Has it ever been suggested with free agency that big ticket contracts require a minimum contract length?
Say a player gets signed for more than the average of the Franchise and Transition tag, having a minimum contract length of 2 years for that player to try and curb signing guys on huge deals for only 1 season, and having them in the FA pool every year?
It could add an extra strategic layer to free agency to think about when signing guys to these kind of deals.
I don't think that this would come up THAT often, but if you look at the results from our FA auction this season, the following players would've fallen under this scenario
Tom Brady
Jamaal Charles - signed for multiple
Steven Jackson
Antonio Gates - signed for multiple
Vernon Davis - signed for multiple
Green Bay DST
Thoughts?
Free Agency - Min length on BIG contracts?
- Wascawy Wabbits
- Pro Bowler
- Posts: 767
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:49 pm
- Favorite NFL Team: Kansas City Chiefs
- Team Name: Wascawy Wabits
- Location: BC, Canada
- braven112
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1220
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Favorite NFL Team: Seattle Seahawks
- Team Name: Pacific Pigskins
- Location: Seattle, Washington
- Contact:
Re: Free Agency - Min length on BIG contracts?
I think the unintended side effect would be guys could be tagged at a cheaper rate, since top 5 contracts would be lower. Also guys that are coming off their rookie contract, that would be tagged, would have a smaller raise in the first year and as a result lower raises every year after. There could be less player movement this way.
Right now that 12 million dollar contract increases the price to tag QB's next year and I like that. It keeps contracts for the upper echelon players where they should be. It ends up increasing the likely hood that a team would choose not to franchise a player and instead let them go to Free Agency where everyone can bid on them again.
Right now that 12 million dollar contract increases the price to tag QB's next year and I like that. It keeps contracts for the upper echelon players where they should be. It ends up increasing the likely hood that a team would choose not to franchise a player and instead let them go to Free Agency where everyone can bid on them again.
by griblets » Thu May 17, 2012 5:47 pm
Usually, when the commissioner has a good team, these are the kind of polls you see...
- bonscott
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 1037
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:09 am
- Favorite NFL Team: Chicago Bears
- Team Name: Amish Rakefighters
- Location: West Michigan
- Contact:
Re: Free Agency - Min length on BIG contracts?
Not sure on this one.
Actually the trend lately has been to actually sign the big guns to 2 or more years simply because the top guys go for that much so some teams are thinking, well, instead of dealing with trying to get another hired gun in the auction or the big raise if you tag a guy just put 2 or 3 yrs on the big salary guy and ride him. I did that with Jennings last year. After seeing receiver after receiver go for huge bucks I just slapped 2 yrs on Jennings and called it good.
Keep the good new ideas flowing, something may "catch" the eye of most of the league.
Actually the trend lately has been to actually sign the big guns to 2 or more years simply because the top guys go for that much so some teams are thinking, well, instead of dealing with trying to get another hired gun in the auction or the big raise if you tag a guy just put 2 or 3 yrs on the big salary guy and ride him. I did that with Jennings last year. After seeing receiver after receiver go for huge bucks I just slapped 2 yrs on Jennings and called it good.
Keep the good new ideas flowing, something may "catch" the eye of most of the league.
Scott
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests