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!
Could/Would the Chargers slap the franchise tag on Turner? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BigTex
- Start date
The Duff Man
Footballguy
Just say no.
Borat
Footballguy
Seriously?Chargers had no problems using the tag in the past at the QB position. What make us so sure they won't do it again?
Turner might get a lot more work this year.LT will be 29. Maybe he starts slowing down. Maybe Turner pulls a Betts and resigns. Maybe they keep LT under 300 carries and give Turner much more work. Anything can happen, however unlikely.
BigTex
Don't mess with Texas
If they did it with Brees why not with Turner? Similar situation. I understand many will mock at this thought but this is the reality that we are facing.
fantasylifer
Footballguy
Only problem is that they DIDN'T franchise Brees. He was an unrestricted free agent. Don't know of any team who could afford to pay top 5 money to two players at the same position, especially with one being a clear back-up.
fantasylifer
Footballguy
Can't see it, Turner will have plenty of offers next year. Tenn. was guarenteeing him 20 million this year if he was traded. They may franchise him, it's their right, but he will never sign the franchise offer IMO.
BigTex
Don't mess with Texas
Domination
Footballguy
The difference between the Brees situation and Turner's situation is that Brees was the starter. Granted everyone thought that it was River's job, but he was still the starter. Turner is not and will not be the starter unless LT2 gets hurt. Therefore it would be ridiculous to pay him that kind of money. If they were to do it, I think that other teams would happily let them waste that much money on their 2 RBs.
BigTex
Don't mess with Texas
This is a valid point, but I say they're similar because they both can/should be starting on two different teams which what many believed and now has come true but only after Brees was tagged twice. I'm not saying it WILL happen but after thinking about it, I won't be surprised. SD doesn't care what the public think and if they think they have a leg up on a given situation they've shown they'll go against the norm.
fantasylifer
Footballguy
Yes, Brees was franchised in 2005, I thought the poster was referring to 2006, when he left as an UFA. Sorry for the confusion.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
I brought this up in the 30 page turner thread, I dont see why not, especially if AJ thinks its best for the team
BigTex
Don't mess with Texas
Makes sense, but we all (including myself) thought the same thing before they franchised Brees.They paid Brees 8 mil while Rivers had an 40 mil contract.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Brees was coming off a Pro Bowl season and had already thrown 1300+ passes. Turner has carried the ball 150+ times in his career with a high of 15 carries in a game (which was 31 games played ago). So sure, if they feel like giving him $7 million (or more) they could franchise him.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Another big difference between the two situations is Brees OR Rivers could contribute in a game(assuming both are healthy). Tomlinson AND Turner can contribute in a game, even if both are healthy. You're not paying $ for one of them to stand on the bench with a clip-board. I really think Turner makes Tomlinson a better runner. He elongating Tomlinsons career. If SD is ahead by 14 in the second half Tomlinson doesn't have to finish a game off. Tomlinson doesn't have to expose himself to injury in a late season game before the playoffs. Turner makes the SD Chargers a better team even if he doesn't start. I asked in the other Turner thread...... Doesn't anyone think there will be teams this season that have $7-10mil on their salary cap that they didn't use? I do. IMO it's a no-brainer to keep Turner unless they need to spend that $ elsewhere and with most if not all their core talent locked up for several years I haven't heard of any FA players out there that would contibute to the success of the Chargers more than Turner would. In a Norv Turner offense do they really need to go out and over-spend for a WR? Key wanted to join SD and he was rebuffed.... if SD felt they lacked talent at the WR position I'm sure they would have signed him. I thought drafting Davis was a risk at WR in the first round but now that you've done it you've got to develop him and give him at least enough playing time to find out if he was worth the pick or not. I'd love to see SD land a guy like Ed Reed but there aren't a lot of those guys out there and I doubt BAL wants to let him get away.Would Turner be overpaid? Of course. Is this the first time a guy in the NFL has been overpaid???? SD is in a position they can afford the luxury at this point.
Banger
Footballguy
The only way I could see it happening is if LT got hurt this year with a knee injury or a longer term type injury. Otherwise he's gone.
Banger
Footballguy
AJ doesn't overpay players. He establishes values for players and sticks with them and I highly doubt he will value Turner worthy of top 5 money for a backup Rb. Yes he preserves LT and he makes them a marginally better team but that money will be better spent elsewhere.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Does AJ go out and spend $ on somebody elses players? He certainly didn't spend much $ on McCree. Some would say he overpaid for Dielman. Most said they were overpaying Rivers to stand on the sidelines contributing nothing and wait for an injury. I didn't agree with that but plenty felt that way.
