What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Foster Transitioned (1 Viewer)

Bunky

Footballguy
Panthers.com

The Carolina Panthers named running back DeShaun Foster as the team's transition player on Thursday, which prevents him from becoming an unrestricted free agent.

By League rules, the Panthers must tender Foster a minimum one-year qualifying offer of the average of the top 10 salaries from last season at his position or 120 percent of his 2005 salary, whichever is greater. A transition player designation gives Carolina a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to Foster by another club. If the Panthers match the offer, they would retain Foster. If not, they would receive no compensation.

Foster led Carolina with 879 yards and two touchdowns on 205 attempts in 2005 and ranked second on the team with 34 catches for 372 yards and one touchdown. A second-round draft choice from UCLA in 2002, he has played in 33 games with 10 starts in four NFL seasons and has rushed for 1,563 yards and four touchdowns on 377 carries.

 

ExaltedOne

Footballguy
Why would Carolina give him that kind of money when they can get a much more talented (and durable) free agent like Edgerrin James?

 

BigJim®

Footballguy
Well, I'm assuming most transition players do not sign the tender because they hope they get signed to a whale of an offer that must be matched. In this case, however, wouldn't it make sense for Foster to immediately sign the tender and guarantee himself top 10 RB money?

 

Mr. Pink

Footballguy
Makes no sense to me.

Foster is not worth that money by any means.

Are they just looking for compensation??
I don't believe they get compensation, or did I read the top wrong?I'm in agreement with those who think the Panthers are making a mistake by transitioning Foster. His brittleness outpaces his talent.

 

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
Makes no sense to me.

Foster is not worth that money by any means.

Are they just looking for compensation??
I don't believe they get compensation, or did I read the top wrong?I'm in agreement with those who think the Panthers are making a mistake by transitioning Foster. His brittleness outpaces his talent.
you are right....then it makes even less sense to me now.It seems Foster should take the money and then try and get a long term contract somewhere next off season.

~6.5 million of cap space on Deshaun Foster...... :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

 

bumpman

Footballguy
Doesn't Foster have to make the team next year in order to collect his salary? Could they cut him before the season if an opportunity to get a better RB comes up?

 

Gold Plated Nails

Footballguy
Well, I'm assuming most transition players do not sign the tender because they hope they get signed to a whale of an offer that must be matched. In this case, however, wouldn't it make sense for Foster to immediately sign the tender and guarantee himself top 10 RB money?
That money is not guaranteed until he makes the 53 man roster.
 

Gold Plated Nails

Footballguy
My guess as to why the Panthers did this: with so many quality RBs available on the free market (and draft), the Panthers are banking on Foster NOT recieving a very good deal, something the Panthers can match. If he does get a good deal, the Panthers let him walk.

If he does not sign a deal, the Panthers will force their offer on to him during the summer, and threaten to cut him early Sept (in which there will be no market for him) if he does not sign their lowball offer. This is straight out of Charger Management 101.

 

nathanbalboa

Footballguy
I agree that Foster has trouble staying healthy, but Carolina clearly sees him as capable of being "the man" in their backfield. Huge news for Foster owners in Dynasty leagues.

 

Michael Fox Fan

Footballguy
My guess as to why the Panthers did this: with so many quality RBs available on the free market (and draft), the Panthers are banking on Foster NOT recieving a very good deal, something the Panthers can match. If he does get a good deal, the Panthers let him walk.

If he does not sign a deal, the Panthers will force their offer on to him during the summer, and threaten to cut him early Sept (in which there will be no market for him) if he does not sign their lowball offer. This is straight out of Charger Management 101.
Yeah, that's my take as well. If some team signs him to a "Chester Taylor"-type deal (e.g. $3M per season), then Carolina matches. But if Foster gets stupid money, the Panthers let him walk.
 

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
Doesn't Foster have to make the team next year in order to collect his salary? Could they cut him before the season if an opportunity to get a better RB comes up?
That may be a good point, and this tag basically makes him a RFA to an extent and allows Carolina to match any offer he receives, while still being able to shop around for another RB or draft a rookie.The tag allows the market to do the negotiating for the Panthers, as well not having to panic for a FA RB or rookie.

