Could/Would the Chargers slap the franchise tag on Turner? (1 Viewer)

[BoltBacker]

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.

Two things;- Why would the contract have to be more than $8.5mil per year for Turner to accept? You don't think he'd prefer a guaranteed $18mil over three years(as an example) over a one year $8.5mil guaranteed given the health risks associated with the RB position in the NFL?- Let's pretend that SD had to make the decsion this year whether to let Turner walk or franchise him. Would it be wiser in your opinion to let Turner walk and have the extra $8.5mil on the cap or have less cap space and M.Turner on the team?

 

[Beerguzzler]

AJ already said publically that he expects to only have Turner for only 1 more year and that he fully expects Turner to be a starting RB next year for some lucky team.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

- Why would the contract have to be more than $8.5mil per year for Turner to accept? You don't think he'd prefer a guaranteed $18mil over three years(as an example) over a one year $8.5mil guaranteed given the health risks associated with the RB position in the NFL?

Whatever long-term contract he could get in 2008 he'd probably be able to get in 2009 as well. So if he's going to take $18M over three years, why not take $8.5M over one year and then take $18.5 over the three following years instead? (If injury risk is a concern, he can insure against it.)You're right that there's a small risk-aversion premium such that he'd probably rather have $16M guaranteed over two years instead of $8.M guaranteed over one year. But there's also a premium on getting to become a free-agent sooner again, especially since contract prices generally go up every year. (So if he was offered $18M over three years in 2008, he'd probably be offered $20M over three years in 2009.)

As a general rule, players like shorter contracts while teams like longer contracts.

A one-year, $8.5M guaranteed contract is really a great deal for Turner.

- Let's pretend that SD had to make the decsion this year whether to let Turner walk or franchise him. Would it be wiser in your opinion to let Turner walk and have the extra $8.5mil on the cap or have less cap space and M.Turner on the team?

Even if the Chargers had $8.5 million in cap space available (and I'm not at all sure they do), I'd rather let Turner go and use that space to extend Merriman, Florence, Rivers, or V.Jackson.There's no reason to pay a backup RB $8.5 million for one season. It's not like the Chargers have an unlimited supply of money. It's going to be very difficult to keep this team together when Merriman and Rivers need to be extended -- and Luis Castillo and Marcus McNeil are going to be very expensive as well.

 

[-OZ-]

As a general rule, players like shorter contracts while teams like longer contracts.

Explain more, as this is illogical. A longer contract probably includes a large signing bonus and in theory gives the player security.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As a general rule, players like shorter contracts while teams like longer contracts.

Explain more, as this is illogical. A longer contract probably includes a large signing bonus and in theory gives the player security.

Contracts are not guaranteed.Players like big signing bonuses, but they like those no matter what the duration of the contract is.

Other things equal, since a contract is really a series of one-year options held by the team (since the team can cut the player and sign someone else without the player's permission, but the player cannot leave the team and sign somewhere else without the team's permission), players favor shorter terms while teams favor longer terms, just like players favor bigger dollar amounts while teams favor lesser dollar amounts.

Duration is often as big a sticking point as dollar amount, in fact.

This is from when Gates was holding out from the Chargers:

For the first time, Colona dropped Gates' demand below the seven-year, $33.311 million contract given to Gonzalez, the league's highest paid tight end. Gonzalez's deal voids after the fifth year and that drops the averages to around $4.3 million a season.

To hope to get a settlement, Colona recently told the Chargers he was willing to take less than Gonzalez but only if he could take a three-year contract.

The Chargers won't do that because the 25-year-old Gates would become a free agent when he's 28 in 2008. Instead, the Chargers dropped the proposal from six years to five, but Gates and Colona aren't going for it.

It is quite common for a player to seek a three- or four-year deal while the team seeks a five- or six-year deal, but you never see the opposite.Here's why. Suppose in 2011 Gates is objectively worth around $7 million. If he is under contract for $10 million, he will be cut and sign for $7 million on the open market. If he is under contract for $4 million, he will not be cut and will have to play for just $4 million. (He could hold out, but that's his only leverage.)

So a contract that sets a price four years from now is effectively a ceiling on what the player can make, but there is no floor since the player can be cut if the team doesn't want to pay him.

A situation where there's a ceiling but no floor works to the advantage of the team, and to the disadvantage of the player.

(It's different in baseball because contracts are guaranteed.)

 

[hutchins929]

That would mean Turner would get top 5 RB money, correct? That would seem like madness for a backup RB when your starter is LT2 LT.

FIXED