huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

dynovinyl Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

klake87 Wrote:They either pay them for one year $7.2 million, match any offer or get 2 first round picks. The franchise tag was kind of a no brainer!

The franchise tag thing is kind of ridiculous. No one would give up two first-round picks for a LB.

That's the whole idea behind the franchise player tag! You're all but assured of keeping the player.

So, in other words it's to screw the player over. You get to keep the guy for another year and he doesn't get a long-term contract which he earned.

The players and their union are not big fans of the franchise tag. I think it backfired on them.

I just think it sucks, especially for a player like Michael Turner who may receive the same treatment as Briggs. Here are two players who did very well and deserve to get long-term contracts, instead they get screwed around with. Give them new contracts or let go of them.

Look at Michael Turner. The Chargers got one hell of a steal with him for a 5th-round pick. He's one of the lowest paid players on the team, yet one of the most talented players on the team. They got to keep him for 3 years for well under the league average salary. The Chargers don't deserve to try and get two first-round draft picks for someone they drafted in the 5th round.

If a player is given the Franchise Player tag, it's because of how he's performed in the NFL, not where he's drafted! That's why the Chargers will get compensation for him if they put the tag on him. And the NFLPA negotiated the Franchise Player designation, although they may regret it now.

I already know it doesn't matter where you are drafted to tag a player. My point is, why do the Chargers deserve to get two first-round picks for a player they drafted in the 5th round? They pay Michael Turner way under the league average and he's one of the 10 best players on their team. They pay Darren Sproles twice as much as Turner and Sproles is a backup to Turner.

Turner is a restricted feee agent, so any team can sign him to a contract, but they would just have to offer compensation (draft choices), and the Chargers would also have the right to match any offer and keep him.

Briggs is an unrestricted free agent. The only way the Bears could take him off the market was to place a "franchise player" tag on him. The Bears can keep him for an additional year, but must pay him the average pay of the highest paid players at his position. Teams may only designate one player a year as a "franchise" player, and the tag is only good for a year. Of course, the Bears could tag Briggs as a franchise player next year as well. As a "franchise" player, no other team can negotiate with that player. Look for the Bears to sign Brigss to a long-term deal. Of course, the only guaranteed money in an NFL contract is the signing bonus, so look for a five year deal with about half the dollars in a signing bonus.

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

dynovinyl Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

klake87 Wrote:They either pay them for one year $7.2 million, match any offer or get 2 first round picks. The franchise tag was kind of a no brainer!

The franchise tag thing is kind of ridiculous. No one would give up two first-round picks for a LB.

That's the whole idea behind the franchise player tag! You're all but assured of keeping the player.

So, in other words it's to screw the player over. You get to keep the guy for another year and he doesn't get a long-term contract which he earned.

The players and their union are not big fans of the franchise tag. I think it backfired on them.

I just think it sucks, especially for a player like Michael Turner who may receive the same treatment as Briggs. Here are two players who did very well and deserve to get long-term contracts, instead they get screwed around with. Give them new contracts or let go of them.

Look at Michael Turner. The Chargers got one hell of a steal with him for a 5th-round pick. He's one of the lowest paid players on the team, yet one of the most talented players on the team. They got to keep him for 3 years for well under the league average salary. The Chargers don't deserve to try and get two first-round draft picks for someone they drafted in the 5th round.

If a player is given the Franchise Player tag, it's because of how he's performed in the NFL, not where he's drafted! That's why the Chargers will get compensation for him if they put the tag on him. And the NFLPA negotiated the Franchise Player designation, although they may regret it now.

I already know it doesn't matter where you are drafted to tag a player. My point is, why do the Chargers deserve to get two first-round picks for a player they drafted in the 5th round? They pay Michael Turner way under the league average and he's one of the 10 best players on their team. They pay Darren Sproles twice as much as Turner and Sproles is a backup to Turner.

I guess using that using your logic, a player could be All-Pro for 5 years, but if he was originally a lower-round draft pick, the team losing him shouldn't get much in the way of compensation! ;-)

And, by the way, the Chargers aren't going to tag Turner as a Franchise Player. What most likely will happen is that he'll be traded for a draft pick(s). It won't be 2 first-round picks.

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

dynovinyl Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

klake87 Wrote:They either pay them for one year $7.2 million, match any offer or get 2 first round picks. The franchise tag was kind of a no brainer!

The franchise tag thing is kind of ridiculous. No one would give up two first-round picks for a LB.

That's the whole idea behind the franchise player tag! You're all but assured of keeping the player.

So, in other words it's to screw the player over. You get to keep the guy for another year and he doesn't get a long-term contract which he earned.

The players and their union are not big fans of the franchise tag. I think it backfired on them.

