If Boston Would Have Been Tagged

[WizardOfAz]

as some on this board would have wished (either Transitional or Franchise) how much would have the one year tender on him cost the team had he not signed elsewhere?

 

[arthurracoon]

We could have removed the tag...but...it would cost us an average of the top 5 WR's salaries in the game.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by WizardOfAz
as some on this board would have wished (either Transitional or Franchise) how much would have the one year tender on him cost the team had he not signed elsewhere?

$0...because the tag would have been rescinded and we would have been out nothing. That's why people are harping on it being a bad move. It would have been a win-win situation for us. Oh well. Over and done now.

 

[40yearfan]

If we would have put the tag on Boston and then removed it, we could have said good bye to any additional FA's we might have desired.

 

[football karma]

To put the tag on him would have cost around $5 mm. Of course, as soon as you rescind it, you get the money back.

Its easy to speculate that SD would have coughed up a decent pick, but nobody knows that (except San Diego).

At the end of the day, I think the Cardinals just wanted him gone, and offered him a contract they knew he would never sign.

Given the David Boston implosion going on in SD, carping on the potential for compensation now falls under the category of nit-picking.

 

[Zeno]

I will admit I was one of the most disappointed people around here when it came to the way the Cardinals handled Boston. He hasn't exactly made a name for himself in San Diego and I expected him to produce big time with a decent QB and good RB--obviously he is a problem.

Boldin has made me forget all about Boston. We wouldn't be getting any better numbers if Boston was here and Boldin is cheaper, younger and seems to have a much better attitude.

I was wrong about the Boston thing and I was wrong about bad mouthing the Boldin pick. My ego has taken a big fall....<grin>

 

[D-Dogg]

Why in the world would you badmouth the Boldin pick at 54? I mean, seriously, this is a team in need of WR help and even without seeing what he could do, he was a good pick at 54. Nobody knew he might be the steal of the draft, but a solid 54th overall.

To be honest, I fell in love with Boldin not when training camp reports were gushing over him, or his breakout game at Detwat...no, I fell in love with him the first time I fired up Madden 2004 (day it came out) and completed my first five passes to him. He went on to become ROY for my team and I couldn't wait to see the real deal on the field, after Virtual Big Bang won me over. I have not been disappointed.

FYI--He is insane on that game...year 3 just started in my dynasty, and he is rated a 93 overall with 97 catch rating. If I could just get his speed up!!! His acceleration is great. Good job EA Sports on giving this guy the juice in the game!

 

[WisconsinCard]

Pretty sure I read that it would have cost 5.2 mil, but the cards made an offer that exceded that price (around 6 mil) and he rejected it.

 

[Rivercard]

Re: Re: If Boston Would Have Been Tagged

Originally posted by Stout
$0...because the tag would have been rescinded and we would have been out nothing. That's why people are harping on it being a bad move. It would have been a win-win situation for us. Oh well. Over and done now.

But we might not have drafted Q if we'd kept Boston. BTW, you say it would have cost us nothing but what is the deadline for removing the tag w/o having to pay top 5 $$?

 

[Stout]

Re: Re: Re: If Boston Would Have Been Tagged

Originally posted by Rivercard
But we might not have drafted Q if we'd kept Boston. BTW, you say it would have cost us nothing but what is the deadline for removing the tag w/o having to pay top 5 $$?

I'm not really sure on that...is it April? But I doubt tagging Boston would have had an impact on our draft. I think, if we tag Boston with the sole purpose of trying to get something for him, and it doesn't work in the initial early to mid-FA period (no worries-we lose nothing) then we remove the tag. At least, that's what I was hoping for, since we obviously didn't want to keep the kid.

 

[JeffGollin]

Life is Truer Than Art

While I'd be the first to admit that "Playmakers" - the fictional series about the NFL on ESPN - isn't quite in the same league as the Sopranos, The Wire etc., every new revelation about Boston's problems in SD keeps bringing to mind the dude with the drug problem on that show.

