Franchise Tag help

[Bengalhead]

OK. I need your help understanding how the franchise tag works. As I understand it, the franchise tag means that the player is restricted from signing with another team unless that team is willing to give up draft picks and in return the original team pays that player the average of the top 5 players' salaries. Is that correct? If so, then why wouldn't we tag Steinbach? Even though he had a down year, I would still consider him one of the top 5 guards in football. I remember Hobson saying that we'd have to pay him left tackle money to keep him. I don't know what the average salary would be for the top 5 guards but I couldn't imagine it would be left tackle money (at least not top 10 left tackle money).

Who do you think they will tag? E. Steinback? J. Smith? Nobobdy?

[HoosierCat]

I don't think the break out guards for franchise tag purposes; it's just "offensive line," so the tag would be mostly based on tackle money. It would be cheaper, I suspect, just to give him the $5 million/year deal he was reportedly looking for last spring.

I doubt they tag anyone.

[Bengalhead]

I don't think the break out guards for franchise tag purposes; it's just "offensive line," so the tag would be mostly based on tackle money. It would be cheaper, I suspect, just to give him the $5 million/year deal he was reportedly looking for last spring.

I doubt they tag anyone.

If that's the case, then it makes much more sense. What about tagging J Smith? I'd hate to see us lose both of those guys (Steiny and Smith) and get nothing in return

[HoosierCat]

I don't see them tagging Justin, either. I wouldn't object, thought I suspect the general reaction to such a move would be howls of protest about "overpaying." But that's the way FA works: even "just" good players like Smith get eye-popping deals. Elite players break the bank, on the rare occasion they get to FA at all.

[Bengalhead]

I don't see them tagging Justin, either. I wouldn't object, thought I suspect the general reaction to such a move would be howls of protest about "overpaying." But that's the way FA works: even "just" good players like Smith get eye-popping deals. Elite players break the bank, on the rare occasion they get to FA at all.

Yeah. Honestly, I'd like to see them tag him in hopes that we'd get a draft pick for him. I'm not sold that he's worth what he'll get in FA. I've said in other threads that I love his motor but it gets him into trouble because he leaves his gap too often, exposing the d to cut backs and reverses.

[AMC]

Did I read somewhere that KWash's and Smith's lockers were the only one's without nameplates after the season ended?

Info?

[Bengalhead]

Did I read somewhere that KWash's and Smith's lockers were the only one's without nameplates after the season ended?

Info?

I did read that J. Smith took his nameplate down. He could be posturing since he's a free agent, but who knows for sure. I don't know specifically about K Wash but I just can't imagine him coming back.

[bengalsfansince68]

Since no one answered the question, I looked for an answer.

http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/

http://football.about.com/cs/football101/a...chisetransi.htm

[GregCook]

If Geathers saw Justin Smith getting tagged, he would want more money than Justin since JS never got close to 10.5 sacks in his career. So the Bengals would be in a very big bind, right? Smith walks. Resign Geathers is much higher priority I would think.

Did I read somewhere that KWash's and Smith's lockers were the only one's without nameplates after the season ended?

Info?

I did read that J. Smith took his nameplate down. He could be posturing since he's a free agent, but who knows for sure. I don't know specifically about K Wash but I just can't imagine him coming back.

[BengalPimp]

I don't think the break out guards for franchise tag purposes; it's just "offensive line," so the tag would be mostly based on tackle money.

Actually, they average the top 5 players at each position, so it would be the top 5 Guards, not offensive lineman, the same as it would be for defensive lineman, separated by DT and DE.

It would be Stupid to tag him, as the Hit to the salary cap would be HUGE. It would be around the

$7 million mark. A big reason for that is the HUGE contract Steve Hutchinson signed with Minnesota before last season increased the average quite a bit.

There is 1 way, and 1 way only that the Bengals would use a "Franchise" tag on him, and that is if they were absolutely positive that a team would be willing to part with a couple of 1st round picks to get him(Unlikely)

OR if the were sure that they would be able to re-sign him to a long term deal, that would be more salary-cap friendly.

What a lot of people dont understand is that a team ONLY uses a "Franchise" tag on someone when they cant get a long-term deal done, and dont want to lose a player. Its an absolute LAST RESORT because its so expensive. Usually when a player gets "tagged" they/their agents wont negotiate a long-term deal right away.-------I'll give an example. If for instance they used the "franchise" tag on Steiny, and nobody else made an offer, the Bengals would have to pay him somewhere around $7million for next season, guranteed. Then they would be in a similar position next year(he can Leave or they tag him again) But if the Bengals re-sign him to say, a 5 yr $25million contract (thats probably even too much) he would count against the cap a lot less, because whatever bonus they give him, will be divided by the 5yrs, and usually those contracts are "back-ended" so, he might get the bonus money up front, but they'll make his salary for next season probably like 1.2 or 1.5 million in base, then it will increase every year. So if you re-sign him long term, youre realistically looking at him counting maybe 3 or 4 million against the cap next year instead of 7 mill.

And once they're franchised, players arent usually in a hurry to sign a long-term deal, because while NFL contracts are not guaranteed, If you "tag" somebody, that money IS guaranteed, so they'll take it, play the season, and wait until the following off-season, to see what the other free-agents at their position are making then.

Basically, nobody wants to "tag" a player, its usually a Last Resort.

[HoosierCat]

Actually, they average the top 5 players at each position, so it would be the top 5 Guards, not offensive lineman, the same as it would be for defensive lineman, separated by DT and DE.

Nope, they don't. They do break out DEs and DTs, but lump guards, centers and takles together under offensive line. See:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...e-players_x.htm

It would be Stupid to tag him, as the Hit to the salary cap would be HUGE.