The bad thing is that the offer already counts on the cap right now, until he is cut. I am not sure of the date when the salary cap amount has to be below the limit though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
I agree that Foster has trouble staying healthy, but Carolina clearly sees him as capable of being "the man" in their backfield. Huge news for Foster owners in Dynasty leagues.
Not at all....this doesn't cement Foster in anywhere at the moment, nor does it show he is "the man" in their backfield. The Panthers are just not letting Foster walk away so easily and are allowing the market to find the value of Foster.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Billy Ball Thorton

Footballguy
My guess as to why the Panthers did this: with so many quality RBs available on the free market (and draft), the Panthers are banking on Foster NOT recieving a very good deal, something the Panthers can match. If he does get a good deal, the Panthers let him walk.

If he does not sign a deal, the Panthers will force their offer on to him during the summer, and threaten to cut him early Sept (in which there will be no market for him) if he does not sign their lowball offer. This is straight out of Charger Management 101.
That does not make sense. How could they threaten to cut him in Sept?Carolina: Foster we will cut you if you dont sign this deal.

Foster: Okay, But if you cut me you can start the season with Nick Goings carrying the ball.

They will not cut him period.

 

Bri

Footballguy
My guess as to why the Panthers did this: with so many quality RBs available on the free market (and draft), the Panthers are banking on Foster NOT recieving a very good deal, something the Panthers can match. If he does get a good deal, the Panthers let him walk.

If he does not sign a deal, the Panthers will force their offer on to him during the summer, and threaten to cut him early Sept (in which there will be no market for him) if he does not sign their lowball offer. This is straight out of Charger Management 101.
huh?
 

Zaphod

Two heads are better than one
I agree that Foster has trouble staying healthy, but Carolina clearly sees him as capable of being "the man" in their backfield.  Huge news for Foster owners in Dynasty leagues.
Not at all....this doesn't cement Foster in anywhere at the moment, nor does it show he is "the man" in their backfield.
Maybe not, but you have to admit it shows a lot more 'interest' in him by the Panthers than many on this board thought.
 

Bri

Footballguy
I agree that Foster has trouble staying healthy, but Carolina clearly sees him as capable of being "the man" in their backfield.  Huge news for Foster owners in Dynasty leagues.
Not at all....this doesn't cement Foster in anywhere at the moment, nor does it show he is "the man" in their backfield. The Panthers are just not letting Foster walk away so easily and are allowing the market to find the value of Foster.
true in a way but in reality it's just wrong.No one will pay him that much so he's cemented as a Panther. No way they're gonna pay him that much then sit him.

 

Sinrman

Footballguy
Yeah, not too sure about this one. Foster certainly has talent, but man, he canNOT stay healthy. Why give him that kind of money? There are other backs out there that would be better choices for that kind of money, or maybe even cheaper...

 

Boston

Footballguy
I agree that Foster has trouble staying healthy, but Carolina clearly sees him as capable of being "the man" in their backfield.  Huge news for Foster owners in Dynasty leagues.
Not at all....this doesn't cement Foster in anywhere at the moment, nor does it show he is "the man" in their backfield.
Maybe not, but you have to admit it shows a lot more 'interest' in him by the Panthers than many on this board thought.
I think it basically offers the Panthers protection for the upcoming season. They could have other plans (a profile free agent?) but want to keep Foster under their control just in case those plans fall through. They could be looking to groom a youngster but may want Foster there as transistion. This team is getting close and they can't have a hole at RB with the way John Fox likes to play football. Therefore by doing this they have a quality RB like Foster under their control but aren't committed to him long term (with his injury history they probably don't want to either). I don't see Foster getting a crazy offer when you look at the glut of RBs in both free agency and the draft so Carolina is pretty much in the driver's seat here. They can either upgrade and not sign Foster or keep him for another year while they groom his replacement who would probably cost a lot less. They now have plenty of options.
 

DrJ

Footballguy
My guess as to why the Panthers did this: with so many quality RBs available on the free market (and draft), the Panthers are banking on Foster NOT recieving a very good deal, something the Panthers can match. If he does get a good deal, the Panthers let him walk.

