PDA

View Full Version : Franchise and Transition Numbers released


ArlingtonTexan
01-29-2009, 01:18 PM
or how much it might cost to keep Dunta Robinson.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/2009/01/franchise-transition-tags-analysis/

The official 2009 Franchise and Transition Tag tender numbers are now known.



To refresh how tenders are established, a Franchise tender is an amount equal to the average of the top five salaries (salary plus other prorated amounts) at that position from the 2008 season. A Transition tender is an amount equal to the average of the top 10 salaries (salary plus other prorated amounts) at that position from the 2008 season. Once a player accepts the tender, the amount is fully guaranteed for the year.



As we approach the tagging period of Feb. 5-19, here are the official numbers, in millions rounded to the nearest ten thousand, with notes about the players and calculations leading to the numbers:





Position Franchise Transition



Quarterback $14.65 $12.44



This group is led by Peyton Manning’s 2008 number of $18.7M, followed by two players who played little in 2008, Tom Brady at $14.6M and Carson Palmer at $14M. The next two quarterbacks played together for three years, with Aaron Rodgers and his new 2008 Cap-heavy deal at $13.9M and Brett Favre at $12M. Our strong belief is that Matt Cassel will have the Franchise tag applied to him, making his 2009 Cap number very similar to that of Brady in 2008.



Cornerback $9.96 $8.37



This number was set by a couple of underperformers in 2008, with Chris McAlister – likely to soon be an ex-Baltimore Raven – at $10.9M , following only Champ Bailey at $12.2M. Nnamdi Ashomugha was franchised in 2008 at $9.765M and is hoping he’s not tagged again. The Raiders’ Cap problems may help his cause.


Wide Receiver $9.88 $8.39



The Colts have the first and 10th numbers in this group, with Marvin Harrison leading the way at $12M and Reggie Wayne 10th at $6.7M. Others setting the pace in this group include Lee Evans and his new 2008 Cap-heavy deal at $10.4M and Vikings free agent signee Bernard Berrian at $9.4M.



Defensive End $8.99 $7.78



Julius Peppers is front and center here, with a 2008 Cap number of $13.9M (meaning if he is franchised, his number will not be the one above but rather 20 percent above his 2008 number, or a prohibitive $16.7M). Others in the group setting these numbers include Jason Taylor, whose future is unclear in Washington or anywhere else, at $7.5M and John Abraham at $8.5M.



Offensive Line $8.45 $7.74



The top two 2008 numbers here went to Cleveland Browns, both being 2007 signings, one a marquee free-agent signing (Eric Steinbach at $9.2M) and one a top draft choice (Joe Thomas at $8.9M). Others include perennial All-Pros Walter Jones ($8.6M) and Orlando Pace ($8.2M). Jordan Gross played on a Franchise tag in 2008 at $7.455M and may be there again at a 20-percent increase to $8.95M.



Linebacker $8.3 $7.48



Like the offensive lineman, the top two 2008 numbers setting this pace were from the same team, with Ray Lewis ($9.4M) and franchised-Terrell Suggs ($8.475M) of the Ravens holding the highest numbers. Suggs’ number was the result of a settled arbitration that determined whether he should be treated as a linebacker or defensive end. Interestingly, both players are going to be free agents pending decisions by the Ravens, a team with Cap issues.



Running Back $6.62 $5.92



The top three numbers here from 2008 all have insecure futures: LaDanian Tomlinson ($7.8M), Edgerrin James ($6.8M) and Jamal Lewis ($6.4M). It will be interesting to see the changes in those numbers in 2009, as well as other vulnerable top 2008 numbers like Larry Johnson ($5.7M) and Deuce McAlister ($4.9M).



Safety $6.34 $5.13



This is another group with some high 2008 numbers that are questions marks for 2009, including Roy Williams ($6.7M) and Darren Sharper ($4.15M). Bob Sanders’ number of $8.2M led the pack.



Defensive Tackle $6.06 $5.45



Albert Haynesworth’s 2008 Franchise number of $7.25M led the group last year and will likely lead again in 2009, although under a new contract since the Titans lost the privilege to tag him again based on his 2008 contract. There were not a lot of high numbers here, although that will change in 2009 when option/roster bonuses kick in for players such as the Browns’ duo of Corey Williams and Shaun Rogers.



Tight End $4.46 $4.07



This is traditionally a number that provides good value to a team if there’s a player worthy of the tag. Tony Gonzalez was the only player at or above $5M in 2008.



Punter/Kicker $2.48 $2.26



Another good value for a tag, with Sebastian Janikowski the only 2008 number over $3M.





