|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Quote:
Definitely true, bleedsorange.
That's why I don't think it will take 4 years and $40 million to get Mack. If the guarantees and years are high enough, I think he'd sign for less than $10 million per year.
And I think you are right.. 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
Quote:
J/C
Maybe the Browns are thinking that he is asking for too much money and want him to test the market to see what he truly might be worth?
I'm wondering if they are really far off in the negotiations?
I remember hearing that Greco took some reps at center last year. Maybe they think not resigning Mack wouldn't create a huge problem.
I agree. We want him to test the market is what this says. I suppose we run the risk of losing him with no compensation, but on the other hand we don't set the market.
Had we franchized him, he would have taken that for as long as we could or would.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Most everyone is saying what a great move this is by the Browns. I admit that I am ignorant in terms of the cap, tags, and salaries. However, why don't more teams use the transition tag if it is so great? I thought it was rather rare? Am I wrong about that? Now, let me ask you another question: what do we get if Mack signs w/another team and we aren't willing to match the offer? Wait..........I just thought of another question: would a team be willing to offer a player [Mack] more money knowing they won't have to give up draft picks in order to obtain him? I wonder what the reaction would have been if Banner had applied the Transition tag to Mack? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,856
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,856 |
I think it has been noted several times in this thread that if we don't match then Mack is free to go, no compensation.
But as also noted it allows Mack to do what he stated he wanted to do months ago, test the FA market and gauge his worth.
If we franchised him no team would offer $10 mil plus give up two 1st round picks for a center so that would have effectively taken him off the market. Such a draconian decision would have soured Mack on the browns for good, so we would have rented him for one year and he would not have been happy.. see Byrd from Buffalo last year.
This way we have treated a great player and teammate with the respect I think he deserved, while protecting our interest some and we still have a shot to get him long term.
Not sure what Banner has to do with it, anymore than Heckert or Mangini for that matter.
#gmstrong
A smart person knows what to say.
A wise person knows whether or not to say it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
Quote:
Most everyone is saying what a great move this is by the Browns. I admit that I am ignorant in terms of the cap, tags, and salaries. However, why don't more teams use the transition tag if it is so great? I thought it was rather rare? Am I wrong about that?
Now, let me ask you another question: what do we get if Mack signs w/another team and we aren't willing to match the offer?
Wait..........I just thought of another question: would a team be willing to offer a player [Mack] more money knowing they won't have to give up draft picks in order to obtain him?
I wonder what the reaction would have been if Banner had applied the Transition tag to Mack?
Most teams are close against the cap, so they are in major risk of losing a quality free agent.
Let me give you an example.
Team A, $10 million under the cap, has a big time premium free agent, wants to keep him. They tag him with the Transition tag. for $10 million. Along comes team B, who has $40 million in cap space. They structure a deal this way for the free agent: 5 years, $50 million, with a first year salary of $20 million,
Team A now has a massive conundrum. If they match, they have to dump someone ...... and probably a lot of someones in order to get far enough under the cap to accommodate this massive 1st year of the deal.
If team A decides to franchise this player at, say, $11 million, then they hold all the cards. For team close to the cap, but with a true premium free agent, this is often the better way to go, because of the assurance that they will get their guy back. Another team, in this case, could make the same offer, but they would also have to give u 2 first round picks, something a rebuilding team (which one well under the cap is likely to be) is going to be willing to pay.
The risk with the transition tag is that Mack could get a deal we are not willing to match. We would get nothing in that case.
As far as a trade, any contract would likely involve incentives that would immediately accelerate, making it unlikely a newly signed premium free agent could traded. We ate all of the current incentives on Richardson's contract as soon as we traded him. I would guess that any signing and 1st year bonuses would be payable by us at the time of the trade, and immediately count against the cap. That is just a guess on my part, but I think it makes sense.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
Not sure what Banner has to do with it, anymore than Heckert or Mangini for that matter.
Yes. Didn't Banner get fired? I'm not sure what he has to do with this decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
I am still wondering................if it such a brilliant move, why don't more teams use it?
Banner? Well..........I brought that up because people were so upset when Grossi wrote the article about not measuring a guy's heart and that we might lose DQ. Swish said he would quit backing the team if that happened. Farmer cuts him and people say they understand it.
Get it, now?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
Read above. I answered your question to the best of my ability.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
Get it, now?
Nope. It seems like you are bringing Banner up to try and prove a point that is not provable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,061
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,061 |
Most teams don't use it because they aren't in the same financial situation we are in and the FO seems like they are prepared to match any "realistic" offer Mack will get, which is top-ish Center $$.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Thanks, YTown.
cfrs............of course, you don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
Can someone tell me if this is correct?
