's pissing me off just thinking about it.

 

Im not sure why but the eastern panhandle of WV and Frederick, MD where I work are owned by Black and Gold.  Outside of the division foes, I can't think of a worse place for him to walk to.  If he went on to greatness and the Redskins continue to Redskins, I'm not sure I could forgive it.

 

If Snyder let's Cousins slip away I'm done.  Doesn't matter where or for how much or really why I'm done, I'm going to blame Snyder and that will be it for me.  If Kirk leaves the more success he has the better.  Kirk seems like a really good guy who works hard and wears his success well, the kind of guy I want to succeed and Daniel Snyder is a schmuck who killed my enjoyment of the NFL and ai would get great enjoyment if Kirk's success embarrasses Snyder.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

The poison pill rule was made years ago. I don't know why Schefter wouldn't know that, but that's not my concern. You can't give a restricted FA an offer sheet that would require the matching team to pay more than the offering team would. That's all.

 

That's not true, at all.

 

You can't give a restricted free agent an offer sheet that would "create rights or obligations for the Old Club that differ in any way" from the rights and obligations of the new club. Poison Pills did just that, without it involving the old team to pay a penny more than the new team. So it definitely goes beyond simply what each team must pay.

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

For the record, the Redskins would have to match the "Principal Terms" of the offer sheet a new team gives Cousins. The CBA is pretty specific in what it considers Principle Terms:

 

1) Salary: guarantees, signing bonuses, total contract value, "likely to be earned" incentives

2) Non-Salary provisions: No-cut clause, No-trade clause, player opt-outs, etc.

 

What is NOT considered "Principle Terms":

 

1) Anything that would create obligations for the Redskins that would differ in any way from obligations for the new team

2) Matching the player's salary on an individual yearly basis (so if the 49ers want to pay Cousins $89M his first year, more power to them...the Skins don't have to)

 

In addition, if another team did try to sneak in something the Redskins felt was a Poison Pill in disguise, they can take it to arbitration immediately and let an arbitrator decide what parts of the offer sheet should be considered the Principle Terms of the contract.

 

 

If Cousins is Transition tagged next year and he signs an offer sheet from another team, the offer sheet will need to include this stuff here:

 

1. Salary to be paid, guaranteed or loaned (i.e., Paragraph 5 Salary; signing, reporting and roster bonuses; deferred compensation (including the specified installments and the specified dates); amount and terms of loans, if any; and description of variation and method of calculation, if any, for Salary in Principal Terms that may be variable and/or calculable (i.e., only likely to be earned team incentives for New Team [not to exceed 15% of Salary] and generally recognized League-wide Honors [listed in Exhibit C to Article 13 of this Agreement]: [Please identify every component of such payment (e.g., signing bonus, salary, etc.) and indicate if any component or portion thereof is guaran-teed or based upon specific incentives].
2. Modifications and additions to NFL Player Contract(s): [or attach marked-up copy of NFL Player Contract(s)]
3. Other terms (that need not be matched):

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

That's not true, at all.

 

You can't give a restricted free agent an offer sheet that would "create rights or obligations for the Old Club that differ in any way" from the rights and obligations of the new club. Poison Pills did just that, without it involving the old team to pay a penny more than the new team. So it definitely goes beyond simply what each team must pay.

Yeah, I was using shorthand because there's no need to be spending loads of time going over a minor point in what was, frankly, a pointless conversation. Poison pill contracts were generally designed to make the matching team guarantee money that the offering team wouldn't have to.

[TSO]

Wait, I'm confused here. So it doesn't matter if, say, the 49ers front load the contract for the first year?

 

That's what I'm getting from @Califan007's post. I was under the assumption that the rule against poison pills were more pointed at some ridiculous terms than having to do with the actual yearly structure of the contract. 

 

But what I'm gathering here is we can still match and not actually pay that exact amount of guaranteed money they offered in the first year, but spread it around as we see fit so long as the numbers are the same on the aggregate? 

 

That's actually news to me. Cooley would've been right, I guess. And it does make the transition tag an ever-so-slightly more appealing option. 

 

Don't get me wrong, by "appealing" I mean disgusting incompetence that is minimally mitigated, because no matter how this ends we paid way more than we ever should've with just even remotely better foresight. And when I say "paid way more", I'm not just talking about allocated cap space. This incompetence goes deep. 

 

Or can the Niners front load the crap out of this thing and screw us?