What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Brandon Jacobs franchised (1 Viewer)

Jacobs franchised

The Giants have placed the non-exclusive franchise tag on running back Brandon Jacobs, the team has announced. That means the free-agent-to-be will not be a free agent, though the "non-exclusive" classification means he's free to negotiate with other teams. Of course, if he signs with another team and the Giants don't match, Jacobs' new team would owe the Giants two first-round draft picks.

The Giants had until next Thursday to use the tag.

"With the deadline approaching it was the right business thing to do at this point, although we are hopeful to get a longer term deal hammered out in the near future," general manager Jerry Reese said in the team's press release. "I did speak to Brandon and we had a very good conversation today."

Here's what the tag also means: Jacobs, who turns 27 in July, is scheduled to earn $6.621 million this season if he signs the 1-year deal. That number is the average of the top five running back salaries from this past season. If the Giants had given Jacobs the "exclusive" tag, they would have owed him the average of the top five salaries at his position as of an as-yet unspecified date in April.

It also means Jacobs could potentially be bumped down to a restricted free agent next year if the NFL Players' Association and the league cannot reach an agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement. That would make 2010 an uncapped year and nudge the requirement for unrestricted free agency from four accrued seasons to six. Jacobs is entering his fifth season.

But before anyone worries about that, the Giants' designating Jacobs their franchise player (only the second time in their history they've done that) doesn't preclude them from still working out a long-term deal in the coming months. In fact, they have until July 15 to do so. If they don't reach an agreement, Jacobs will then be forced to play under the 1-year deal, which would be 100 percent guaranteed against injury or a release.

"They don't want to let me go and it just buys more time to get a deal done," Jacobs said. "A deal is going to be done and I am confident in that fact that a deal is going to be done. They just didn't want to let me hit the market to see what else is out there. They want me in and it is fine with me, because I would rather be here. It is another reason why I don't really have a problem with it. Now if I didn't want to be here I would be going off the deep end now, but that is not the fact because I want to be here. My family likes it here. This is where I started and this is kind of where I want to finish. It is really just to franchise me to try to get a deal done.

"I think both parties will probably come to an agreement here soon on a long-term deal. A lot of guys would be going off the deep end now, which I understand why guys do it and why nobody wants to be franchised. That only happens when guys don't want to play the rest of their career with that team and they want to see what else is out there. I am in a situation where I want to be here. I want to play here. That doesn't really bother me."

Tom Coughlin wants Jacobs here as well.

"I never felt Brandon would be anything but a New York Giant," the coach said. "There isn't any question that when you talk about being a physical football team, he gives you that physical edge as a runner, a pass protector or catching the ball coming out of the backfield. He's a valuable, valuable part of our team and of the philosophy and the concept by which we play. It's important for our team going forward that he's a Giant."

The previous time the Giants have used the franchise tag was in 1993 when they used it on OL Jumbo Elliot. They've used the transition tag on LB Carl Banks (1993), TE Howard Cross (1994) and RB Rodney Hampton (1996).

4:12 p.m. UPDATE I had written it was the third time they used the tag because that's what the Giants' release said. I double-checked and saw it was only once before. As you can see, I've made the changes.

MG
Click to expand...
 
Wow. Not sure why he'd be unhappy. He certainly isn't worth top 5 money, and gets it for a year.

Never mind. Apparently, he isn't upset.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"They don't want to let me go and it just buys more time to get a deal done," Jacobs said. "A deal is going to be done and I am confident in that fact that a deal is going to be done. They just didn't want to let me hit the market to see what else is out there. They want me in and it is fine with me, because I would rather be here. It is another reason why I don't really have a problem with it. Now if I didn't want to be here I would be going off the deep end now, but that is not the fact because I want to be here. My family likes it here. This is where I started and this is kind of where I want to finish. It is really just to franchise me to try to get a deal done.
Click to expand...
Geez I'd hate to see his reaction if he were really mad!
 