 

[WizardOfAz]

Re: Re: If Boston Would Have Been Tagged

Originally posted by Stout
$0...because the tag would have been rescinded and we would have been out nothing.

So the CBA allows a team to "tag" a player and then, once the free agent signing period is over, remove that tag? Do they owe him at least a one year tender if they do that?

 

[Stout]

Re: Re: Re: If Boston Would Have Been Tagged

Originally posted by WizardOfAz
So the CBA allows a team to "tag" a player and then, once the free agent signing period is over, remove that tag? Do they owe him at least a one year tender if they do that?

I really don't think there's a specific 'time frame' you have to wait to remove the franchise tag. You just do it. And you don't 'owe' the player anything at all-the one year tender? No way!

The Eagles did this in recent memory (2yrs ago?) They wanted to keep Jeremiah Trotter and tagged him. When it became obvious to them he would not play for them any more, especially as a franchise player, they removed the tag and he signed with the Skins.

 

[SunCityCarl]

Originally posted by Zeno
I will admit I was one of the most disappointed people around here when it came to the way the Cardinals handled Boston. He hasn't exactly made a name for himself in San Diego and I expected him to produce big time with a decent QB and good RB--obviously he is a problem.

Boldin has made me forget all about Boston. We wouldn't be getting any better numbers if Boston was here and Boldin is cheaper, younger and seems to have a much better attitude.

I was wrong about the Boston thing and I was wrong about bad mouthing the Boldin pick. My ego has taken a big fall....<grin>

Me too Zeno! I was more than PO'ed when the Cards "let him leave" & got nothing in return. Honestly a one game suspension doesn't make him a bad football player, but he doesn't sound like a teammate I'd want in my locker room..

 

[DeAnna]

Kind of makes you wonder the stuff that went on here that the coaches never bothered to discipline him about.

 

[8ndkorner]

Originally posted by DeAnna
Kind of makes you wonder the stuff that went on here that the coaches never bothered to discipline him about.

I'm not too sure of this. I understand the argument over not getting anything for him but the Cardinals put him a position to fail. A lot of folks were po'd when he left and now not so concerned because the draft is playing out.

When I say put him a position to fail I mean that they knew enough about him already (assuming locker room, missed meetings, can't play for whatever reason) and put the word out essentially saying we just don't want him, come and get him.

That's disipline in the game of life, his career and it's in the publics eye and it's happening now. Apparently they knew it was just a matter of time and in this case, not much time.

ESPN is now saying that the heat the Cardinals were taking over the draft and playing rookie receivers is now looking like the cardinals knew what they were doing. This in my eye is another example. It goes above not getting compensation for Boston. They are trying to show a young team what they expect from them. I like it and will love it if this team can do something with the players they have now.

In the big picture, if this works it may just start a very overdue trend in the NFL. I for one am very tired of these guys that feel they above the coach, the team and the law. This experiment needs to work for all of us and for the game. Those of you with kids can understand. Which heroes do you want your kids to follow?

 

[40yearfan]

Originally posted by 8ndkorner
I'm not too sure of this. I understand the argument over not getting anything for him but the Cardinals put him a position to fail. A lot of folks were po'd when he left and now not so concerned because the draft is playing out.

When I say put him a position to fail I mean that they knew enough about him already (assuming locker room, missed meetings, can't play for whatever reason) and put the word out essentially saying we just don't want him, come and get him.

That's disipline in the game of life, his career and it's in the publics eye and it's happening now. Apparently they knew it was just a matter of time and in this case, not much time.

ESPN is now saying that the heat the Cardinals were taking over the draft and playing rookie receivers is now looking like the cardinals knew what they were doing. This in my eye is another example. It goes above not getting compensation for Boston. They are trying to show a young team what they expect from them. I like it and will love it if this team can do something with the players they have now.

In the big picture, if this works it may just start a very overdue trend in the NFL. I for one am very tired of these guys that feel they above the coach, the team and the law. This experiment needs to work for all of us and for the game. Those of you with kids can understand. Which heroes do you want your kids to follow?

My sentiments exactly. Great post 8NK.