Not really. It would be bigger than, say, signing a player to a long term deal, but the net increase isn't usually that bad. To use your example, between a long-term deal that costs $5 million and year vs. the cap and a 1-year deal that costs $7 million, the difference is "only" $2 million, or less than 2% of the total team cap. Some teams have used the tag on the same player multiple times in a row, which can actually be smart if the player is indeed going to cost franchise-caliber cash. Why do a 5-year deal that costs you $7 million a year and creates cap headaches if the guy gets hurt when you can just give him $7 million annually. (IIRC the new CBA puts a limit on how many times teams can do this now.)

One thing I wouldn't be surprised at is if the Bengals use the transition tag on Justin or Steiny. Most likely Justin. That would at least retain their right to match.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Actually, they average the top 5 players at each position, so it would be the top 5 Guards, not offensive lineman, the same as it would be for defensive lineman, separated by DT and DE.

Nope, they don't. They do break out DEs and DTs, but lump guards, centers and takles together under offensive line. See:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...e-players_x.htm

It would be Stupid to tag him, as the Hit to the salary cap would be HUGE.

Not really. It would be bigger than, say, signing a player to a long term deal, but the net increase isn't usually that bad. To use your example, between a long-term deal that costs $5 million and year vs. the cap and a 1-year deal that costs $7 million, the difference is "only" $2 million, or less than 2% of the total team cap. Some teams have used the tag on the same player multiple times in a row, which can actually be smart if the player is indeed going to cost franchise-caliber cash. Why do a 5-year deal that costs you $7 million a year and creates cap headaches if the guy gets hurt when you can just give him $7 million annually. (IIRC the new CBA puts a limit on how many times teams can do this now.)

One thing I wouldn't be surprised at is if the Bengals use the transition tag on Justin or Steiny. Most likely Justin. That would at least retain their right to match.

Only problem is that, if other teams rightly decide that they're not worth top-5 at their positions, that you're stuck paying. Steinbach doesn't deserve left tackle money, and Justin's not top-5. I'd rather try to get a deal done for less per year than the franchise tag is worth for one or both of them.

The new CBA does limit the ability of teams to use the franchise tag. It's not like the good old days where the Seahawks and Walter Jones had some sort of a gentlemens' agreement that they'd franchise him every year, he'd hold out, and sign at the end of camp. He got top-5 money every year and didn't have to come to camp. Everybody wins!

[Kazkal]

Been one of justins biggest supporters.

but tagging him would be over paying him...I do think hes worth 30million dollar 6 year contract though...everyone says hes gotta get bigger contract then hes worth but barley pay him more then he gets now...not like he will be making peppers money.

It would be Stupid to tag him, as the Hit to the salary cap would be HUGE.

Tag and trade ala jets

[HoosierCat]

Only problem is that, if other teams rightly decide that they're not worth top-5 at their positions, that you're stuck paying.

Assuming you don't pull the tag off a player, of course.

Been one of justins biggest supporters.

but tagging him would be over paying him...I do think hes worth 30million dollar 6 year contract

Will be interesting to see if the transition tag comes in around that $6 million number...

[HairOnFire]

I can't see the Bengals using a tag on either player. They've had the opportunity to reach a contract agreement with both for over a year now, and weren't rumored to be close with either....so I can't see them suddenly pony up the money required by a restrictive tag. Both players are almost certainly gone and we're not getting anything for them.

That said, I do have a little bit of love for the idea of using a transition tag on Justin Smith soley because it could buy the Bengals a year of service...allowing them to look at other needs in FA and the draft. But I'm betting they drafted Frostee Rucker for this very reason and he gives the Bengals a young player with better than average ability to stuff the run. Eric Henderson gives them a potential spark as a designated pass rusher, and they've practically bent over backward keeping a roster spot open for the lightly regarded Jonathan Fanene. None seem likely to fill Justin Smith's shoes, but the cupbard isn't bare and although I think it's unlikely it isn't impossible the Bengals couldn't get comparable production using a platoon of lesser players. And if you think that's not going to happen then bite the bullet and step up in the draft.

[aaronburr]

For the record, if an untagged Steinbach or Smith leaves, we would likely get compensatory draft picks the following year. That is, assuming that Marvin doesn't sign a bunch of starter-level free agents.

Which is something I don't hear a lot of talk about...what free agents could the Bengals sign if they don't throw tackle money at Steinbach and double-digit sack money at Smith?

[BengalPimp]

It would be Stupid to tag him, as the Hit to the salary cap would be HUGE.

Not really. It would be bigger than, say, signing a player to a long term deal, but the net increase isn't usually that bad. To use your example, between a long-term deal that costs $5 million and year vs. the cap and a 1-year deal that costs $7 million, the difference is "only" $2 million, or less than 2% of the total team cap. Some teams have used the tag on the same player multiple times in a row, which can actually be smart if the player is indeed going to cost franchise-caliber cash. Why do a 5-year deal that costs you $7 million a year and creates cap headaches if the guy gets hurt when you can just give him $7 million annually. (IIRC the new CBA puts a limit on how many times teams can do this now.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say "only" $2million, and "less than 2%" but that 2 million could be used to sign other free-agents instead, or extend players contracts.

Teams have "tagged" players repeatedley in the past, but its usually for players who's positions arent generally the highest paid. For example when Jacksonville was "franchising" Donovan Darius every year, the safety position has a lower salary.

The new CBA does limit the ability of teams to use the franchise tag. It's not like the good old days where the Seahawks and Walter Jones had some sort of a gentlemens' agreement that they'd franchise him every year, he'd hold out, and sign at the end of camp. He got top-5 money every year and didn't have to come to camp.

I believe they only "tagged" Walter Jones twice.