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!
So where do you think he will end up? Doesnt that make his fantasy value shoot up?
Edge and SAlex were also older, more expensive, and had a lot of wear and tear. Basically, they were damaged goods. I think Turner's a much more tradeable commodity. I don't know if he'll be traded, but I think the fact that SAlex/Edge weren't isn't necessarily a strike against him.Sabertooth said:
CrossEyed said:
I can GUARANTEE he won't resign next year. He just looks too good. I'd put 500 bucks on it.
Damaged good led the league in rushing and is on the cover of Madden though too. You have to remember as well, that whatever team signs him has to make it a contract that SD won't match. Of course that could just mean a poison pill type thing like the Hutchinson contract.
This scenario makes most sense to me. I doubt a team makes Turner an offer that would require a 1st & 3rd (not chargers negotiationg, RFA requirement). But SD should deal him for a lower price before they get no value. 2nd rounder +.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
Yes. For talent and salary cap reasons....
The salary cap will be an issue whether LT stays healthy or is injured. I'm just wondering whether, after this many touches over 6 seasons, it's reasonable to believe that LT can continue on as he has. He's well past his factory warranty period for a NFL RB.
ya, but he's not a "normal" NFL RB, think of Emmit Smith. He's in that company and look at Emmitt's workload. You don't let a franchise RB go because a backup has had a handful of good games in mostly garbage time. LT has proven productive with no line, with a line, with no qb, a "rookie" qb, no wr's, etc. He's been their offense for the past 4 years, the same cannot be said of Turner. He's a nice story but letting LT go will never happen.
Why not? I keep hearing this and SA/Edge as examples, yet before 2006, they both got huge deals. Benson, Bush, Cadillac and Ronnie Brown in the past 2 years have all been top 5 picks which are big dollar deals. Jordan got a pretty big deal from Oakland. McAllister had just gotten a big deal and NO still picked up Bush and his contract.With Branch this year, we saw Seattle pick up a guy for a lot of dough and a 1st round pick. If someone thinks Turner is the best RB available, including the draft, why not give up a 1st rounder for him. You could probably sign him to a DD/Foster type deal instead of a bigger contract you would have to give to a top 5 pick like Brown, Caddy and Benson. Seems like a decent strategy to me for someone you have at least seen play in the NFL.
You should just pay the man now! I doubt very much Turner will resign next year. He may re-sign, but I doubt he quits.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
Arm Chair Express makes a good point.Turner is a lock to sign the Chargers' qualifying offer next offseason, however. What's his alternative? Sit out a year and still be a restricted free agent in 2008?You should just pay the man now! I doubt very much Turner will resign next year. He may re-sign, but I doubt he quits.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
You lose. Pay the man.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
You lose. Pay the man.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
He cant "resign" because he is "still under contract"
Although he could retire. Would retiring be considered the same as resigning?You lose. Pay the man.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
have to sit out a year ala RickyAlthough he could retire. Would retiring be considered the same as resigning?You lose. Pay the man.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
If he is under contract for next year then why is he a restricted "free agent?" I don't believe he is technically under contract with SD for 2007. They have the ability to give him a tender offer for 2007, but they could also not tender him in which case he would be an unrestricted free agent. As a restricted free agent, he could get an offer from any other team which SD could match.Anyway, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe at this point right now, Turner has an actual 2007 contract that says he will get $X.JAA said:have to sit out a year ala RickyCrossEyed said:Although he could retire. Would retiring be considered the same as resigning?JAA said:CrossEyed said:You lose. Pay the man.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
No, he doesn't have a 2007 contract because he signed a 3 year deal in 2004, which makes him a RFA in 2007. The Chargers can tender him 3 different offers and will likely give him at least the middle one (~$1.5M) or the high one (~$2M). If a team decides to match the offer they will have to give up a 1st for the medium offer and a 1st and 3rd for the high offer.If he is under contract for next year then why is he a restricted "free agent?" I don't believe he is technically under contract with SD for 2007. They have the ability to give him a tender offer for 2007, but they could also not tender him in which case he would be an unrestricted free agent. As a restricted free agent, he could get an offer from any other team which SD could match.Anyway, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe at this point right now, Turner has an actual 2007 contract that says he will get $X.JAA said:have to sit out a year ala RickyCrossEyed said:Although he could retire. Would retiring be considered the same as resigning?JAA said:CrossEyed said:You lose. Pay the man.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
How's damaged goods looked this season? Nobody thought that SAlex didn't have any good years left in him... just that he didn't have MANY good years left in him. What's the point of signing someone to a huge lucrative highly-frontloaded 5-year contract when they only have maybe 2 more good years left in them? I suspect a lot of franchises would rather have Turner than Alexander right now.
