So Will We Have The Money For Betts????

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Zimmermans

Exactly why I wanna deal bett's instead of portis. He's having a good season, so his market value is increasing.

We can't deal him because he wont be under contract come March, and we are past the trading deadline.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We can't deal him because he wont be under contract come March, and we are past the trading deadline.

So, does anyone know if any of the tags (franchise, transition, etc.) give us a draft pick if we don't match an offer?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

So, does anyone know if any of the tags (franchise, transition, etc.) give us a draft pick if we don't match an offer?

The franchise tag would require us to devote the average salary of the five most highly paid backs in the NFL to our salary cap. If a team signed Betts, we'd be entitled to two first round picks (or otherwise negotiated compensation). We would never franchise Betts because no team is going to deem him worthy of a deal commanded by the top 5 RBs in the league.

The transition tag means we have to tender the average salary of the top 10 backs in the league. We get the right to match any contract, but if we let him go, we get no compensation.

I originally posed the idea, but after thinking about it, tagging him is not a realistic option. Probably going to have to let him walk.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The franchise tag would require us to devote the average salary of the five most highly paid backs in the NFL to our salary cap. If a team signed Betts, we'd be entitled to two first round picks (or otherwise negotiated compensation). We would never franchise Betts because no team is going to deem him worthy of a deal commanded by the top 5 RBs in the league.

The transition tag means we have to tender the average salary of the top 10 backs in the league. We get the right to match any contract, but if we let him go, we get no compensation.

I originally posed the idea, but after thinking about it, tagging him is not a realistic option. Probably going to have to let him walk.

I don't see any teams wanting to give up picks for him when we clearly won't be keeping him.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The franchise tag would require us to devote the average salary of the five most highly paid backs in the NFL to our salary cap. If a team signed Betts, we'd be entitled to two first round picks (or otherwise negotiated compensation). We would never franchise Betts because no team is going to deem him worthy of a deal commanded by the top 5 RBs in the league.

The transition tag means we have to tender the average salary of the top 10 backs in the league. We get the right to match any contract, but if we let him go, we get no compensation.

I originally posed the idea, but after thinking about it, tagging him is not a realistic option. Probably going to have to let him walk.

I agree, tagging him probably doesn't make much sense. I think he'll be gone.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The franchise tag would require us to devote the average salary of the five most highly paid backs in the NFL to our salary cap. If a team signed Betts, we'd be entitled to two first round picks (or otherwise negotiated compensation). We would never franchise Betts because no team is going to deem him worthy of a deal commanded by the top 5 RBs in the league.

The transition tag means we have to tender the average salary of the top 10 backs in the league. We get the right to match any contract, but if we let him go, we get no compensation.

I originally posed the idea, but after thinking about it, tagging him is not a realistic option. Probably going to have to let him walk.

Until the owners work out the whole use of poison pills issue, using the transition tag at all is just asking for trouble.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The franchise tag would require us to devote the average salary of the five most highly paid backs in the NFL to our salary cap. If a team signed Betts, we'd be entitled to two first round picks (or otherwise negotiated compensation). We would never franchise Betts because no team is going to deem him worthy of a deal commanded by the top 5 RBs in the league.

The transition tag means we have to tender the average salary of the top 10 backs in the league. We get the right to match any contract, but if we let him go, we get no compensation.

I originally posed the idea, but after thinking about it, tagging him is not a realistic option. Probably going to have to let him walk.

Thanks for clearing this up. Very disturbing if he walks and we get nothing in return.

[SmootSmack]

I've heard from my top notch, inside sources that the ink is nearly dry on a new contract for Betts. I have no details but should I find any out I will let you know

[BeastsoftheNFCeast]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I've heard from my top notch, inside sources that the ink is nearly dry on a new contract for Betts. I have no details but should I find any out I will let you know

My initial reaction was joy when I heard this, but when I hear that he's going to get a 100mil contract I might shoot myself.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by BeastsoftheNFCeast

My initial reaction was joy when I heard this, but when I hear that he's going to get a 100mil contract I might shoot myself.

Lol. Don't worry I can't see his contract being a penny more than $50mil.