So if some team offers Mack a contract at $12 million and the Browns decide to match it, then Mack must sign with the Browns?
That is the only way the transition tag makes any sense to me, otherwise I don't get the point.
Frankly I don't see the advantage of not just using the franchise tag. If Mack really really wants to find his market value and would be outraged at getting franchised then I understand it. But otherwise it holds no tangible benefit to the franchise tag outside of saving $1.6 million.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317 |
Quote:
Most everyone is saying what a great move this is by the Browns. I admit that I am ignorant in terms of the cap, tags, and salaries. However, why don't more teams use the transition tag if it is so great? I thought it was rather rare? Am I wrong about that?
Now, let me ask you another question: what do we get if Mack signs w/another team and we aren't willing to match the offer?
Wait..........I just thought of another question: would a team be willing to offer a player [Mack] more money knowing they won't have to give up draft picks in order to obtain him?
I wonder what the reaction would have been if Banner had applied the Transition tag to Mack?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that this doesn't come with some risk. I'm sure the Browns have a number. If someone else goes well beyond that number then the team will not and should not accept terms that damage the franchise for years to come.
Also, since the new CBA the potential for poison pill terms have been removed from the agreement making the whole Steve Hutchinson type scenario illegal. Simply put all terms of the agreement must be applicable evenly to both the new club and the former club. The effect of any condition in the tendered contract must be neutral.
As has been explained, any offer he's tendered must be workable within the cap constraints of the offering team. Reducing the likelihood of exorbitant offers that are out of line with his playing position.. In this particular case putting your cap at risk to sign a center is unlikely. The Browns are said to be the #2 team in terms of total cap space available so they are in an financially strong position to absorb any reasonable offer made by other teams.
The whole, "what would Banner do" argument is moot. Nobody knows. In reading this thread the whole examination of the transition tag versus franchise tag seemed balanced and unusually devoid of peripheral issues. The truth is that Banner is responsible for his own undoing. He said publicly that he was putting in place a consensus decision making process. He was unable to sustain it and it cost him his job.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
If Mack signs a contract with another team, then the Browns have 7 days to decide whether or not they want to match it. If they do, then that other team's contract becomes a Browns contract, and Mack signs here. If not, then the contract he signed becomes valid, and he moves on to his new team. Nothing is valid until the Browns decide what they want to do. (if he gets a contract offer elsewhere)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
So if some team offers Mack a contract at $12 million and the Browns decide to match it, then Mack must sign with the Browns?
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Okay, thanks.
Now, all agendas aside..............do you really think it was a great move like so many others are saying?
Be honest w/me. I admit you have a lot more knowledge about these types of issues than I do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,480 |
Quote:
I am still wondering................if it such a brilliant move, why don't more teams use it?
Banner? Well..........I brought that up because people were so upset when Grossi wrote the article about not measuring a guy's heart and that we might lose DQ. Swish said he would quit backing the team if that happened. Farmer cuts him and people say they understand it.
Get it, now?
what thread was that? i just wanna make sure you not full of it, i looked at the DQ future thread...didn't find it.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
What? Are you saying you never said that? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 181
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 181 |
Man tensions seem a little high today. Vers at first I was with you. I thought it was a stupid move to just save 1.5 mil. I thought once again the team is being cheap. But after reading EOs post it shed some new light. He brought up some good points about player relations and letting Mack get his wish on seeing what the market dictates yet giving us some security so that we don't get Boozered again.
I like the move regardless of who made it. As for the DQ move, I hated it but am willing to give the FO a chance to see what they come up with as a replacement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,480 |
i don't ever remember saying i'd quit on this team.
i already said i hated the move. i count that as a strike against farmer. i just don't remember if i said what you are telling people. the burden of proof is on you.
if i did, hey, you got me. if not...well..
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
do you really think it was a great move like so many others are saying?
I know this question is not directed at me but let me explain why I think it is a great move.
1. At the very least we get Alex Mack for one more year (unless he holds out the entire season).
2. Mack accepts some other team's long term offer. We match it and now have Mack on a long term deal (something he doesn't seem open to at this point).
3. If we used the franchise tag it is certain that no team would offer Mack a deal as it would cost two first round picks. Meaning there would be no chance we would be able to match a potential contract.
4. If Mack does signs and plays under the tender then we have a full year to try and convince him to stay.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,061 |
Quote:
Okay, thanks.