If he does not sign a deal, the Panthers will force their offer on to him during the summer, and threaten to cut him early Sept (in which there will be no market for him) if he does not sign their lowball offer. This is straight out of Charger Management 101.
That does not make sense. How could they threaten to cut him in Sept?Carolina: Foster we will cut you if you dont sign this deal.

Foster: Okay, But if you cut me you can start the season with Nick Goings carrying the ball.

They will not cut him period.
I think he's theorizing that they could pull a Trotter on him and wait for the market to dry up for RB's. Since the contract isn't guaranteed - they don't have to pay him and could say "well, you're not going to find a better offer now that all of the teams willing to pay for RB's have Edge/Alexander/Jamal Lewis/Ahman Green in tow, and we're not paying you that crazy transitional contract. So what's your move Deshaun?"
 

Bri

Footballguy
My guess as to why the Panthers did this: with so many quality RBs available on the free market (and draft), the Panthers are banking on Foster NOT recieving a very good deal, something the Panthers can match. If he does get a good deal, the Panthers let him walk.

If he does not sign a deal, the Panthers will force their offer on to him during the summer, and threaten to cut him early Sept (in which there will be no market for him) if he does not sign their lowball offer. This is straight out of Charger Management 101.
That does not make sense. How could they threaten to cut him in Sept?Carolina: Foster we will cut you if you dont sign this deal.

Foster: Okay, But if you cut me you can start the season with Nick Goings carrying the ball.

They will not cut him period.
I think he's theorizing that they could pull a Trotter on him and wait for the market to dry up for RB's. Since the contract isn't guaranteed - they don't have to pay him and could say "well, you're not going to find a better offer now that all of the teams willing to pay for RB's have Edge/Alexander/Jamal Lewis/Ahman Green in tow, and we're not paying you that crazy transitional contract. So what's your move Deshaun?"
doesn't he have the right to sign it though?
 

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
I agree that Foster has trouble staying healthy, but Carolina clearly sees him as capable of being "the man" in their backfield. Huge news for Foster owners in Dynasty leagues.
Not at all....this doesn't cement Foster in anywhere at the moment, nor does it show he is "the man" in their backfield. The Panthers are just not letting Foster walk away so easily and are allowing the market to find the value of Foster.
true in a way but in reality it's just wrong.No one will pay him that much so he's cemented as a Panther. No way they're gonna pay him that much then sit him.
The Panthers can cut him later on and pay him nothing if they really want, this moneyis guaranteed until he is on the roster. This tag just holds Foster right now to allow the Panthers look at other options while not leaving themselves desperate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrJ

Footballguy
My guess as to why the Panthers did this: with so many quality RBs available on the free market (and draft), the Panthers are banking on Foster NOT recieving a very good deal, something the Panthers can match. If he does get a good deal, the Panthers let him walk.

If he does not sign a deal, the Panthers will force their offer on to him during the summer, and threaten to cut him early Sept (in which there will be no market for him) if he does not sign their lowball offer. This is straight out of Charger Management 101.
That does not make sense. How could they threaten to cut him in Sept?Carolina: Foster we will cut you if you dont sign this deal.

Foster: Okay, But if you cut me you can start the season with Nick Goings carrying the ball.

They will not cut him period.
I think he's theorizing that they could pull a Trotter on him and wait for the market to dry up for RB's. Since the contract isn't guaranteed - they don't have to pay him and could say "well, you're not going to find a better offer now that all of the teams willing to pay for RB's have Edge/Alexander/Jamal Lewis/Ahman Green in tow, and we're not paying you that crazy transitional contract. So what's your move Deshaun?"
doesn't he have the right to sign it though?
Is it guaranteed once he does? Or is it like every other NFL contract where only the signing bonus ($0 in this case) is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
My guess as to why the Panthers did this: with so many quality RBs available on the free market (and draft), the Panthers are banking on Foster NOT recieving a very good deal, something the Panthers can match. If he does get a good deal, the Panthers let him walk.

If he does not sign a deal, the Panthers will force their offer on to him during the summer, and threaten to cut him early Sept (in which there will be no market for him) if he does not sign their lowball offer. This is straight out of Charger Management 101.
That does not make sense. How could they threaten to cut him in Sept?Carolina: Foster we will cut you if you dont sign this deal.

Foster: Okay, But if you cut me you can start the season with Nick Goings carrying the ball.

They will not cut him period.
I think he's theorizing that they could pull a Trotter on him and wait for the market to dry up for RB's. Since the contract isn't guaranteed - they don't have to pay him and could say "well, you're not going to find a better offer now that all of the teams willing to pay for RB's have Edge/Alexander/Jamal Lewis/Ahman Green in tow, and we're not paying you that crazy transitional contract. So what's your move Deshaun?"
doesn't he have the right to sign it though?
Is it guaranteed once he does?
My understanding is that he has to make the team, and that its not guaranteed once he signs the tender.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrJ

Footballguy
If it IS guaranteed if he signs it, Carolina is being dumb here.

Is this guy going to make more than $3 million a year? He'll probably make twice as much this year by signing it - and it's not like the guy is coming off some spectacular season anyways so he might as well give it one more stab before hitting FA.

 

Beaumont

Footballguy
Seriously, you guys are overanalyzing this ... this move signals that Deshaun is, in fact, starting in someone's backfield for the next few years ...

Article XX, Section 14 of the CBA reads in part, “ . . . the Required Tenders of a one year Player Contract for at least 120% of the Franchise Player's or Transition Player's Prior Year Salaries shall in addition to the 120% Salary also include all other terms of the player's Prior Year contract, including any guarantees . . . ”

 
Last edited by a moderator:

moleculo

Footballguy
I am probably wrong, but doesn't a transition tag mean that the Panthers have to offer Foster a salary equivalent to the average of the top 10 in his position?

I don't think anyone would think Foster is top 10 material, but they want to pay him like a top 10 player?

Maybe they can cut him before the 53 man roster comes out, but they are wasting a tag (can only have one franchise OR transition tag), and possibly tying up some serious $$ on an injury prone player.

Bad move IMO.

 

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
Seriously, you guys are overanalyzing this ... this move signals that Deshaun is, in fact, starting in someone's backfield for the next few years ...

Article XX, Section 14 of the CBA reads in part, “ . . . the Required Tenders of a one year Player Contract for at least 120% of the Franchise Player's or Transition Player's Prior Year Salaries shall in addition to the 120% Salary also include all other terms of the player's Prior Year contract, including any guarantees . . . ”
What does that section of the CBA have to do with anything?? Foster was not tagged last year.
 

BigJim®

Footballguy
Seriously, you guys are overanalyzing this ... this move signals that Deshaun is, in fact, starting in someone's backfield for the next few years ...
I don't see anyone overanalyzing the transition tag to the point of suggesting it indicates a starting role for "the next few years." If anything, it indicates the Panthers want the negotiation leverage of a backup plan vs. Alexander, while retaining the right to kick Foster to the curb without financial liability if they land Alexander. If they don't land Alexander, they are tied to Foster for only 1 year and can look elsewhere for a franchise RB.Not the greatest way to **** around with a guy you might need next year, but the move does makes some sense.

 

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
And contrary to the wire report posted at NFL.com, Foster isn't automatically "guaranteed" $5.13 million for 2006. For transition players, the one-year tender only becomes guaranteed at the start of the regular season; until then, the team can remove the transition tag at any time, and instantly free up the cap room. Thus, if the Panthers are at some point close to striking a deal with Alexander, all they need to do is revoke the tag as to Foster, and they'll have an extra $5.13 million in 2006 cap dollars to work with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Beaumont

Footballguy
Seriously, you guys are overanalyzing this ... this move signals that Deshaun is, in fact, starting in someone's backfield for the next few years ...

Article XX, Section 14 of the CBA reads in part, “ . . . the Required Tenders of a one year Player Contract for at least 120% of the Franchise Player's or Transition Player's Prior Year Salaries shall in addition to the 120% Salary also include all other terms of the player's Prior Year contract, including any guarantees . . . ”
What does that section of the CBA have to do with anything?? Foster was not tagged last year.
It may be me, but I dont see how that section is limited to players being tagged a second time ...
 

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
Seriously, you guys are overanalyzing this ... this move signals that Deshaun is, in fact, starting in someone's backfield for the next few years ...