There’s much more ahead in the coming weeks as we analyze the decision-making of teams in choosing whether to apply these tenders.

TEXANS84
01-29-2009, 01:24 PM
Thats alot of money to be paying a cornerback recovering from what should have been a career-ending injury.
I love Dunta to death, but those cornerbacks are going to start looking alot better once the defensive 7 starts applying pressure.

El Tejano
01-29-2009, 01:56 PM
Thats alot of money to be paying a cornerback recovering from what should have been a career-ending injury.
I love Dunta to death, but those cornerbacks are going to start looking alot better once the defensive 7 starts applying pressure.

IDK man. We've seen Dunta play well even with the recovering injury. We haven't seen our DL put pressure on the QB on a consistent basis.

barrett
01-29-2009, 02:34 PM
it's still a good value to retain him for one season and assess his value after playing a full season at %100. It's not that big of a number for a team with alot of room like the texans have. it doesn't mean that you'd have to continue to pay him anywhere near that number after the season is over. if he plays up to and beyond his potential then you have to pay him what he's worth but if he only returns to form you pay him an average salary. if he doesn't return to where he was you offer him a salary at his value.

nero THE zero
01-29-2009, 03:27 PM
it's still a good value to retain him for one season and assess his value after playing a full season at %100. It's not that big of a number for a team with alot of room like the texans have. it doesn't mean that you'd have to continue to pay him anywhere near that number after the season is over. if he plays up to and beyond his potential then you have to pay him what he's worth but if he only returns to form you pay him an average salary. if he doesn't return to where he was you offer him a salary at his value.

Exactly. It's a trial year by which the Texans can decide which way they want to go and Dunta can prove to what capacity he can retain his abilities.

That number would also slot him, as it stands, as the second highest paid member of the team:
Schaub, Matt $10,250,000
*Robinson, Dunta $9,960,000*
Johnson, Andre $7,666,752
Green, Ahman $6,637,500
Greenwood, Morlon $6,268,000
Weaver, Anthony $6,200,000

Of course, at least 2 of Green, Greenwood, and Weaver should be gone. Possibly all 3. And we might bring in a FA that could challenge for a top 5 salary.

But, I think Dunta's intangibles combined with his on-the-field abilities justify one year at $9.6M in order to see where you and he stand going into 2010.

infantrycak
01-29-2009, 04:35 PM
Funny contrast directed at nobody in particular--Rick Smith is a ding dong for hiring Reeves for 5 years at $20 mil but it would be a great idea to pay $10 mil for 1 year for Dunta?

Dunta is one of my favorite players--sign him to a reasonable contract, but don't franchise him.

dalemurphy
01-29-2009, 04:44 PM
Funny contrast directed at nobody in particular--Rick Smith is a ding dong for hiring Reeves for 5 years at $20 mil but it would be a great idea to pay $10 mil for 1 year for Dunta?

Dunta is one of my favorite players--sign him to a reasonable contract, but don't franchise him.

He's a free agent... a decent contract may not be in the cards. It's not exactly a great market for free agent CBs. Don't you think it's possible someone will overpay for him? The question becomes, are you willing to protect against it by franchising him or are you willing to pay overpay him in order to keep, because they don't have anyone to replace him with IMO.

Double Barrel
01-29-2009, 04:57 PM
Considering how our D looked before his return and how it looked after his return, I say pay the man.

infantrycak
01-29-2009, 04:59 PM
He's a free agent... a decent contract may not be in the cards. It's not exactly a great market for free agent CBs. Don't you think it's possible someone will overpay for him? The question becomes, are you willing to protect against it by franchising him or are you willing to pay overpay him in order to keep, because they don't have anyone to replace him with IMO.

Like I said, I like Dunta a lot and want to re-sign him, but not at any cost. I would go to him with an under transition tag (but not a huge amount) $7-7.5 mil per year long term deal. I think that is giving him the benefit of the doubt on fully recovering and recognizing his leadership, inspiration, etc. As an alternative, I would also offer him a one year transition tag level deal with a plan to talk after the next season--allow him to gamble on proving he can get at least to pro-bowl level (that's an interesting idea--can you do a multi-year deal which voids if you don't make the pro-bowl?). If one of those isn't good enough, bye. I just don't see how he could sit across a table and demand top 5 money.

Kaiser Toro
01-29-2009, 05:06 PM
If we do tag him, which I do not want to do, it better be a transition tag.

b0ng
01-29-2009, 05:10 PM
I just don't see how he could sit across a table and demand top 5 money.