Now, all agendas aside..............do you really think it was a great move like so many others are saying?
Be honest w/me. I admit you have a lot more knowledge about these types of issues than I do.
I forgot all about the transition tag until I saw Adam Schefter report it. At first I when I saw "tag" and "Mack" next to each other, I was upset because I wanted to tag to mean we keep Ward. That and I was surprised to see that much money go to a Center.
Actually, the move makes a ton of sense and at the same time validates that Mack is their top priority. The FO didn't want Mack to go, and for whatever reason, they felt like a deal wouldn't be signed by March 8 when he could begin traveling to other teams. I doubt a team is going to make a huge offer to Mack because the Browns have enough cap space to match almost anything....beyond some ridiculous offer. So, chances are he doesn't get anything significant. And furthermore, I find it hard to believe any team would offer him a long term deal averaging anywhere near $10M/year. That just ruins the market for everyone. It'd be stupid.
Now if Mack really wants out, he should probably just sign the tag and suffer through one more year in Cleveland and the Browns will look to draft a center in May. If Mack simply wants a long term deal no matter the place, he'd be wise to go back to the negotiating table in Berea.
The FO obviously transitioned tag Mack for one of these reasons. They either (1) value Mack over Ward and are willing to gamble on a large one year contract in the hopes for getting a longer one somehow/someway or (2) think TJ will be easier to sign than Mack and Mack needs some TLC or (3) Ward was never an option because they don't want to pay him or think he fits.
Not sure what it is.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Thanks for the answers from you and cfrs. Again, I don't know a lot about that aspect of the game and appreciate being educated. I ask questions to understand. I will admit I did throw one BS question out there. I apologize, but sometimes I need to see how posters respond in order to judge their sincerity.
Again, thanks for the answers. I still am not quite sure that I get it. I guess I am a slow learner. LOL
Two other comments.
Penny: I am not against the move. I am not for it. I do know I want to keep Mack. I just didn't understand if it was good or not. It seems more teams would use it if was so good. But again, I am fairly ignorant in regards to this subject.
Swish: You don't remember saying it, huh? Okay man.............that tells me all I need to know.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,588
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,588 |
Vers,
Regarding your question above, I think two aspects of this situation make the transition tag a really good idea. The first was already brought up, and that's our cap situation. We're in the driver's seat, in that if another team comes along and makes anything but a ludicrous offer for him, we can match it and bam... it's over. We're happy and he's happy.
The other part is that he's a center. A team isn't going to do something stupid for a center. Put another way, if we use the transition tag on Haden or Gordon (also tops in the league at their position, but at a much more coveted position) when their contracts are up, then we're really asking for trouble. We would need to use the franchise tag on those guys because otherwise it would be a feeding frenzy among the other teams to sign them without having to give up any compensation.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,983
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,983 |
Another reason to use the transition tag is if Alex Mack was franchise tagged and signed a 4 year deal the Browns would not be able to use another franchis tag until that contract has expired. So more than likely Mack would be signed to a 1 year 11 million contract and next year the Browns could be in a situation to either franchise Mack again or let him test the market and franchise Haden.
If that was to happen they would lose leverage in contract talks with Haden's agent. His agent and Mack's agent would be in position of power knowing that decision would be looming. If Mack goes out and signs a long term deal with another team and the Browns match. Then he is locked up then the Browns have the position in Haden's up coming contract.
I think the transition tag was a smart move considering that. It also shows that the Browns choose Offensive line or defensive secondary. Or they felt they just have a better feel for Ward or have other options at safety. Besides most would consider Center a more valuable position over strong safety.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Thanks.
I do have to ask one question again. I don't think it has been answered. I apologize if it was.
Wouldn't another team offer more to a guy w/a Transitional tag than they would a Franchise tag because they won't have to compensate the other team? That seems logical to me. If that is the case, wouldn't that increase the amount of money Mack makes?
Again, I apologize if I am being dense. I really do want to learn, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,983
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,983 |
They may try to put a poison pill in the contract. The issue is that the Browns have more cap space than almost every team that Mack negotates with. So the poison pill will be tough to pull off considering that if the Browns chose not to match that team would be stuck with that contract.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
And poison pills are against the rules now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 181
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 181 |
Wow thanks for that info. I did not know that was the case that we would lose the franchise tag for the length of the contract. We are in the clear thought if we sign him to a long term deal under the transition tag?
If that's true it puts a whole new light on why we did it which would be a great move IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Quote:
Can someone tell me if this is correct?
So if some team offers Mack a contract at $12 million and the Browns decide to match it, then Mack must sign with the Browns?
