Historical Question - Highest Tender (1 Viewer)

[Bob_Magaw]

my recollection is teams don't pay this often (to secure FA from another team)...

when was last time it happened, & how often has it happened in past?

* as noted in sub-title, not an abstract question...

assuming michael "the burner" turner gets slapped with highest tender, what are chances another team (like maybe the giants who may be in market & have relatively low 1st round pick) coughs up the steep ante?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Anyone who would pay a 1st and a 3rd for a RB deserves what they get.

Trade for Herschel Walker anyone?

 

[Bob_Magaw]

i think sean gilbert & galloway cost two firsts (neither worked out so good), but that was a different situation... i can't remember if when gilbert situation arose, the high tender was at one time more than it is now... or it was just a trade like galloway? i think latter since he sat out a year...

 

[diesel7982]

i think sean gilbert & galloway cost two firsts (neither worked out so good), but that was a different situation... i can't remember if when gilbert situation arose, the high tender was at one time more than it is now... or it was just a trade like galloway? i think latter since he sat out a year...

You're thinking of the Franchise tag, not the RFA tag in relation to Gilbert and Galloway.Last player I can remember being signed as an RFA with a high tender was Coles by the Skins, giving up the #13 pick for him.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Bob, I think one big question will be "How much does Turner want in a long term deal?"

If i had a choice of locking down Turner for 4 or 5 years for a 10 mil signing bonus, or locking down my mid to late first rounder for something in 5 to 7.5 million signing bonus range, I think I'd opt for Turner. Now if Turner wants Lamont Jordan money AND THEN SOME, the choice becomes harder.

Here's a crazy thought...

I think the signing bonuses for top 5 picks are out of control. These guys are coming into the league as some of the highest paid players at their position. We all know that top 5 picks bust - there's much more risk there than with Turner, a guy that has a record of NFL play we can look at - would having a top 5 pick actually INCREASE the attractiveness of trading the pick? Wouldnt it be better to put that risk on another team's shoulders, and invest your big signing bonus in a proven player?

 

[PatsWillWin]

I can't wait until this doesn't happen so that everyone here can finally accept that it will never happen.

 

[Marvelous]

i think sean gilbert & galloway cost two firsts (neither worked out so good), but that was a different situation... i can't remember if when gilbert situation arose, the high tender was at one time more than it is now... or it was just a trade like galloway? i think latter since he sat out a year...

You're thinking of the Franchise tag, not the RFA tag in relation to Gilbert and Galloway.Last player I can remember being signed as an RFA with a high tender was Coles by the Skins, giving up the #13 pick for him.

Gilbert and Galloway were both Franchised. The Redskins got two 1st round picks for Gilbert when he went to Carolina.The Redskins have signed a bunch of RFA. Coles was a 1st rounder and the Redskins said they would not have done it if he was tendered a 1st and 3rd. The also signed Matt Bowen and Chad Morton as RFAs.The rules are the signing team has to sign him to a contract and give up the draft pick(s). So signing other peoples RFA is not cheap.

 

[coolnerd]

Bob, I think one big question will be "How much does Turner want in a long term deal?"If i had a choice of locking down Turner for 4 or 5 years for a 10 mil signing bonus, or locking down my mid to late first rounder for something in 5 to 7.5 million signing bonus range, I think I'd opt for Turner. Now if Turner wants Lamont Jordan money AND THEN SOME, the choice becomes harder.Here's a crazy thought...I think the signing bonuses for top 5 picks are out of control. These guys are coming into the league as some of the highest paid players at their position. We all know that top 5 picks bust - there's much more risk there than with Turner, a guy that has a record of NFL play we can look at - would having a top 5 pick actually INCREASE the attractiveness of trading the pick? Wouldnt it be better to put that risk on another team's shoulders, and invest your big signing bonus in a proven player?

You are probably asking a question that more teams shoud ask themselves. I think this past off season we saw more trading, especially at WR, than history dictates. the increased cap room and logic of getting a player you don't have to develop seemed to be the appeal.

 

[Marc Levin]

I may have this wrong, but the tender just insures the compensation if th eplayer is signed away AND the team does not match the contract.

I recall the Dolphins going after an RFA OL who was worth a 1st and 3rd and the team matched the Dolphins contract.

 

[coolnerd]

I may have this wrong, but the tender just insures the compensation if th eplayer is signed away AND the team does not match the contract.I recall the Dolphins going after an RFA OL who was worth a 1st and 3rd and the team matched the Dolphins contract.

This is correct. After the contract offer is tendered, say the Chargers in Turner's case will have 7 days to match or get the compensation.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I may have this wrong, but the tender just insures the compensation if th eplayer is signed away AND the team does not match the contract.I recall the Dolphins going after an RFA OL who was worth a 1st and 3rd and the team matched the Dolphins contract.