Who says teams have to pay a #1 and a #3 for Turner? That's only if they try to sign him without SD's consent. If they actually engage in negotiations for him and trade for him from San Diego, they might be able to get him for a 2nd rounder, or for a downward move in the 1st round. Who's to say that San Diego doesn't decide that they'd rather get something out of Turner while they still can?Not saying that it's a lock he's dealt, I'm just saying that it's not a lock that he isn't dealt.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
I don't think they'd take less than a 1st for him, period. He's too important to the team and the only RB the Chargers have in case something happens to LT. They'd be better off getting another year out of him and letting him go as a free agent in 2008. The Chargers are more focused on trying to win a SB in the next couple years than trying to get a pick for Turner.How's damaged goods looked this season? Nobody thought that SAlex didn't have any good years left in him... just that he didn't have MANY good years left in him. What's the point of signing someone to a huge lucrative highly-frontloaded 5-year contract when they only have maybe 2 more good years left in them? I suspect a lot of franchises would rather have Turner than Alexander right now.Who says teams have to pay a #1 and a #3 for Turner? That's only if they try to sign him without SD's consent. If they actually engage in negotiations for him and trade for him from San Diego, they might be able to get him for a 2nd rounder, or for a downward move in the 1st round. Who's to say that San Diego doesn't decide that they'd rather get something out of Turner while they still can?Not saying that it's a lock he's dealt, I'm just saying that it's not a lock that he isn't dealt.i will honestly take that bet. $500? done.not sure why everyone isn't so sure SD will follow the RBBC trend that has been driving us all crazy with this season. its never been more important to have 2 capable backs in your system. turner will start somewhere eventually, but not as long as he's a RESTRICTED free agent. no one pays #1 picks for RBs. nevermind a #1 AND a #3. they'll resign him... unless you guys think darren sproles is the answer?that $500 bet is on.CrossEyed said:
Agreed, LT isn't a prima donna who worries about his carries and knows this is his team. It will be RBBC next year as well and they should once again have the best 1-2 punch in the NFL.
I guess it comes down to different management philosophies. But I would be hard pressed to turn down a first round pick (which is huge) for my backup RB in the final year of his contract. If I didn't have LT on my roster maybe I'd be a little more concerned, but since the Chargers do I'd hope they could find another RB to complement the best RB in football via free agency or draft.
He's not under contract beyond this year. It is extremely unlikely that he will resign, however. He will probably just re-sign instead.JAA said:
A bit of trivia. There are four different levels of qualifying offers. The highest tender (which has never been used) would require another team to part with a first-round pick if the Chargers do not match. The second-highest tender would require another team to part with a first and a third if the Chargers do not match. The third-highest tender would require another team to part with a first. And the lowest would require another team to part with a fifth in this case (since that's when Turner was drafted).The special thing about the highest tender is that, if another team offers Turner a deal that includes a promise not to franchise him, that promise is not one of the terms that the Chargers would have to match in order to keep him.
I agree with you that a trade is possible. But it wouldn't be for a second. Of all the teams that will be in the Turner sweepstakes, somebody will offer more than that.Also, Turner will be a restricted free agent in 2007 and can be franchised in 2008, so given the Chargers' cap situation, they really could keep him indefinitely. Who else would they use the franchise tag on? As of right now, I believe Michael Turner, Shaun Phillips, Kris Dielman, Matt Wilhelm, and Drayton Florence are the only (significant) players who aren't signed through at least 2010. They are working on extending Dielman. Wilhelm and Florence aren't worth franchising. So that means they'll use the franchise tag on either Phillips or Turner (if they use it at all) in 2008. And I suspect they'll try to get Phillips extended before then.The question then becomes whether Turner is worth franchising. I think he probably is, at least for the sake of signing and trading him. That way he won't leave without the Chargers getting compensation.
Good point, I never considered the team franchising him but it would make sense since there's no one worth franchising who can't be signed to a long-term deal. As crazy as it sounds, franchising Turner might be worth it even if they keep him. It's a lot of money but should something happen to LT then they could sign him to a long-term deal.
I admit it. I don't understand this --- why the first and third levels sound the same.
They aren't the same in all respects. The draft compensation is the same, but they differ in other respects. The main difference is that if the Chargers made the third-highest qualifying offer, and the Broncos then offered Turner $4M per year with a promise not to franchise him, the Chargers would have to match the entire offer (including the promise not to franchise him) in order to keep him. Otherwise, they'd lose him and get a first-rounder in return.But if the Chargers made the highest qualifying offer, and the Broncos then offered Turner the same deal, the Chargers would not have to match the promise not to franchise Turner in order to keep him. They'd just have to match the $4M per year part. If they decide not to match even that much, they'd lose Turner and get a first-rounder for him.
Depends on a lot variables. If you are a team that is convinced that you are a strong SuperBowl contender as SD probably feels it is(I'm not sold just yet but they look like they could win in the playoffs) then is it worth it to have a player contributing a lot to your current success rather than grooming a rookie? I posted in another thread about Turner that I'd rather have Turner than Ced Benson, Caddy or Ronnie Brown and they were all drafted around the top 5 picks in the first round. A first rounder is a crap-shoot. Turner is more of a known commodity than any first rounder. SD doesn't have to make a decision as to whether or not to pay Turner big $ until '08 and based on his current pace Tomlinson will have 2400+ carries by that point. Who knows what the situation will be then?
cstu said:Maurile Tremblay said:my God that would be a large amount of money tied up at one posistion!I'm not sure they would swing that.Good point, I never considered the team franchising him but it would make sense since there's no one worth franchising who can't be signed to a long-term deal. As crazy as it sounds, franchising Turner might be worth it even if they keep him. It's a lot of money but should something happen to LT then they could sign him to a long-term deal.
LT is wearing down a bit. I would not be suprised to see SD keep Turner.
How can you say that LT is wearing down a bit after only five weeks of the season? His first game, he absolutely ripped apart Oakland, and then in the 2nd week, he tore apart Tennesse in the first half. Turner got carries because of LT's dominance. Still, I do not see Turner staying in SD. Now, back to the original question. Is he a potential keeper in a fantasy league?
.