That is the only way the transition tag makes any sense to me, otherwise I don't get the point.
Frankly I don't see the advantage of not just using the franchise tag. If Mack really really wants to find his market value and would be outraged at getting franchised then I understand it. But otherwise it holds no tangible benefit to the franchise tag outside of saving $1.6 million.
Yes.. if we match the offer presented by another team, we retain him for the length of the new contract..
I'm not sure what's hard to understand. It's simply a way to let him test the market, arrive at what would seem to be a fair market value. At which time, if the Browns feel it's worth it, they match we retain him.
In our CAP situatin, 1.6mill is chump change. The goal is to retain Mack. This is a fair way for both the team and the player to accomplish that task.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
why don't more teams use the transition tag if it is so great? I thought it was rather rare? Am I wrong about that?
Didn't know how others answered as I'm giving it a go as soon as reading it.
1. A lot of interior OL are let go to hit the FA market.
2. Its a rare occasion cause the 3 Interior OL positions get the top 5 avg salary of a Left Tackle when Franchised so that its a great deal. When has an Interior OL gotten Franchised???
3. I have learned that you only get one tag. Usually a good team will have several players...heck we had two that could have been tagged. Its more beneficial to tag another position besides Interior OL.
I think it came down to - Mack was going to test the market and said he would let us have a shot at matching it. Well this pretty much guarantees it.
4. Its a good move for this occasion...if it was Ward and we wanted to tag I would think that it would have been the more often used Franchise tag.
Its like tagging a restricted FA that was a UDFA so there is no compensation.
jmho
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Wouldn't another team offer more to a guy w/a Transitional tag than they would a Franchise tag because they won't have to compensate the other team? That seems logical to me. If that is the case, wouldn't that increase the amount of money Mack makes?
I agree that the answer to your first question is yes. And the answer to your second question is also yes.
At first glance that looks like the Browns have put themselves in the situation of having to pay more for Mack if he signs an offer under the transitional tag. Teams will offer more, knowing they won't have to give up two number one draft picks, (if the player signs the offer sheet and the Browns don't match it as would have been the case under the franchise tag.)
While all that's true it's much less restrictive and far more fair to the player than if we had used the franchise tag. Less restrictive by eliminating the possibility of a new team having to compensate the Browns allowing them to offer more and, likewise, more fair to the player wishing to gauge his FA value because a potential new team will offer what they think is his real value is rather than a lesser value due to taking the compensation into consideration.
So who wins?
That depends on whether you'd rather play hard ball by fully restricting the player by not allowing him to move, (or accept a lesser offer that you can match), or if you'd rather respect the player by showing him that you want him bad enough to pay the higher value if you have to match an offer sheet.
Players hate the franchise tag and because of that it can create bad blood, as it has often done in the past, causing the player to want to get away at first chance.
Whereas the transitional tag is showing the player, by matching an offer, that you're willing to pay his highest value as determined by FA, thus assuring the player he's not leaving money on the table through negotiations with you.
In my opinion the transition tag is a win-win. The player knows that he's getting the most money he can get and the team knows they will not be paying over actual retail value, (FA value). If the value is higher than the team wants to pay they don't have to pay it and the player can move on.
I think it comes down to whether you want to respect the player, (which I think can go a long way with not only this player but also in luring future FA prospects). Or if you'd rather disrespect the player by effectively restricting his options for your own benefit.
The transition tag lets the player test the FA waters while giving the team right of first refusal so they can still sign him if they wish. It's better than simply letting him walk. If the player leaves the team it is only because the team didn't want to pay that much for him.
Maybe it's just my big heart but I think the transitional tag shows the player that you really want him while also showing him respect. To me, that is is much better than the franchise tag which is basically setting up the player for a screwin'.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
jc...
If Mack wants out of Cleveland and has a team lined up to pay him much more than the Browns are willing to pay...let him go.
Now it's up Mack and his agent to produce the contract offer, if one exists. The the Browns can decide to let him walk or match the offer.
The trump card for the Browns...the top draft talent at the center position is projected to come off the board in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.
Browns fans need to be real now..with new coaches and another new offensive and defensive playbook, the 2014 Browns are not going to be challenging for the playoffs. If the Browns were going to reload with a rookie center, this is the year to do it.