You're talking about a guy and his career. He'd be stupid not to demand top 5 money (at first), because I bet a team would be more than willing to top a 7 million dollar a year contract.

Shit, even Drayton Florence got 6 mil from the Jags and he was expected to be a nickel. I think a franchise tag is a decent alternative because it's only for 1 year. It's not like you're going to lock Robinson up in a 10 year 90 million dollar contract if you franchise him.

dalemurphy
01-29-2009, 05:12 PM
Like I said, I like Dunta a lot and want to re-sign him, but not at any cost. I would go to him with an under transition tag (but not a huge amount) $7-7.5 mil per year long term deal. I think that is giving him the benefit of the doubt on fully recovering and recognizing his leadership, inspiration, etc. As an alternative, I would also offer him a one year transition tag level deal with a plan to talk after the next season--allow him to gamble on proving he can get at least to pro-bowl level (that's an interesting idea--can you do a multi-year deal which voids if you don't make the pro-bowl?). If one of those isn't good enough, bye. I just don't see how he could sit across a table and demand top 5 money.

I agree with the transition tag idea if the team feels like he is demanding more than the market will pay him. However, I'd be careful about letting him go- for one, that means everyone's favorite punching bag, "Petey", will probalby make the roster and you guys are certainly going to see Reeves starting most of the season. There are times when the situation and market dictates that you overpay for someone. This might be one of those times and I don't think a Franchise Tag hurts the team given its cap situation.

Ole Miss Texan
01-29-2009, 05:20 PM
I've got very similar feelings on this as infantrycak.

steelbtexan
01-29-2009, 05:25 PM
Give me Fat Albert @ 10 mil a year

McAlister @ 5 mil a year

M. Peterson @ 5 mil a year


Re-sign (thank Pappa) Daniels , Wilson, Ferguson, Bentley with the other 10 mil that is left on the cap.

Draft a DE, LB, S, RB & C

ArlingtonTexan
01-29-2009, 05:26 PM
If we do tag him, which I do not want to do, it better be a transition tag.

Remember the Transition Tag only would give Houston the right of first refusal on any contract, so another team would have to do is place some weird stipulation and get Dunta for no additional compensation.

With the Franchise tag the Texans have enough power to force someone wanting him to work some sign and trade even if it is not for the full two 1st rounders.

Kaiser Toro
01-29-2009, 05:35 PM
Remember the Transition Tag only would give Houston the right of first refusal on any contract, so another team would have to do is place some weird stipulation and get Dunta for no additional compensation.

With the Franchise tag the Texans have enough power to force someone wanting him to work some sign and trade even if it is not for the full two 1st rounders.

Brain fart on my part, I meant the non-exclusive franchise tag, thanks.

barrett
01-29-2009, 05:59 PM
I agree with the transition tag idea if the team feels like he is demanding more than the market will pay him. However, I'd be careful about letting him go- for one, that means everyone's favorite punching bag, "Petey", will probalby make the roster and you guys are certainly going to see Reeves starting most of the season. There are times when the situation and market dictates that you overpay for someone. This might be one of those times and I don't think a Franchise Tag hurts the team given its cap situation.

That's the main reasoning for this line of thinking. It's ideal for a team that can spare the cap room and is in a situation where they shouldn't gamble to see if he'll come back from his injury by giving him a long term deal.

threetoedpete
01-30-2009, 02:33 AM
Thats alot of money to be paying a cornerback recovering from what should have been a career-ending injury.
I love Dunta to death, but those cornerbacks are going to start looking alot better once the defensive 7 starts applying pressure.

Uh huh. I know we love him. But 8M ? Oooh Wee dat's a lot of love.

Malloy
01-30-2009, 05:19 AM
Funny contrast directed at nobody in particular--Rick Smith is a ding dong for hiring Reeves for 5 years at $20 mil but it would be a great idea to pay $10 mil for 1 year for Dunta?

Dunta is one of my favorite players--sign him to a reasonable contract, but don't franchise him.

Hey! I thought we all agreed that Mcnair is cheap?!?! :)

HOU-TEX
01-30-2009, 09:15 AM
I might be having a brain fart here, but I have a question for anyone who might know. If a player is franchised but ends up working out a deal a some point during the season. Would he get paid the entire season for the franchised amount? Or would the new deal void the franchise tag and begin as soon as the new deal was struck?

