Matt Cassel: I have a few questions about that deal...

[TwentyOne]

I really don't understand some things. And it's not really about understanding it's more about the system and the system is really what i question if i see things right.

But let me try to explain it (sorry for my bad english, i will try my best):

I remember Matt Cassel was franchise tagged by New England. To me that was very surprising but as i know about New England i really thought they had something in mind with doing that even if i couldn't understand it fully.

Now i think i understand their idea. But i really can't believe what seems to me like a error in the system. Matt signed the tender and all of a sudden New England has the rights to trade him and - what is the important thing - have no significant side effects to their salary cup (or other penalties the system offers).

Now first of all it would interesst me if Matt can keep the 14.x mills or because they traded him also his money is lost ?

But that's not the really important question for me. What i think is really important is the following: how can a team give away a 14 mill contract without having any significant impact on it's salary cup. To me that is a contradiction on how normal contracts "work" in todays nfl. I will try to explain it:

Normally there is no way that a player will sign a big contract without getting high upfront money (signing bonus). This money will also tie this player at least a few years to the team employing that player. I think first of all this is fair for both sides. But whats much more important (and what i think has this kind of ruleset in mind) it gives security to the player. Why ? Because it hinders a team to lure players with big contract that are "fakes" in the end just to trade him away to get a good pick or two out of it. I call those contracts "fake" because the money that was promised is never payed to the player. Not by the team that made the contract neither by the one who receives the player through the trade. And neither would any of those teams have a negativ impact omn their salary cap. So this would destroy all economics coming with the cap.

Now with the way the tender seems to work it's against that philosophy. This is what just happened. 14 mills went down the river for Cassel and the Chiefs never had to pay those 2 first round draft picks that are bound to a franchise tender. The money with which Cassel was bound to stay with the Patriots never counted a thing. So the worth of it is never "payed" by New England.

When i heard this scenario first i thought: this can't be true. I mean the easiest way to avoid this kind of thing is for example to let the tag "stay" for the whole year. The idea behind it would be that even if the Patriots signed Cassel to a deal the money still counted like the way a a signing bonus works. So New England would have had to eat that money in case they dealed him afterwards and of course through the deal the Chiefs should have payed those 2 first round picks because Cassel had the franchise tag on him.

Maybe i missed something here i would appreciate if you could help me out on this one.

But if not feel free to discuss


And another point is: I really don't understand why under these circumstances (given my above statements are right) we weren't a big player in this deal. This would have been a great deal for us (Cassel & a LB for s 2nd rounder). Good Backup QB who could push Romo. Don't know nothing about the LB but we could deal him away again and still made a good deal.


Mods if OT please move it to another forum. But because my last paragraph also involves our Team i thought many could be interessted in this.

 

[AbeBeta]

There is no signing bonus. the 14 mill was to be his 2009 salary. you don't take a cap hit for moving salary b/c it is not paid in advance.

 

[TwentyOne]

There is no signing bonus. the 14 mill was to be his 2009 salary. you don't take a cap hit for moving salary b/c it is not paid in advance.

That i know and it is what i explained. But i question that way of approaching the problem when it comes to tenders because imo it is against the philospophy of the cap.

 

[Tex]

Your not understanding how the franchise tag works. That is not a tender he is tied to that team. Its a contract not a tender when he signs it.

We were not a player because he has a 14 million dollar SALARY. We had no cap room to pay a backup quarterback a 14 million dollar salary. There is no signing bonus. Thats why players hate being franchised usually. They want that huge signing bonus.

Tex

 

[TwentyOne]

Your not understanding how the franchise tag works. That is not a tender he is tied to that team. Its a contract not a tender when he signs it.

Then i understand it right. And thats why i question the system .

We were not a player because he has a 14 million dollar SALARY. We had no cap room to pay a backup quarterback a 14 million dollar salary. There is no signing bonus. Thats why players hate being franchised usually. They want that huge signing bonus.

Tex

That's not right. Of course it can be that way but most of the time the team which receives the player will secure it's rigth to renegotiate a new deal. So in the end there is no 14 mill cap hit for Matt Cassel.

Players do hate the "normal salary" deals not because they could get traded. Why should they with your argumentation they would have gotten the money anyway. They hate the deal BECAUSE they going to get traded and therefore are going to negotiate a new deal and "lose" that money.
Signing bonus is money they have garanteed everything else it not.

 

[AbeBeta]

That i know and it is what i explained. But i question that way of approaching the problem when it comes to tenders because imo it is against the philospophy of the cap.

They haven't paid him anything yet. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with the "philosophy of the cap"

 

[TwentyOne]

Hmmm.

No one who understands my point of view ?

I really love to discuss those kind of contraries. I thought that "problem" would interest alot of people here.

Or maybe i did not explain well ?

But i have also a addition to my initial post:

Because teams can't negotiate new deals before the start of the FA period it weakens the negativ affects for the player because teams are not able to negotiate such "deals" even before they tendered the player. Still it doesn't solve the problem i described above.

 

[JFlgn]

Here's the deal. The whole philosophy of the franchise tag is that it was a little something to entice the owners to sign the Collective Bargaining Agreement. NFL owners were so apprehensive about free agency before it was instituted that they weren't about to go into it without a trump card.

Basically, the franchise tag is one small bone for the owners. It is the one and only way an owner can keep a player's rights if they are on their way to becoming a free agent. The cost to do that is to pay that player either the average of the top five salaries at his position, or, if the sum is higher, 110% of the player's previous salary.