Last edited by mac; 03/05/14 10:02 AM.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
All this angst about some team willing to pay a center 10+mil a year, lol
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, will offer a center even close to the money we would have to pay what his agent demanded us to begin with....THAT'S why we put this tag on Mack. Anyone ever thought of that? If his agent demanded more than his FA worth, then it was a smart move already and he sure did:
His agent probably tried to leverage the instability, PR-hit if he left and cap situation against us...and Farmer made a brilliant move to counter ALL of that and take the wind out of their sails....he countered the PR-game by putting Mack in a situation to match his "word", when he said he'd give us a chance to match.
The best Center in Football last season barely got 7mil/season a couple of weeks ago. Mack will fetch offers from 8-9mil annually and we can easily match since we've told everyone that we'd even pay 10mil this season for him.
No team would offer 2 first rounder anyway for a center, so there's really no argument at all saying they'd now offer more. That's faulty logic at best at work here. What they offer NOW is what they'd offer anyway (as a FA) because they would not even think about an offer if he'd cost two firsts. Nobody will offer "more", that's pure agenda rhetorics
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
Wouldn't another team offer more to a guy w/a Transitional tag than they would a Franchise tag because they won't have to compensate the other team?
I agree that the answer to your first question is yes. And the answer to your second question is also yes.
Actually the key word is "OFFER" cause it would not be more. Franchise TAG a team won't offer ANYTHING unless they are willing to give up the compensation...which in most cases means they WILL NOT Offer any contract less or more is irrelevant.
I think the obvious thing here is we do not mind other teams signing him to a contract. We have high value on him as it is...we don't think he will come close to what he is asking from us. We will have 7 days to determine if its out of league or not and its got to be way out there for us to lose...well not lose but to just MATCH in an offer.
Also note. Maybe obvious but many have expressed themselves so that possibly they do not understand (and correct me if I'm wrong) but its not just an Offer to Mack. Mack has to sign the Contract - if n when he does the 7 days start for us to Match it and Mack does so knowing the Browns might Match it and he has no choice but to sign with the Browns...well in actuality he already did sign when he originally signed the contract.
jmho
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,256
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,256 |
You know, most of the points you touched upon I had considered. But one I had not and I believe it may be an important one. We've seen DQ speak about stability and I believe that it may effect the signing of some FA's if they have a deal "close to ours" on the table. But you said something I believe that may be an attempt to help correct FA's attitudes about the Browns. Quote:
I think it comes down to whether you want to respect the player, (which I think can go a long way with not only this player but also in luring future FA prospects). Or if you'd rather disrespect the player by effectively restricting his options for your own benefit.
I feel that's an excellent point!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
And poison pills are against the rules now.
that depends on your definition of what a poison pill can be. a team could give Mack a huge 1st year cap number (wouldn't affect us much) or they could put a huge guaranteed cap number in year4 (this is my biggest fear --- it could cripple our future cap with all the guys that we need to extend).
they cannot say that a player who plays more than 2 games in Ohio will have $10mil more per year or crazy stuff like that anymore. thank you Seattle & Minny for their bickering there at least.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
J/C
Someday I hope we have enough star players making big bucks so that we have to worry about being close to the cap.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
Quote:
that depends on your definition of what a poison pill can be. a team could give Mack a huge 1st year cap number (wouldn't affect us much) or they could put a huge guaranteed cap number in year4 (this is my biggest fear --- it could cripple our future cap with all the guys that we need to extend).
Keep in mind too that the cap is projected to go up ~10M each year. Have a look at OverTheCap.com to see the Browns cap situation for the next 3 years. They shouldn't be shy about spending on these guys (Mack,Haden, etc).
If Haslam finally wants to practice the "consistency" he has preached, you keep your core talent.
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone tell me if this is correct?
So if some team offers Mack a contract at $12 million and the Browns decide to match it, then Mack must sign with the Browns?
That is the only way the transition tag makes any sense to me, otherwise I don't get the point.
Frankly I don't see the advantage of not just using the franchise tag. If Mack really really wants to find his market value and would be outraged at getting franchised then I understand it. But otherwise it holds no tangible benefit to the franchise tag outside of saving $1.6 million.
Yes.. if we match the offer presented by another team, we retain him for the length of the new contract..
I'm not sure what's hard to understand. It's simply a way to let him test the market, arrive at what would seem to be a fair market value. At which time, if the Browns feel it's worth it, they match we retain him.
In our CAP situatin, 1.6mill is chump change. The goal is to retain Mack. This is a fair way for both the team and the player to accomplish that task.
Indeed, but there is a caveat. Mack could get offers for 5-6 mil....even 8-9 mil and decide not to take them and simply play out this season at 10 mil, and next year we are back in the same position.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns Transition Tag Alex Mack
|
|
