Free Agency

[CaptTurbo]

I read something that the top 8 teams this year will get screwed in free agency and the offseason. Something about them not being able to sign free agents only attempt to sign ones that are leaving the team.

Can anyone expound on this?

 

[ajcardfan]

I read something that the top 8 teams this year will get screwed in free agency and the offseason. Something about them not being able to sign free agents only attempt to sign ones that are leaving the team.

Can anyone expound on this?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/01/12/cowboys-victory-means-win-for-skins/

 

[82CardsGrad]

Collective bargaining generally SUCKS and this is a perfect example...

 

[slanidrac16]

I read something that the top 8 teams this year will get screwed in free agency and the offseason. Something about them not being able to sign free agents only attempt to sign ones that are leaving the team.

Can anyone expound on this?

The way I understand it, a top 8 team can sign a player if they lose a player. However, teams will also be allowed to tag 2 players and a player will need 6 years of service before becoming a free agent.

I don't see a whole lot of players moving this off season. This could play right into the Cards hands. No cap, so we can retain any or all of our players if we so choose.

 

[AsUdUdE]

Really the only person this pertains to is Dansby...

I love the dude, but the way he has played, he has almosy officially priced out the Cards from signing him back

which is unfortunante....

 

[Cards Czar]

The way I understand it, a top 8 team can sign a player if they lose a player. However, teams will also be allowed to tag 2 players and a player will need 6 years of service before becoming a free agent.

I don't see a whole lot of players moving this off season. This could play right into the Cards hands. No cap, so we can retain any or all of our players if we so choose.

That means that if Dansby leaves we can sign 1 player up to the 9 mill that we paid him last year.

 

[AsUdUdE]

That means that if Dansby leaves we can sign 1 player up to the 9 mill that we paid him last year.

Vince Wilfork anyone!?!

 

[AsUdUdE]

If Dansby does leave there are a couple in F.A. as for as LBs go to replace him...

I would look at Derrick Johnson (KC), Kirk Morrison (OAK), D'Qwell Jackson (CLE), or Antwan Barnes (BAL)....

just sayin...

 

[joeshmo]

This really as bad as it sounds for the top 8.

PFT that was linked to in this thread explains it and Sando has a recent blog item on it with a great explainations by others with links as well. Free agency will suck anyways, so not being abl to participate isnt all that big of a deal.

There were over 400 unrestricted free agents last year. Because of the new RFA rules that number will go down by half. Plus teams are allowed to use one franchise tag and one transition tag or two transition tags now. Meaning far fewer high profile guys on the market. Meaning the free agent market will be very small and most will be mid tier free agents and low tier free agents. Now add in the fact that we just dont go after high profile guys anyways (sando explains this well in his recent blog), it effects us even less. Most of our money is going to go to a bunch of RFA's we will have because of the new RFA rules, and probably franchise tag of Rackers.

Now because of the rule that for us to sign a player we have to sign a player of equal value take a look at the players who will most likely be leaving and tell me that we cant use that leaving free agent and the qual amount of money on someone in free agent.

Losing Okeafers means we can sign a free agent with a first year salary of 4.5 mill.

Losing Gandy means we can sign a free agent with a first year salary of 5 mill.

Losing Dansby means we can sign a free agent with a first year salary of over 9 mill.

Those are just the big ones. So with all of that and the fact that we just dont spend money on free agents anyways this uncapped top 8 rules or even the more intrusive top 4 rules just wont effect us all that much.

Also note that becuase of these uncapped rules severely limiting player movement in 2010 offseason we could and will probably see the most trades we have ever seen, and high profile trades as well. Great year to try and trade Boldin, Rolle, Matt or who ever we see fit to trade. Or trade for someone else if we see fit. The conditions are the most ripe for trades they have ever been before.

 

[earthsci]

That means that if Dansby leaves we can sign 1 player up to the 9 mill that we paid him last year.

...and that is a lot of money to lure a player. Could it be that...God forbid...the Cardinals management were taking this into consideration when many were saying that we were overpaying Dansby?

 

[Cards Czar]

Vince Wilfork anyone!?!

He will get taged by NE. But I would love to have him on our team.

 

[daves]

Now because of the rule that for us to sign a player we have to sign a player of equal value take a look at the players who will most likely be leaving and tell me that we cant use that leaving free agent and the qual amount of money on someone in free agent.

Losing Okeafers means we can sign a free agent with a first year salary of 4.5 mill.

Losing Gandy means we can sign a free agent with a first year salary of 5 mill.

Losing Dansby means we can sign a free agent with a first year salary of over 9 mill.

Joe,

You're saying that we can sign free agents to deals whose first year salary is comparable to the this year's salary of the players we lose. But according to the article linked above, it depends on the first year of the lost player's new deal:

... [O]ne unrestricted free agent may be signed for each unrestricted free agent that a Final Eight team loses, but only at the same first-year salary the departed player receives elsewhere, with limitations on future growth of the deal.

In many cases that could be significantly less - and presumably it would be even more limiting in that we'd need to actually wait for a player to be lost and signed elsewhere before signing another player, by which time the pool of available players may have dwindled further.

But i'd believe your version over the version described in the article if you confirm it!

...dave

 

[joeshmo]

Joe,

You're saying that we can sign free agents to deals whose first year salary is comparable to the this year's salary of the players we lose. But according to the article linked above, it depends on the first year of the lost player's new deal:



In many cases that could be significantly less - and presumably it would be even more limiting in that we'd need to actually wait for a player to be lost and signed elsewhere before signing another player, by which time the pool of available players may have dwindled further.

But i'd believe your version over the version described in the article if you confirm it!

...dave

Nope your right, I stated it backwards.

 

[MoeIsBetter]

Do we get to count what he gets in signing bonus money as what we get to pay too? Cause he may only make 4-5 mill this year SALARY but with signing bonus, he could make 20 mill this year lol.

 

[Doug]

I feel very alone in the fact I think this team and its defensive schemes all start with Karlos Dansby,

No he isn't a ray Lewis nor ever will be but when healthy is more versitile than most will ever give him credit for.

He's at least worth one more franchise tag that would be awesome payment for him but come playoff time everyone will be saying how worth it was for possibly another Lombardi.We just need to draft his replacement in the first two rounds this year.

McClain will go top 5-10.Spikes may fall to us as Beanie did.We need Bridges & Gandy's replacement.unless he's already on our team.Lots of OT's in this draft.Look how the rams failed with the second overall pick on the OT they picked last year.
Glad we are drafting well and have great scouts and meanie Joe Schmo on our side.

 

[Duckjake]

Joe,

You're saying that we can sign free agents to deals whose first year salary is comparable to the this year's salary of the players we lose. But according to the article linked above, it depends on the first year of the lost player's new deal:



In many cases that could be significantly less - and presumably it would be even more limiting in that we'd need to actually wait for a player to be lost and signed elsewhere before signing another player, by which time the pool of available players may have dwindled further.

But i'd believe your version over the version described in the article if you confirm it!

...dave

So a team could sign a guy for a huge signing bonus but a very small first year salary just to mess with that players former team?

Also it looks like you can sign your own free agents without any limitation?