massraider said:
Wow. Not sure why he'd be unhappy. He certainly isn't worth top 5 money, and gets it for a year.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending his disapproval of the tag, but...Being a high-contact, somewhat injury prone runner, theres no way he and his agent are going to risk playing out a one-year deal. They know they want to sign a long-term deal this off-season. What the Giants did was effectively take away all the other bidders that would have driven Jacobs' price up on the open market.Jacobs will spend the spring openly complaining about this and then sign a long-term deal before the deadline thats probably 15-20% less than he would have received as a UFA. Thats what I assume hes unhappy about.My personal feeling is, if he doesn't like the tag, he shouldn't be a part of the NFLPA. As it is, if its part of the collective bargaining agreement, which YOU, Brandon Jacobs, allowed your union to negotiate on your behalf, you need to like it, take it, and quiet the hell down.
 
Orlando Pace made a mint getting franchised a couple years in a row and THEN got the huge signing bonus. If Jacobs can stay healthy he can really cash in the next couple of years...

 
vandyt said:
massraider said:
Wow. Not sure why he'd be unhappy. He certainly isn't worth top 5 money, and gets it for a year.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending his disapproval of the tag, but...Being a high-contact, somewhat injury prone runner, theres no way he and his agent are going to risk playing out a one-year deal. They know they want to sign a long-term deal this off-season. What the Giants did was effectively take away all the other bidders that would have driven Jacobs' price up on the open market.Jacobs will spend the spring openly complaining about this and then sign a long-term deal before the deadline thats probably 15-20% less than he would have received as a UFA. Thats what I assume hes unhappy about.My personal feeling is, if he doesn't like the tag, he shouldn't be a part of the NFLPA. As it is, if its part of the collective bargaining agreement, which YOU, Brandon Jacobs, allowed your union to negotiate on your behalf, you need to like it, take it, and quiet the hell down.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't you want a tag? The number of years on a contract are meaningless since none of it (aside from the bonus) is guaranteed. They could cut you at any time during that contract and you won't be owed a dime. Imagine instead playing year to year for the average of the top five players. You'd make more that way than a multi-year contract. It's entirely possible I'm missing something here (and if I am - I would definitely like to be educated for future reference) but I never understand why players were against the tag. :banned:
 
Witz said:
vandyt said:
massraider said:
Wow. Not sure why he'd be unhappy. He certainly isn't worth top 5 money, and gets it for a year.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending his disapproval of the tag, but...Being a high-contact, somewhat injury prone runner, theres no way he and his agent are going to risk playing out a one-year deal. They know they want to sign a long-term deal this off-season. What the Giants did was effectively take away all the other bidders that would have driven Jacobs' price up on the open market.Jacobs will spend the spring openly complaining about this and then sign a long-term deal before the deadline thats probably 15-20% less than he would have received as a UFA. Thats what I assume hes unhappy about.My personal feeling is, if he doesn't like the tag, he shouldn't be a part of the NFLPA. As it is, if its part of the collective bargaining agreement, which YOU, Brandon Jacobs, allowed your union to negotiate on your behalf, you need to like it, take it, and quiet the hell down.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't you want a tag? The number of years on a contract are meaningless since none of it (aside from the bonus) is guaranteed. They could cut you at any time during that contract and you won't be owed a dime. Imagine instead playing year to year for the average of the top five players. You'd make more that way than a multi-year contract. It's entirely possible I'm missing something here (and if I am - I would definitely like to be educated for future reference) but I never understand why players were against the tag. :toilet:
Click to expand...
For a top players in a decent multi-year contract you get a nice signing bonus (guaranteed money) that is a lot more than the one year average salary of the top five players at your position.Although you are right that the yearly salary is generally not guaranteed, the big fat signing bonus on those multi-year deals is.
 