I apologize for the dumb question, but I've been bouncing back and forth from East Texas. I'm trying to revive my brain cells. :cool:

Kaiser Toro
01-30-2009, 09:24 AM
I might be having a brain fart here, but I have a question for anyone who might know. If a player is franchised but ends up working out a deal a some point during the season. Would he get paid the entire season for the franchised amount? Or would the new deal void the franchise tag and begin as soon as the new deal was struck?

I apologize for the dumb question, but I've been bouncing back and forth from East Texas. I'm trying to revive my brain cells. :cool:

If he is franchised then he must be paid the average salary of the top 5 positions (either from the previous year or the current year, dependent on tag), or 120% of his previous salary - whichever is greater. The negotiation is built in to the pending contract, thereby giving some protection to each party in this action.

There are two types of franchise tag designations: the exclusive rights franchise tag, and non-exclusive rights franchise tag:

An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams.

A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position in the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.

It is the team's choice whether it uses an exclusive or a non-exclusive franchise tag. While it may seem that a team would always choose the exclusive option, there are two reasons a team might prefer the non-exclusive option instead. The first is that the salary is based on the top 5 salaries of the previous year instead of the current year, which could be a significant difference. The second reason is that a team may want the opportunity for the two first-round draft picks they would receive if they lost their player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag

gtexan02
01-30-2009, 09:30 AM
If it came down to giving the guy 7.5 million a year for a long term deal or 9+ million for one year, I'm all for the 9.

nero THE zero
01-30-2009, 09:50 AM
If it came down to giving the guy 7.5 million a year for a long term deal or 9+ million for one year, I'm all for the 9.

You have to consider the possibility that Dunta might not return to pre-injury form. His injury is what makes the franchise tag such a viable option. If he had not been injured, the long term deal is a no-brainer. But do you want to give a guy a long term contract if you are not certain that his knee will hold up and his abilities will be restored?

That's what makes the franchise tag so attractive. You might have to overpay some, but overpaying for one year might be worth it if it affords you the opportunity to see if you are getting pre-injury Dunta back or not. If you are, fine, fork out the years and the money. If you feel that you aren't, say thanks and goodbye. What you don't want to do is prematurely fork over a lot of years for a lot of money only to find out that he never fully recovers from his injury.

leebigeztx
01-31-2009, 01:31 AM
U can't nor shouldn't franchise Robinson. He's a good corner, but he's not a great corner. I believe he's anywhere from 8-14. So they shhould start at the 10 spot and go from there not exceeding 6.5m per .

edo783
01-31-2009, 01:39 AM
U can't nor shouldn't franchise Robinson. He's a good corner, but he's not a great corner. I believe he's anywhere from 8-14. So they shhould start at the 10 spot and go from there not exceeding 6.5m per .

While your assessment of his abilities is correct, IMO I fully expect him to be franchised so that they can evaluate him for 1 more year.

beerlover
01-31-2009, 01:49 AM
You have to consider the possibility that Dunta might not return to pre-injury form. His injury is what makes the franchise tag such a viable option. If he had not been injured, the long term deal is a no-brainer. But do you want to give a guy a long term contract if you are not certain that his knee will hold up and his abilities will be restored?

That's what makes the franchise tag so attractive. You might have to overpay some, but overpaying for one year might be worth it if it affords you the opportunity to see if you are getting pre-injury Dunta back or not. If you are, fine, fork out the years and the money. If you feel that you aren't, say thanks and goodbye. What you don't want to do is prematurely fork over a lot of years for a lot of money only to find out that he never fully recovers from his injury.

I would rather work with Dunta & his agent & come to some cap friendly, lucrative contract thats a win win for both him & the Texans. He means more than you think to the fans, this team & organization. fortunately both sides know it & should come to a mutally benefical agreement soon. Texans are not the type of organization to slap a franchise tag on one of its team leaders, thats, well just divisive :headhurts:

b0ng
01-31-2009, 09:52 AM
I would rather work with Dunta & his agent & come to some cap friendly, lucrative contract thats a win win for both him & the Texans. He means more than you think to the fans, this team & organization. fortunately both sides know it & should come to a mutally benefical agreement soon. Texans are not the type of organization to slap a franchise tag on one of its team leaders, thats, well just divisive :headhurts:

It can be divisive, but at the same time it can also serve as a motivator. The player is getting paid more than what he made the previous season, and he's playing for a huge payday (possibly).

I mean, if Dunta gets franchised, do you think he'd purposefully play badly just to spite the Texans?

On the flipside, if he plays great I'm sure Bob McNair will do his best Teddy KGB impression and say:

"Pay that man his money."

nero THE zero
01-31-2009, 11:27 AM
Keith at ITB (http://www.inthebullseye.com/archive/2009/20090130.html) puts it perfectly:
The biggest complaint I hear about using the franchise tag on Robinson is that there is no way he is worth a top five salary. These people are completely missing the point of the modern use of the designation.