With the franchise tag, the team owns the rights to the player so the team is compensated with two first round picks if another team signs the player. However, a team can trade the player for whatever it wants. Since the player's compensation is all in salary, the team isn't on the hook for any money once the player is traded.

As for Cassel's 14 mil just going down the river, that is not the case. Now he can sign a contract with the Chiefs that will likely guarantee him more than 14 million dollars. His 14 mil salary was never guaranteed so if he were injured playing for the Patriots, he would have made zero.

I guarantee you Cassel is happy he was traded. He now has a chance for a bigger, guaranteed payday. As for the Salary Cap philosophy, you're right. The franchise tag is completely different than the rest of the salary cap/free agency. But the owners would not allow free agency to be instituted without something to hang on to, thus the franchise tag.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Once a player accepts the franchise tag the team has a certain amount of time that they can negotiate a long term deal or trade them. If they sign a new contract the franchise tag is removed and the team has to fit the contract in to the cap.

It's not a way to cheat the cap. It's a way for a team to control the players options.

NE put the tag on him knowing they were going to end up trading him. The real issue was brought up in another tread. Belichek gave Pioli one heck of a deal. A 2nd for a franchise player is robbery.

 

[speedkilz88]

When making a trade its the signing bonus already paid that accelerates and hits the cap. Franchise tags don't involve any bonus money and I would think that Cassell has already agreed to a new contract with the Chiefs.

 

[big dog cowboy]

And another point is: I really don't understand why under these circumstances (given my above statements are right) we weren't a big player in this deal. This would have been a great deal for us (Cassel & a LB for s 2nd rounder). Good Backup QB who could push Romo.

The value of Kansas City's 2nd rounder and our 2nd rounder isn't the same. KC has/had the 35th pick and we have the 51st pick. So it's really apples and oranges.

You are correct he would have been a good backup to push Romo.

 

[TwentyOne]

The value of Kansas City's 2nd rounder and our 2nd rounder isn't the same. KC has/had the 35th pick and we have the 51st pick. So it's really apples and oranges.

You are correct he would have been a good backup to push Romo.

My point was more that i was shocked that we weren't highly involved in negotiations. We could have given them a 2nd and 4th or 2nd and also a third. The 2nd rounder was only meant as an example. It would have been a great deal for us anyway.

As for the Salary Cap philosophy, you're right. The franchise tag is completely different than the rest of the salary cap/free agency. But the owners would not allow free agency to be instituted without something to hang on to, thus the franchise tag.

Good explanation. Thanks alot i appreciate it. Seems like you have a little insight or do you just remember those things when FA started ?

It's not a way to cheat the cap. It's a way for a team to control the players options.

Maybe i wasn't exact in my explanation to put out my point. I didn't meant to say that there is a way to cheat the cap. And i have to say i see it the same way you do, in this case this is not a way to cheat it, just because the team has to free up the money for franchising the player.

My point was more about the philosophy of the whole CBA. The CBA is about teams AND players. About franchises and their employees. It wants to give security to both sides.

Security in a business means two things:

a) the money you are going to get is guaranteed and as a for this reason
b) your employment has to be guaranteed.

Now the CBA IMO implements that through the salary cap and through signing bonuses that will bound a player to a team. Signing bonus and only the SB is guaranteed money for the player. But because most SBs are bigger and contracts are longer so the normal salary in the first years of the contract becomes guaranteed also. Just because the team can't afford a high impact on the salary cap in one year just by cutting or trading a player just signed.

Now through that simple mechanism this gives security to the player. The team has security also just because the player is bound through this contract to the team.

Now look at that timeframe between hanging a FT on a player and really signing him to a contract. In that time all power is with the team. The player has virtually no security. The team franchises him but the money they have to pay him has no meaning. Just because it has no negativ impact for them.

So in this special case there is no security at all for players. Just like before the CBA. I really wondered why the players association signed that clause.

But i like the explanation by JFlgn. It sounds logical.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

That 14 million isn't gone yet. Until KC gives him a new deal he's on their books, at this point, for 14 million this year. It's not up front but without a new deal in place that is what they'll be paying him to play this season.

Of course we all know they'll give him a new deal, otherwise they'd have never traded for him, but if for some reason they didn't then KC, by trading for him, has agreed to give him 14 million for this season.

I'm actually more interested in the rumors out there that the Buccs offered more, in trade compensation, to get him to Tampa, rumored so that they could then trade him to Denver for Cutler, and the Patriots didn't take the offer (Which from what I read was a 1st and a 3rd for him) and instead sent him to KC, along with Mike for a mere 2nd rounder.

The Hoodie must have been feeling awfully generous on that day or something.

 

[speedkilz88]

Cassell was only going to sign a new contract with a team willing to make him a starter and pay him as a starter. There was also no way Jerry gives up our 2nd and more just for a backup qb.

 

[MONT17]

its simple... the Cowboys are fast approaching 20 years without a playoff win, thats why they had no movement on that front. the Pats are the best organization in sports and Belichek threw Pioli a bone for not going to a team in the division unlike the smartest guy in cleveland! its called the Network... Pioli didnt break the code and he was rewarded. besides the entire organization knew Cassels real value.


as for the tag... if you dont understand why they did it, buy Madden or play fantasy football... much easier to keep up!

 

[WarC]

With a personality like Belicheck you gotta think that he's sitting back thinking of the possibility of playing a Cassel-led Chiefs team in the playoffs, and actually feeding off the prospect of that rivalry. Thrill of competition.