Article XX, Section 14 of the CBA reads in part, “ . . . the Required Tenders of a one year Player Contract for at least 120% of the Franchise Player's or Transition Player's Prior Year Salaries shall in addition to the 120% Salary also include all other terms of the player's Prior Year contract, including any guarantees . . . ”
What does that section of the CBA have to do with anything?? Foster was not tagged last year.
It may be me, but I dont see how that section is limited to players being tagged a second time ...
The 120% increase deals with if the prior salary is greater than the average of the top 10 RB positions, which is rare and usually only the case once they have been franchised the year before (i.e. Woodson & Walter Jones).
Any Club that designates a Transition Player shall be deemed on the first day of the League Year following the expiration of the player's last contract to have automatically tendered the player a one year NFL Player Contract for the average of the ten largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position at which he played the most games during the prior League Year, or 120% of his Prior Year Salary, whichever is greater.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Beaumont

Footballguy
The 120% increase deals with if the prior salary is greater than the average of the top 10 RB positions, which is rare and usually only the case once they have been franchised the year before (i.e. Woodson & Walter Jones).

Exactly, which is why it says "at least" ...

It seems to me the point of that provision (Article XX, Section 14) is that the one year contract offer has to have all of the same guarantees and performance bonuses as the player's old contract ...

... it also goes on to say that the player gets to choose whether they want top ten or 120% increase ...

I just dont see that the provision (new contract has same guarantees and other provisions as old contract) is in any way limited to second time tagged players ...

The real issue is whether Foster had provisions in his old contract that would make it less palatable to cut him after he signed the tender?

Regardless, this speaks volumes (I think) about how much the Panthers like Foster ... especially when read with the last week reports that they were working hard with him to sign a new contract ...

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
I think this was an awful decision on the part of the Panthers. He's obviously talented, but at some point you have to stop making excuses for his injury history. Even if his injuries have all been unrelated, there's a cumulative impact of each injury which HAS to give the team pause in terms of relying on him.

As an Eagles fan, I'm thrilled to hear this news :thumbup:

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
I think this was an awful decision on the part of the Panthers. He's obviously talented, but at some point you have to stop making excuses for his injury history. Even if his injuries have all been unrelated, there's a cumulative impact of each injury which HAS to give the team pause in terms of relying on him.

As an Eagles fan, I'm thrilled to hear this news :thumbup:
Doesn't even come close to the thrill of watching TO destory your franchise for years to come. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 

bumpman

Footballguy
The 120% increase deals with if the prior salary is greater than the average of the top 10 RB positions, which is rare and usually only the case once they have been franchised the year before (i.e. Woodson & Walter Jones).

Exactly, which is why it says "at least" ...

It seems to me the point of that provision (Article XX, Section 14) is that the one year contract offer has to have all of the same guarantees and performance bonuses as the player's old contract ...

... it also goes on to say that the player gets to choose whether they want top ten or 120% increase ...

I just dont see that the provision (new contract has same guarantees and other provisions as old contract) is in any way limited to second time tagged players ...

The real issue is whether Foster had provisions in his old contract that would make it less palatable to cut him after he signed the tender?

Regardless, this speaks volumes (I think) about how much the Panthers like Foster ... especially when read with the last week reports that they were working hard with him to sign a new contract ...
Beaumont:This provision is the one that just got a bunch of publicity in the Drew Brees situation. Here is an article explaining the situation with the relevant portions showing the the normal transition tag tender is not guaranteed. The reason why the Chargers were afraid to use the transition tag on Brees is because Brees had a GUARANTEED salary the previous year under the franchise tag and they were afraid that this would make Brees' transition tag salary guaranteed under the language of the provision you cited. I am pretty sure Foster, like most other players who are playing out their normal contracts, did not have a guaranteed salary last year. Thus, he would not have an argument that he is guaranteed under the transition tag. I interpret this to mean that he needs to make the team this fall to collect on the one-year transition tender.

Bump

__________________________________________

Brees nearing possible point of no return

If no long-term deal, free agency looming

By Kevin Acee

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

February 18, 2006

Should the impasse between the Chargers and quarterback Drew Brees continue through next week, it appears Brees will be allowed to test the free-agent market and perhaps walk away without the team having any say or receiving any compensation.

Asked what will happen if the Chargers and Brees do not reach an agreement on a long-term contract by Thursday, General Manager A.J. Smith said yesterday, “I think, looking at it, (the team would say) 'Well, it didn't work out.' ”

The impetus behind the Chargers' leaning is their concern about a little-known proviso in the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement that would guarantee Brees' 2006 salary if he were named a transition player.

Smith yesterday ruled out designating Brees as the team's franchise player.

And fearful the Chargers would lose a hearing on the CBA clause in question and that Brees would be guaranteed almost $10 million, Smith also indicated the team will not make Brees its transition player.

“It's a gray area,” Smith said of the clause. “Do you test it? Do you want to go to a hearing? Or do you, because it's so cloudy, pass on it?”

As if to answer, Smith pointed to his reputation for not conducting business without an accepted level of certainty.

“I don't like anything that's cloudy,” he said. “Black and white, that's how I like to operate.”

A hearing before NFL Special Master Stephen Burbank would not take place until after the Thursday deadline for teams to designate franchise or transition players.

Brees, who just finished his fifth NFL season, is to become a free agent March 3. The Chargers and his agent have been talking about a long-term deal for almost two weeks.

Given the Chargers' reluctance to guarantee Brees' contract for 2006, negotiations are evidently dragging because of the team's proposal of an incentive-laden deal.

The franchise and transition tags are ways for teams to stave off a player's pending free agency by offering him a one-year contract. The player is allowed to negotiate with other suitors on a long-term deal, but the original team has the right to match any contract offer. In the case of franchise players, the original team would receive two first-round draft picks if it decided not to match another team's offer.

The one-year contract the original team offers the player must be for the average of the top five (franchise) or top 10 (transition) salaries at the player's position the previous year or 120 percent of his previous year's salary, whichever is higher.

The average salary of the 10 highest-paid quarterbacks in 2005 was $8.3 million.

But because Brees' 2005 salary ($8.08 million) as a franchise player was so high, he would be paid 120 percent of that as a transition player in 2006. That's $9.696 million, a price the Chargers deem too steep to guarantee a quarterback with a shoulder of unknown strength.

Unlike the one-year salary of a franchise player, the one-year salary for a transition player is not usually guaranteed. But a few sentences in the 263-page CBA indicate that Brees' 2006 salary would be guaranteed even as a transition player.

Article XX, Section 14 of the CBA reads in part, “ . . . the Required Tenders of a one year Player Contract for at least 120% of the Franchise Player's or Transition Player's Prior Year Salaries shall in addition to the 120% Salary also include all other terms of the player's Prior Year contract, including any guarantees . . . ”

The Chargers contend the meaning of the section is debatable, but Smith conceded it indicates that in Brees' case the transition and franchise tags are essentially the same.

While the Chargers seemed willing and fiscally able to franchise or transition Brees before his being injured in the season finale, the team now has concerns about Brees' health after he needed surgery last month to repair a torn labrum in his throwing shoulder. Brees is expected to be ready to participate in training camp, but it is not certain when his arm will return to full strength.

Brees made the Pro Bowl after the 2004 season and would have played in the all-star game this year if not for his injury. While replacing him would be difficult, if not immediately impossible, the Chargers are in the enviable position of having a former top-five draft pick as their backup quarterback and a former starter as their No. 3 QB.

Philip Rivers, acquired via trade with the New York Giants in 2004 after being drafted fourth overall, is waiting. And the team just this week signed A.J. Feeley, who has started 10 career games, to a two-year contract.

After checking with a member of the NFL Management Council, a league spokesman confirmed yesterday that Brees' salary as a transition player this year would be guaranteed.

Mark Levin, the NFL Players Association's director of salary cap and agent administration, said the union's position would likely be that Brees' salary would be guaranteed as a transition player.

The franchise/transition question would be moot if the two sides agree on a long-term deal. The Chargers sent Brees' agent, Tom Condon, an initial proposal Feb. 6 and the sides spoke as recently as yesterday.

“I won't comment on that except to say there have been conversations,” Smith said.

Even though Smith referred to Thursday as a deadline, the Chargers and Brees technically would have until the March 3 opening of the free-agency period to come to terms on a long-term deal. (Even that deadline could change, however, if the start of the free-agency period is pushed back to allow the union and management more time to agree on a new CBA.)