Banger
Footballguy
No AJ doesn't spend money on others players and often loses his own when they get too expensive. Dielman was paid well but not overpaid IMO. Offensive line is crucial and he's a main cog in their line.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Then why do you say "that money will be better spent elsewhere"???? Where?
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I think this would be the first time in NFL history a backup RB was given a franchise tag and top 5 overall at his position money. AJ is not that stupid - 7M is a LOT of scratch and could be used to shore up several other areas. Backup RBs aren't that difficult to find.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
That's definitely an option, albeit a very dangerous one. AJ has been known to roll the dice though (drafting Eli anyway).
Gr00vus
Footballguy
A.J.'s been pretty straight up in his intentions throughout and rarely has thrown any major surprises at anyone. That said the last I remember him saying (and you can find the SDTrib articles if you want) is that they'll keep Turner this year and try and find a replacement for him next season, and that Turner deserves a shot to be a starting tailback for somebody (acknowledging that Turner probably won't accept being a backup again next season quietly). Unless LaDainian pulls a Mick Shrimpton, I think that's how it plays out. I also expect Turner to see much more PT this year compared to previous seasons as a result.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Why is it dangerous? Can't they just pull the franchise tag off of him anytime they want?
The Duff Man
Footballguy
No other team was willing to make a move to get him on draft day, but they will be willing to trade something for him AND pay him top 5 money. I can't see it happening.
massraider
Footballguy
Because he could just sign the tender. SD may have the room, but I am sure the Chargers can think of something else to do with 7 mill.He's going UFA, people.BoltBacker said:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
The Chargers had more than $7mil to add a quality FA this offseason. Who did they spend it on?
massraider
Footballguy
Good point. I change my mind. 7 mill for a backup RB is a brillant move.
PadresLakers
Footballguy
Phillips, Dielman and Neal.Look for Marcus Mcneil and Shawme Merriman to get contract extensions and eat up potential Micheal Turner franchise tag cap room next year.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
We'll see. They rsigned all those guys(and Wilhelm/Jammer among others I beleive) to extensions this year and I'd bet they start '07 more than $7mil under the salary cap so if they were faced with the decision to franchise Turner this year or let him walk then letting him walk would have been one of the dumbest move ever. According to most(everyone?) in this thread if they would have been forced to pay Turner $7mil this year or let him walk the smart play would have been to let him walk. I disagree.
BoltBacker said:
Once he signs the tender -- which he would immediately -- he's guaranteed top five money. I think it would be around $8.5M this year, which means it may be around $9M next year.The Chargers won't do that.
sure they would.how could they not tag him?if you believe this board, Turner is a sure fire 1st ballot Hall of Famer.BoltBacker said:Once he signs the tender -- which he would immediately -- he's guaranteed top five money. I think it would be around $8.5M this year, which means it may be around $9M next year.The Chargers won't do that.
They could use the tag as a way of trading him. They could let him and his agent go out and get a deal and SD could pickup a extra draft pick. This would only work if AJ isn't asking for the world in any trade. I think they could get two 2nd rounders for Turner 1 in 2008 and 2009.
I don't think any team will give up a first-rounder for the right to guarantee Turner $8.5-$9 million dollars for a year and then lose him to free agency immediately afterwards.The minute the Chargers slap the tag on him, that's what he gets. He won't give that up to sign a long-term deal unless it is even more favorable than that -- which would almost be impossible. A $9 million "signing bonus" for one year is a lot more attractive than a $20 million signing bonus for five or six years, which is probably the best Turner would do on the open market.
That's way it could work. They tag him and allow him to get a deal with another team, and the other team would then work out a deal with SD. As long as he doesn't sign the tag deal then he is free to work out any deal and the otherr team doesn't have to honor the tag number. It could work if SD isn't looking to get two first rounder the price it would cost a team to sign Turner as a franchise player. If he signs the tag then he is due the 9 million or what ever the tag number will be for a RB.
He would sign the tender immediately. He'd still be free to work out any other deal, but he'd have the option of just taking the $9 million and then becoming a free agent in a year -- which is a very good option, and one that would be nearly impossible to convince him to forgo.
Also, it is against the rules to tag a player just so you can trade him.
LuckyOne
Footballguy
They franchised Brees in 2005. That's before he blew out his shoulder, and he was still their guy. He was no longer considered the starter going into 2006, and they let him go as an UFA. That is exactly what they will do with Turner. Do I need to explain how franchising your starting QB is different than franchising your backup running back?