I just think it sucks, especially for a player like Michael Turner who may receive the same treatment as Briggs. Here are two players who did very well and deserve to get long-term contracts, instead they get screwed around with. Give them new contracts or let go of them.

Look at Michael Turner. The Chargers got one hell of a steal with him for a 5th-round pick. He's one of the lowest paid players on the team, yet one of the most talented players on the team. They got to keep him for 3 years for well under the league average salary. The Chargers don't deserve to try and get two first-round draft picks for someone they drafted in the 5th round.

If a player is given the Franchise Player tag, it's because of how he's performed in the NFL, not where he's drafted! That's why the Chargers will get compensation for him if they put the tag on him. And the NFLPA negotiated the Franchise Player designation, although they may regret it now.

I already know it doesn't matter where you are drafted to tag a player. My point is, why do the Chargers deserve to get two first-round picks for a player they drafted in the 5th round? They pay Michael Turner way under the league average and he's one of the 10 best players on their team. They pay Darren Sproles twice as much as Turner and Sproles is a backup to Turner.

I guess using that using your logic, a player could be All-Pro for 5 years, but if he was originally a lower-round draft pick, the team losing him shouldn't get much in the way of compensation! ;-)

And, by the way, the Chargers aren't going to tag Turner as a Franchise Player. What most likely will happen is that he'll be traded for a draft pick(s). It won't be 2 first-round picks.

All-Pro players are starters. So yes, you should be able to get more compensation (draft picks) out of a starter. Michael Turner isn't even a starter, so no, they shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter.

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

dynovinyl Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

klake87 Wrote:They either pay them for one year $7.2 million, match any offer or get 2 first round picks. The franchise tag was kind of a no brainer!

The franchise tag thing is kind of ridiculous. No one would give up two first-round picks for a LB.

That's the whole idea behind the franchise player tag! You're all but assured of keeping the player.

So, in other words it's to screw the player over. You get to keep the guy for another year and he doesn't get a long-term contract which he earned.

The players and their union are not big fans of the franchise tag. I think it backfired on them.

I just think it sucks, especially for a player like Michael Turner who may receive the same treatment as Briggs. Here are two players who did very well and deserve to get long-term contracts, instead they get screwed around with. Give them new contracts or let go of them.

Look at Michael Turner. The Chargers got one hell of a steal with him for a 5th-round pick. He's one of the lowest paid players on the team, yet one of the most talented players on the team. They got to keep him for 3 years for well under the league average salary. The Chargers don't deserve to try and get two first-round draft picks for someone they drafted in the 5th round.

If a player is given the Franchise Player tag, it's because of how he's performed in the NFL, not where he's drafted! That's why the Chargers will get compensation for him if they put the tag on him. And the NFLPA negotiated the Franchise Player designation, although they may regret it now.

I already know it doesn't matter where you are drafted to tag a player. My point is, why do the Chargers deserve to get two first-round picks for a player they drafted in the 5th round? They pay Michael Turner way under the league average and he's one of the 10 best players on their team. They pay Darren Sproles twice as much as Turner and Sproles is a backup to Turner.

I guess using that using your logic, a player could be All-Pro for 5 years, but if he was originally a lower-round draft pick, the team losing him shouldn't get much in the way of compensation! ;-)

And, by the way, the Chargers aren't going to tag Turner as a Franchise Player. What most likely will happen is that he'll be traded for a draft pick(s). It won't be 2 first-round picks.

All-Pro players are starters. So yes, you should be able to get more compensation (draft picks) out of a starter. Michael Turner isn't even a starter, so no, they shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter.

Now you have completely contradicted yourself!

First, you said the Chargers didn't deserve good compensation for Turner because of which round he was drafted in. Now, you say that compensation should be determined by a player's NFL performance.

So, which is it?

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

dynovinyl Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

klake87 Wrote:They either pay them for one year $7.2 million, match any offer or get 2 first round picks. The franchise tag was kind of a no brainer!

The franchise tag thing is kind of ridiculous. No one would give up two first-round picks for a LB.

That's the whole idea behind the franchise player tag! You're all but assured of keeping the player.

So, in other words it's to screw the player over. You get to keep the guy for another year and he doesn't get a long-term contract which he earned.

The players and their union are not big fans of the franchise tag. I think it backfired on them.

I just think it sucks, especially for a player like Michael Turner who may receive the same treatment as Briggs. Here are two players who did very well and deserve to get long-term contracts, instead they get screwed around with. Give them new contracts or let go of them.

Look at Michael Turner. The Chargers got one hell of a steal with him for a 5th-round pick. He's one of the lowest paid players on the team, yet one of the most talented players on the team. They got to keep him for 3 years for well under the league average salary. The Chargers don't deserve to try and get two first-round draft picks for someone they drafted in the 5th round.