If no deal is reached, whenever free agency starts, Brees would hit the market and would almost certainly be lost forever.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/charg...18chargers.html

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

MLBrandow

Guest
Why would Carolina give him that kind of money when they can get a much more talented (and durable) free agent like Edgerrin James?
Maybe because Foster is a very good RB who just has had some bad luck with injuries, whereas Edge is very soft.Or maybe it has to do with the fact that the Panthers don't have the money to spend on Edge.

 

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
Why would Carolina give him that kind of money when they can get a much more talented (and durable) free agent like Edgerrin James?
Maybe because Foster is a very good RB who just has had some bad luck with injuries, whereas Edge is very soft.Or maybe it has to do with the fact that the Panthers don't have the money to spend on Edge.
:lmao: Wrong in so many ways....

Calling Edge soft in comparison to Foster and saying the Panthers don't have money to spend on Edge when they just tagged Foster at a price of $5.5 million for the year. I don't follow.

 

Floyd The Barber

Footballguy
friday frenzy wrote:

And contrary to the wire report posted at NFL.com, Foster isn't automatically "guaranteed" $5.13 million for 2006.  For transition players, the one-year tender only becomes guaranteed at the start of the regular season; until then, the team can remove the transition tag at any time, and instantly free up the cap room.  Thus, if the Panthers are at some point close to striking a deal with Alexander, all they need to do is revoke the tag as to Foster, and they'll have an extra $5.13 million in 2006 cap dollars to work with.
Where did you get this info? My understanding has been once a tag is signed it is gaurenteed. If not, that is patently unfair to the player since I know the club can withdraw the tag and leave the player with nothing.I'm going to ask one of my friends in the league with knowledge for clarification.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
If not, that is patently unfair to the player since I know the club can withdraw the tag and leave the player with nothing.
:cry: :cry: :cry: It's called a collective bargaining agreement for a reason.

 

R.White

Footballguy
friday frenzy wrote:

And contrary to the wire report posted at NFL.com, Foster isn't automatically "guaranteed" $5.13 million for 2006. For transition players, the one-year tender only becomes guaranteed at the start of the regular season; until then, the team can remove the transition tag at any time, and instantly free up the cap room. Thus, if the Panthers are at some point close to striking a deal with Alexander, all they need to do is revoke the tag as to Foster, and they'll have an extra $5.13 million in 2006 cap dollars to work with.
Where did you get this info? My understanding has been once a tag is signed it is gaurenteed. If not, that is patently unfair to the player since I know the club can withdraw the tag and leave the player with nothing.I'm going to ask one of my friends in the league with knowledge for clarification.
It's only guarenteed if the player was tagged the previous year. (Drew Brees)
 

Chaka

Footballguy
Maybe because Foster is a very good RB who just has had some bad luck with injuries, whereas Edge is very soft.
:confused: You must elaborate on this statement because his play on the field does nothing to support your statement.
 

Banger

Footballguy
Maybe because Foster is a very good RB who just has had some bad luck with injuries, whereas Edge is very soft.
:confused: You must elaborate on this statement because his play on the field does nothing to support your statement.
I think he got the names reversed.....
 

JAA

Footballguy
I think Car is doing this simply so they dont have to sign him to a long term contract. IMHO they want to see him play another year before they make a decision. Same sort of deal with Drew Brees

 

3nOut

Footballguy
My guess as to why the Panthers did this: with so many quality RBs available on the free market (and draft), the Panthers are banking on Foster NOT recieving a very good deal, something the Panthers can match. If he does get a good deal, the Panthers let him walk.

If he does not sign a deal, the Panthers will force their offer on to him during the summer, and threaten to cut him early Sept (in which there will be no market for him) if he does not sign their lowball offer. This is straight out of Charger Management 101.
That does not make sense. How could they threaten to cut him in Sept?Carolina: Foster we will cut you if you dont sign this deal.

Foster: Okay, But if you cut me you can start the season with Nick Goings carrying the ball.

They will not cut him period.
1. You are assuming that Carolina would not bring someone else in during the offseason.2. They still have a young RB in Shelton they can play instead of Goings.

3. What kind of lucrative deal can Foster get elsewhere in SEPTEMBER after most teams have already signed their new RBs and rookies?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top