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't know that, but I remember some teams using the tag to trade a player. I could be wrong but the only player that popped into my head was Joey Galloway trade from the Seahawks to the Cowboys.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
How much $ do you think SD will be under the cap before the '07 season starts, Maurile? I realize not everyone is signed yet but using your best educated guess on the salary slots and assuming there aren't any more extensions signed before game 1 of the season.BoltBacker said:Once he signs the tender -- which he would immediately -- he's guaranteed top five money. I think it would be around $8.5M this year, which means it may be around $9M next year.The Chargers won't do that.
Galloway wasn't really traded to the Cowboys, although it is often reported that way. The Seahawks slapped the non-exclusive rights franchise tag on him, giving Galloway the right to negotiate a deal with other clubs subject to the Seahawks' right of first refusal. Galloway agreed to the Cowboys' offer, and the Seahawks did not match. The Seahawks thus received two first-round draft choices from the Cowboys as compensation. (link)
I've completely lost track.This article says they were $24.6M under as of January, but that was before extending Shaun Phillips and Lorenzo Neal and re-signing Kris Dielman. I'm also not sure if it includes the money allocated to rookies.
This article, current as of March 2, 2007, projects the Chargers to be $12M under the cap this year. But note that Kris Dielman was re-signed on March 3, 2007.
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Ah, thanks for the info. I poked around a little but it's really, really difficult to get info on such things so I was hoping you'd have better luck.Do you think they add any other FA's this year or just sign their rookies? I don't really see many FA's available that would be of the quality to be ensured a roster spot this season.
This is some info from that link:The Franchise Tag
When a player is "franchised," the team that tags him has tendered (or offered) him a contract on a one-year basis equal to the average 2002 salary of the top five players at his position. If the player accepts the deal, it becomes guaranteed.
Between the designation period (this year, between Feb. 20 and March 15), there's a window where players can negotiate a long-term deal without the team losing a franchise tag. This allows teams to work a contract out with a player that will last awhile and not cost a team a whole lot nor force the player into a one-year deal.
If the player signs with another team, the new team is required to give up two first-round picks if the former team doesn't match that offer, regardless of when the player was drafted. This last happened with Joey Galloway before the 2000 season, when Dallas gave two first-round picks to Seattle (the Seahawks took Shaun Alexander and Koren Robinson with the picks).
Since the price for signing a franchised player is so high, what teams sometimes do to get around that is arrange a sign-and-trade. The franchised player would sign a new contract agreeable to his new team, then immediately get dealt for a draft pick or picks from an interested team. That way, the player gets a new contract and a new team, but it works out between the teams because the price isn't two first-round picks. As an example, this happened with DE Kevin Carter when he went from the Rams to the Titans in 2001 in exchange for a first-round pick (spent on Adam Archuleta ).
This is what I was saying he can be franchised and work out a deal with the new team, then SD and the new team can come to terms on a trade. Tell me if I'm reading this wrong.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
That would make sense to me, especially since it would give SD some say in where Turner ends up. We'll see how combos like Morency/Jackson, White/Henry, Lewis/Harrison, Thomas/Lynch and Jacobs/Droughns work out this year. I wouldn't be too surprised if some of those teams are still looking for RB help in '08 and SD wouldn't be asking for a lot considering their main concern would be ensuring Turner ends up in the NFC or playing for a team that shouldn't contend in the AFC.
Kevin Carter was a different kind of sign-and-trade deal. The Rams had already slapped the tag on him. It wasn't a tag-and-trade deal. He was already tagged before any kind of trade was worked out. But in order for the Rams not to lose their ability to put the franchise tag on someone else, Carter had to sign a multi-year deal with the Rams (thus removing the tag) before he was traded to the Titans. The sign-and-trade deal wasn't signing the tender offer; it was signing a long-term deal with the Rams that would then be assigned to the Titans.In any event, something like that is possible with Turner, but it won't happen because nobody is going to offer Turner something better than the one-year $8.5 million guaranteed contract he'd get under the franchise tag.
With Kevin Carter, the tag was worth $5.39 million, but the contract he got from the Titans guaranteed him $19 million over the first three years ($14 million in signing bonuses and roster bonuses, and $5 million in guaranteed salary through year three). So Carter naturally took the Titans' deal since it gave him more per year in guaranteed money than the franchise tag.
What are the odds that some team will offer Turner a long-term deal that is more attractive than $8.5 million per year guaranteed? And give up draft picks for that privilege?
I don't think it's going to happen, and I don't think the Chargers would take the chance of being obligated to pay Turner $8.5 million next year if it doesn't.