If a player is given the Franchise Player tag, it's because of how he's performed in the NFL, not where he's drafted! That's why the Chargers will get compensation for him if they put the tag on him. And the NFLPA negotiated the Franchise Player designation, although they may regret it now.

I already know it doesn't matter where you are drafted to tag a player. My point is, why do the Chargers deserve to get two first-round picks for a player they drafted in the 5th round? They pay Michael Turner way under the league average and he's one of the 10 best players on their team. They pay Darren Sproles twice as much as Turner and Sproles is a backup to Turner.

I guess using that using your logic, a player could be All-Pro for 5 years, but if he was originally a lower-round draft pick, the team losing him shouldn't get much in the way of compensation! ;-)

And, by the way, the Chargers aren't going to tag Turner as a Franchise Player. What most likely will happen is that he'll be traded for a draft pick(s). It won't be 2 first-round picks.

All-Pro players are starters. So yes, you should be able to get more compensation (draft picks) out of a starter. Michael Turner isn't even a starter, so no, they shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter.

Now you have completely contradicted yourself!

First, you said the Chargers didn't deserve good compensation for Turner because of which round he was drafted in. Now, you say that compensation should be determined by a player's NFL performance.

So, which is it?

It's a little of both. You shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter that you took in the 5th round.

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

dynovinyl Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

klake87 Wrote:They either pay them for one year $7.2 million, match any offer or get 2 first round picks. The franchise tag was kind of a no brainer!

The franchise tag thing is kind of ridiculous. No one would give up two first-round picks for a LB.

That's the whole idea behind the franchise player tag! You're all but assured of keeping the player.

So, in other words it's to screw the player over. You get to keep the guy for another year and he doesn't get a long-term contract which he earned.

The players and their union are not big fans of the franchise tag. I think it backfired on them.

I just think it sucks, especially for a player like Michael Turner who may receive the same treatment as Briggs. Here are two players who did very well and deserve to get long-term contracts, instead they get screwed around with. Give them new contracts or let go of them.

Look at Michael Turner. The Chargers got one hell of a steal with him for a 5th-round pick. He's one of the lowest paid players on the team, yet one of the most talented players on the team. They got to keep him for 3 years for well under the league average salary. The Chargers don't deserve to try and get two first-round draft picks for someone they drafted in the 5th round.

If a player is given the Franchise Player tag, it's because of how he's performed in the NFL, not where he's drafted! That's why the Chargers will get compensation for him if they put the tag on him. And the NFLPA negotiated the Franchise Player designation, although they may regret it now.

I already know it doesn't matter where you are drafted to tag a player. My point is, why do the Chargers deserve to get two first-round picks for a player they drafted in the 5th round? They pay Michael Turner way under the league average and he's one of the 10 best players on their team. They pay Darren Sproles twice as much as Turner and Sproles is a backup to Turner.

I guess using that using your logic, a player could be All-Pro for 5 years, but if he was originally a lower-round draft pick, the team losing him shouldn't get much in the way of compensation! ;-)

And, by the way, the Chargers aren't going to tag Turner as a Franchise Player. What most likely will happen is that he'll be traded for a draft pick(s). It won't be 2 first-round picks.

All-Pro players are starters. So yes, you should be able to get more compensation (draft picks) out of a starter. Michael Turner isn't even a starter, so no, they shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter.

Now you have completely contradicted yourself!

First, you said the Chargers didn't deserve good compensation for Turner because of which round he was drafted in. Now, you say that compensation should be determined by a player's NFL performance.

So, which is it?

It's a little of both. You shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter that you took in the 5th round.

Once again, you've twisted the facts so you don't have to admit that you're wrong!

The Chargers can NOT get two first-round picks for Turner because he has not and will not be designated a Franchise player. When and if the Chargers trade Turner, they will a draft pick or picks.

If a player is designated a Franchise Player, like Lance Briggs, and is signed to an offer sheet by another team, the compensation is solely determined by the contract signed by the NFL and the NFLPA. There are no other factors involved in the compensation!

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:It's a little of both. You shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter that you took in the 5th round.

Once again, you've twisted the facts so you don't have to admit that you're wrong!

You and i are arguing two different things. You are arguing about what the rules say should happen. I'm arguing that the rules hurt the player because a team can demand more than a player is worth. I think Turner is worth one first-round pick, but i don't think you should be able to demand two picks for a player who is a non-starter and you drafted in the 5th round. That's asking for too much.

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:It's a little of both. You shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter that you took in the 5th round.

Once again, you've twisted the facts so you don't have to admit that you're wrong!

You and i are arguing two different things. You are arguing about what the rules say should happen. I'm arguing that the rules hurt the player because a team can demand more than a player is worth. I think Turner is worth one first-round pick, but i don't think you should be able to demand two picks for a player who is a non-starter and you drafted in the 5th round. That's asking for too much.