This is correct. After the contract offer is tendered, say the Chargers in Turner's case will have 7 days to match or get the compensation.

But with the whole Hutchinson/Burleson fiasco last year, teams that really want to keep their players will probably tender them higher than they would have last year, for fear someone puts a stoopid poison pill guaranteeing the deal if he isn't the highest paid running back on the roster whose last name starts with the letter T. Most teams will probably shy away from these tactics, but you never know what some teams will do.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

i agree, coolnerd, that the increase in cap with signing of new labor deal probably greased the rails for more activity & movement than usual this season, & it would be reasonable to project this for 07 as well...

further upthread, as usual, i agree with bloom's thinking that some team's would be better off flipping a high pick & associated steep tag & risk for more known commodity...

sometimes when i'm assailed from all sided in my life by wide spread human stupidity, it helps to get through the day by reminding myself... BLOOM IS THINKING!

 

[AB in DC]

Anyone who would pay a 1st and a 3rd for a RB deserves what they get.

Worked out all right for the Jets (Curtis martin).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I may have this wrong, but the tender just insures the compensation if th eplayer is signed away AND the team does not match the contract.I recall the Dolphins going after an RFA OL who was worth a 1st and 3rd and the team matched the Dolphins contract.

This is correct. After the contract offer is tendered, say the Chargers in Turner's case will have 7 days to match or get the compensation.

But with the whole Hutchinson/Burleson fiasco last year, teams that really want to keep their players will probably tender them higher than they would have last year, for fear someone puts a stoopid poison pill guaranteeing the deal if he isn't the highest paid running back on the roster whose last name starts with the letter T.

The team making the qualifying tender will still offer (by rule) just a one-year deal. It will be no match for a multi-year deal offered by another club. And with the inclusion of a poison pill, it will be impossible for the original team to match.So if another team is willing to pay a first and third for Turner next year, there will be nothing the Chargers can do about it. The other team will get him.I doubt that another team will be willing to give up a first and third for him, however.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

my recollection is teams don't pay this often (to secure FA from another team)...when was last time it happened, & how often has it happened in past?

A bit of trivia. There are actually *four* levels of qualifying offers.The lowest requires another team to give up a draft pick in the round in which the player was originally drafted (in Turner's case, a fifth rounder).The second offer requires another team to give up a first.The third offer, about $500K higher than the second, requires another team to give up a first and a third.The highest offer, about $500K higher than the third, requires another team to give up just a first, but the original team does not have to match a provision promising not to franchise the player in order to retain him.I don't think the highest offer has ever been tendered. And in the wake of the Hutchinson-Burleson stuff, it never will be. A promise not to franchise a player will never be the most difficult provision to match, so there's no reason to pay extra just to get out of matching that provision.In any event, I believe the first and third tender will be around $2.5M next year, and I also believe that Turner is worth that much to the Chargers for one year, so I'd expect Turner to get that qualifying offer. I'd also expect other teams to forego paying a first and third to get Turner, but that's not certain.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

thanx for weighing in with a sumo caliber response, maurile...

 

[Bri]

I thought there was some rule recently so those "poison pills" couldn't happen.

Bob, was "Big Daddy" Wilkinson?

This scenario happened with Curtis Martin

ETA

New England Patriots say that they will not match six-year, $36 million offer sheet that New York Jets made to running back Curtis Martin, meaning that Jets get Martin and Patriots get Jets' first- and third-round picks in this year's draft; photo

 

[Bri]

here's an awesome Curtis timeline

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...JrayAUpKVjBqmEg

 

[Bri]

Bob,

("Right back at ya")If Curtis is some sort of measuring stick, is Turner worth the 1st and 3rd?

I would guess the Jets figured they had 1000 yards(cept for some injury, even though it was Curtis) til he was 30. Can a team feel that way about Turner?

 

[redman]

Here's a crazy thought...I think the signing bonuses for top 5 picks are out of control. These guys are coming into the league as some of the highest paid players at their position. We all know that top 5 picks bust - there's much more risk there than with Turner, a guy that has a record of NFL play we can look at - would having a top 5 pick actually INCREASE the attractiveness of trading the pick? Wouldnt it be better to put that risk on another team's shoulders, and invest your big signing bonus in a proven player?

That's what the Redskins have done in a number of cases, especially with Coles and Thomas. It makes sense for slow-developing or good-but-not-elite players whose first few years in the league are spent truly developing. Such players, often drafted in low first, the second or the third rounds, are among the hardest to accurately project anyway. WR's in particular would make good candidates, as would QB's. Plus, while they're still RFA's, they're also young enough to have plenty of NFL life left to make it worthwhile to acquire them.I'm not as big of a fan of this approach for RB's though, given the availability of quality RB's at middle and even lower rounds, and also the fact that their NFL learning curve tends to be much steeper such that you tend to know a lot sooner whether they'll be good players or not.