Once believed to be used on just on a team’s best player (think John Elway, Peyton Manning), now it is used as a vehicle for keeping really good players like Robinson on the roster, injury or not. Look no further than Julius Peppers in Carolina as an example of this. Peppers, also scheduled to be an unrestricted free agent this offseason, really might be worth a top 5 income, but since he earns one already, a franchise tag for him would actually come at a 20 percent increase on top of his already rich 2008 salary cap figure. Franchise tags are way too expensive on players like Peppers many fans think are the ones that should be getting them.

So forget thinking about whether Robinson is worth top five money and start thinking a little more like business owner. You can either pay your employee for one year at $9.957 million (actually paid to him in 17 weekly installments for each week of the regular season), and evaluate afterward if he is worthy of a substantial long-term contract. Or you can pay him as much as double that figure in salary and up-front bonus in a multi-year contract still not knowing what type of return to expect.

A middle ground exists. Perhaps Robinson and the Texans can agree to make much of the guarantees as an option or roster bonus payable after the 2009 season. That still shifts risk back to the player, but it would be less risky than simply accepting a franchise tag tender.

steelbtexan
01-31-2009, 12:52 PM
BL

If we re-sign (thanks Pappa) DR to a long term contract & he is unable to make it back to his pre- injury form then we have wasted money. IMO the price of leadership is alot less than 10 mil. a year.

Being a fan favorite is great I like him too but not @ 10 mil a year. You could use that kind of money to get an elite DL (Albert or Peppers) & draft a CB early in the draft. With the 10 mil you would save on DR & the rest of the cap space we have you could sign Peppers-Albert & sign a good CB like McAlister, Lucas or McFadden.

Ownership is in a good position on this one. I hope DR is resonable with his demands otherwise we should let him walk. If the fan base doesn't put to much pressure on ownership with the team leader- fan favorite crap we should come out smelling like a rose.

Fans should know that if DR leaves that new team leaders will step up. Who's to say that we will not sign or draft someone who will become a team leader.

With that said I want ownership to re-sign him but not @ any cost.

It's personal just business.

nero THE zero
01-31-2009, 01:30 PM
BL

If we re-sign (thanks Pappa) DR to a long term contract & he is unable to make it back to his pre- injury form then we have wasted money. IMO the price of leadership is alot less than 10 mil. a year.

Being a fan favorite is great I like him too but not @ 10 mil a year. You could use that kind of money to get an elite DL (Albert or Peppers) & draft a CB early in the draft. With the 10 mil you would save on DR & the rest of the cap space we have you could sign Peppers-Albert & sign a good CB like McAlister, Lucas or McFadden.

Ownership is in a good position on this one. I hope DR is resonable with his demands otherwise we should let him walk. If the fan base doesn't put to much pressure on ownership with the team leader- fan favorite crap we should come out smelling like a rose.

Fans should know that if DR leaves that new team leaders will step up. Who's to say that we will not sign or draft someone who will become a team leader.

With that said I want ownership to re-sign him but not @ any cost.

It's personal just business.

You might want to do some fact-checking:

http://www.ajc.com/falcons/content/sports/falcons/stories/2009/01/12/nfl_panthers_peppers.html
However, because of Peppers’ lofty market value, he’s expected to become the highest paid defensive player in league history with a multi-year deal averaging at least $13 million per season.

Franchising Peppers without a new contract would require the Panthers to pay him around $17 million for the 2009 season.

Battle-Red
01-31-2009, 07:12 PM
Haynesworth wants the biggest defensive contract ever and is willing to wait for it. As far as Dunta goes he has stated he wants a long term fair market deal and does not want to be franchised. Both sides should be able to get close enough to fair market value that they can fill in the gap with stipulations(salary escalators, bonuses, penalties, and etc.). It's not as cut and dry as it's made out to be. All GM's should be creative writing majors.

infantrycak
02-01-2009, 08:54 AM
It can be divisive, but at the same time it can also serve as a motivator. The player is getting paid more than what he made the previous season, and he's playing for a huge payday (possibly).

I mean, if Dunta gets franchised, do you think he'd purposefully play badly just to spite the Texans?

No I do not think he will intentionally play badly, but he has already expressed that he does not want to be franchised. The last player who wants to be franchised is thy guy coming off an injury--it could be one year and done. He wants a long term deal with guarantees in excess of the franchise number.