Do you get the concept that Turner has NOT been designated a Franchise Player and thus the Chargers cannot demand two first-round picks?

You're arguing about something that hasn't happened and won't happen!

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:It's a little of both. You shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter that you took in the 5th round.

Once again, you've twisted the facts so you don't have to admit that you're wrong!

You and i are arguing two different things. You are arguing about what the rules say should happen. I'm arguing that the rules hurt the player because a team can demand more than a player is worth. I think Turner is worth one first-round pick, but i don't think you should be able to demand two picks for a player who is a non-starter and you drafted in the 5th round. That's asking for too much.

Do you get the concept that Turner has NOT been designated a Franchise Player and thus the Chargers cannot demand two first-round picks?

You're arguing about something that hasn't happened and won't happen!

Why wouldn't they franchise tag him? Is there a player better than him whose contract is done? Or can you not franchise tag a restricted free agent?

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:It's a little of both. You shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter that you took in the 5th round.

Once again, you've twisted the facts so you don't have to admit that you're wrong!

You and i are arguing two different things. You are arguing about what the rules say should happen. I'm arguing that the rules hurt the player because a team can demand more than a player is worth. I think Turner is worth one first-round pick, but i don't think you should be able to demand two picks for a player who is a non-starter and you drafted in the 5th round. That's asking for too much.

Do you get the concept that Turner has NOT been designated a Franchise Player and thus the Chargers cannot demand two first-round picks?

You're arguing about something that hasn't happened and won't happen!

Why wouldn't they franchise tag him? Is there a player better than him whose contract is done? Or can you not franchise tag a restricted free agent?

why are they going to franchise tag a backup running back? I know that he has the talent to start, but for the Chargers he is a backup and they will be fine without him, the chargers would be really bad off if they franchise tag Turner, and teams dont have to franchise tag people if they dont want to because they will have to pay him either the average of the top 5 running backs or the average of the top ten running backs, it just dosent make sense

nnhsniuhuskies37 Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:

huskiebob Wrote:

epasnoopy Wrote:It's a little of both. You shouldn't be able to get two first-round picks out of a non-starter that you took in the 5th round.

Once again, you've twisted the facts so you don't have to admit that you're wrong!

You and i are arguing two different things. You are arguing about what the rules say should happen. I'm arguing that the rules hurt the player because a team can demand more than a player is worth. I think Turner is worth one first-round pick, but i don't think you should be able to demand two picks for a player who is a non-starter and you drafted in the 5th round. That's asking for too much.

Do you get the concept that Turner has NOT been designated a Franchise Player and thus the Chargers cannot demand two first-round picks?

You're arguing about something that hasn't happened and won't happen!

Why wouldn't they franchise tag him? Is there a player better than him whose contract is done? Or can you not franchise tag a restricted free agent?

why are they going to franchise tag a backup running back? I know that he has the talent to start, but for the Chargers he is a backup and they will be fine without him, the chargers would be really bad off if they franchise tag Turner, and teams dont have to franchise tag people if they dont want to because they will have to pay him either the average of the top 5 running backs or the average of the top ten running backs, it just dosent make sense

I guess, i think he is one of their best players. If LT gets hurt i wouldn't want to rely on Sproles to be the RB. But then again, they probably don't plan on relying on Sproles since it seems that they will probably go into the draft looking for another RB. If they draft a RB in the 1st Rd. it's not like he will be cheap. Look at how much Cedric Benson cost the Bears out of the 1st Rd.

Turner will not get franchised. The Chargers would have to pay him 6.99 million. you will be hard pressed to fina a team that will pay that for a backup RB. PLUS if they did a team would could easily take him for a draft pick or drive up his price for the chargers.

Turner CAN'T get franchised because that is for UN restricted free agents and he is a restricted free agent. That means the Chargers have an opportunity to match whatever contract is presented to Turner. Also if he signs with another team I believe the Chargers receive some sort of compensation.

According to the information below Michael Turner's 3-year contract was worth a total of $1,035,000. An average of $345,000 per season.

Quote:Michael Turner: 3-Year deal thru 2006-2007 season signed in July 04- + he receives a 115K signing bonus and base salaries of 230K in 2004, 305K in 2005 and 385K in 2006

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ebdave/id24.html

[quote]The player's original team maintains the First Refusal Right if the team tenders a contract offer of one year at $850,000 for players with three accrued seasons or $925,000 for players with four accrued seasons in uncapped years.

The player's original team maintains the Right of First Refusal and Second Round Draft Selection (from the team with which he signs) if the team tenders an offer of one year at $1.3 million OR at least 110% of the player