 

[Banger]

Bob,("Right back at ya")If Curtis is some sort of measuring stick, is Turner worth the 1st and 3rd?I would guess the Jets figured they had 1000 yards(cept for some injury, even though it was Curtis) til he was 30. Can a team feel that way about Turner?

Curtis is a sure fire HOF'er. He proved A LOT more when the Jets signed him that Turner ever has. Turner has shown very good talent but in terms of a comparison to CuMar there is none. Curtis was worth every bit of what they paid. I think a 1st is fair compensation for Turner but the 3rd is the killer IMO.

 

[Bri]

Bob,("Right back at ya")If Curtis is some sort of measuring stick, is Turner worth the 1st and 3rd?I would guess the Jets figured they had 1000 yards(cept for some injury, even though it was Curtis) til he was 30. Can a team feel that way about Turner?

Curtis is a sure fire HOF'er. He proved A LOT more when the Jets signed him that Turner ever has. Turner has shown very good talent but in terms of a comparison to CuMar there is none. Curtis was worth every bit of what they paid. I think a 1st is fair compensation for Turner but the 3rd is the killer IMO.

IIRC The Jets have an "extra" 3rd round pick. Is it wrong to consider it extra and throw it in this deal? OR "if ya get a franchise back, who cares". That "extra" 3rd change anything for you?

 

[whhwalker]

I can't wait until this doesn't happen so that everyone here can finally accept that it will never happen.

Turner is going nowhere.

 

[Banger]

Bob,("Right back at ya")If Curtis is some sort of measuring stick, is Turner worth the 1st and 3rd?I would guess the Jets figured they had 1000 yards(cept for some injury, even though it was Curtis) til he was 30. Can a team feel that way about Turner?

Curtis is a sure fire HOF'er. He proved A LOT more when the Jets signed him that Turner ever has. Turner has shown very good talent but in terms of a comparison to CuMar there is none. Curtis was worth every bit of what they paid. I think a 1st is fair compensation for Turner but the 3rd is the killer IMO.

IIRC The Jets have an "extra" 3rd round pick. Is it wrong to consider it extra and throw it in this deal? OR "if ya get a franchise back, who cares". That "extra" 3rd change anything for you?

I'd say it's definitely easier to give up a 3rd if your dealing from strength and have multiple picks and IMO it's worth it to pay a mid level/late 1st and 3rd for a franchise back but I'm not sure that Turner is a sure fire franchise back. Yes, he's a definite starter for a number of franchises but I don't know if he's a top end talent that you can build around as a cornerstone player (like everyone knew CuMar was). Considering what teams were looking to give up for accomplished backs this offseason (Edge, SA (if true)) I'd say the possibility is very remote that a team would be willing to pay that high a price (1st and 3rd).

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I may have this wrong, but the tender just insures the compensation if th eplayer is signed away AND the team does not match the contract.

I recall the Dolphins going after an RFA OL who was worth a 1st and 3rd and the team matched the Dolphins contract.

This is correct. After the contract offer is tendered, say the Chargers in Turner's case will have 7 days to match or get the compensation.

But with the whole Hutchinson/Burleson fiasco last year, teams that really want to keep their players will probably tender them higher than they would have last year, for fear someone puts a stoopid poison pill guaranteeing the deal if he isn't the highest paid running back on the roster whose last name starts with the letter T.

The team making the qualifying tender will still offer (by rule) just a one-year deal. It will be no match for a multi-year deal offered by another club. And with the inclusion of a poison pill, it will be impossible for the original team to match.So if another team is willing to pay a first and third for Turner next year, there will be nothing the Chargers can do about it. The other team will get him.

I doubt that another team will be willing to give up a first and third for him, however.

My point was that teams will be more inclined to make the higher tenders so that the cost (in picks) to the other team dissuades them from making an offer in the first place. The possibility of a poison pill could make any offer sheet unmatchable, whereas in the past, teams might make the lower tender, confident that they could match whatever was put on the offer sheet, (See: chester taylor a couple years ago)

 

[Bob_Magaw]

Bob,("Right back at ya")If Curtis is some sort of measuring stick, is Turner worth the 1st and 3rd?I would guess the Jets figured they had 1000 yards(cept for some injury, even though it was Curtis) til he was 30. Can a team feel that way about Turner?

like others said, martin is a harsh standard to hold the burner up to, as he is comparitively unproven...that said, many would agree he is the most talented backup RB in the league, and most likely to become the chester taylor of 07-08...is he worth it? the guy looks like a beast, so yeah, i think he might be, especially to team with low first & third, if he is a missing piece type player that can put them over the top...but i also agree with others as to what will most likely happen... a 1st & 3rd would have a high probability of killing nearly all interest...

 

[Bri]

So if San Diego could clinch early+rest LT2, it could be worth millions to Turner