I doubt the Giants, or any team that isn't desperate, give a runner like Jacobs a long-term deal, so this is probably as good as it is going to get for Jacobs(which isn't bad at all!). His NFL life-span is probably already at the half-way point, imo, of course. It's a pretty good deal for both sides...

 
BoulderBob said:
I doubt the Giants, or any team that isn't desperate, give a runner like Jacobs a long-term deal, so this is probably as good as it is going to get for Jacobs(which isn't bad at all!). His NFL life-span is probably already at the half-way point, imo, of course. It's a pretty good deal for both sides...
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that it's pretty unlikely that the Jacobs plays this year under the franchise tag. I'm not saying he will hold out but Jacobs wants to play for the Giants and the Giants have clearly shown how much they value Jacobs so I'd expect them to reach a longer term deal before the start of the season.
 
Avery said:
BoulderBob said:
I doubt the Giants, or any team that isn't desperate, give a runner like Jacobs a long-term deal, so this is probably as good as it is going to get for Jacobs(which isn't bad at all!). His NFL life-span is probably already at the half-way point, imo, of course. It's a pretty good deal for both sides...
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that it's pretty unlikely that the Jacobs plays this year under the franchise tag. I'm not saying he will hold out but Jacobs wants to play for the Giants and the Giants have clearly shown how much they value Jacobs so I'd expect them to reach a longer term deal before the start of the season.
Click to expand...
IMO, the Giants are NOT going to commit big guaranteed signing bonus money to him because of his spotty injury past and his lack of versatility in terms of receiving skills.This was a smart move and actually I would be very surprised if they sign Jacobs to a long term deal. Despite what they say I think they are perfectly content in letting him play under a one year contract. Now the question is whether they get Ward back too.I think they are telling him they are interested in a long term deal just so he doesn't actively seek offers from other teams. But, if some other team does come in and offers him a big money contract I actually think they would take the 2 first round picks rather than match.
 
gianmarco said:
Banger said:
apparently he's not too happy about it...
Click to expand...
No indication he's not happy about it. Read the article I linked with his quotes.
Click to expand...
Ya, I did. I was going by what Francessa was saying. He was saying that his camp didn't want that and wouldn't be happy with the franchise tag because they were looking for a big payday. He felt that he may have to risk injury again (which has been a problem for him).
 
Certainly not surprising to see this happen. While I certainly understand the argument that "Jacobs isn't a top 5 runner", the franchise tag or whatever the terms of his pending long-term deal aren't indicative of his place among his peers. It's indicative of his place among his peers COMBINED with the needs of his team COMBINED with the going rate, which increases with each successive year. If the league reset the salaries of every player at every position each year, then yes, I understand people wondering why Jacobs should get the average of the top 5 salaries at his position. But that's really not looking at the NFL's salary cap structure in the proper light.

 
Anyone else somewhat suprised at how low the the $ amt is for a RB? $6.6M, that's it? These are the other numbers I've already seen this year: for a Corner it's $9.96M, for a DE it's $16.7M and for a QB it's $14.65M.

~~~~~~~~~~~

With only $6.6M on a franchise tag, I would be pretty nervous if I was Jacobs. It's a high risk position and he's already shown a propensity for injury. If he gets hurt significantly this year, his future earnings could be next to nothing. $6M as opposed to getting a longer term contract with a signing bonus plus salaries for the next couple of seasons is way more of a financial windfall. For comparison, last year Westbrook got a new contract for $13M guaranteed over 2 years. Steven Jackson got a contract for $17M guaranteed. Half a season wonder Ryan Grant got a new contract last year that was heavy on performance incentives but could total as much as $30M in 4 years. Heck, Warrick Dunn got $6M over 2 years and he's older than dirt.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
20 years of audible
Replies
16
Views
650
Sigmund Bloom
Sigmund Bloom
My_Bench_Scores_More
General Question Regarding Starter Strategy
Replies
9
Views
629
ratbast
ratbast
JohnnyU
Weekly Waiver Wire and FAAB Discussion - Week 12
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top