This seems like a nice compromise. The NFLPA, the owners, the Ravens, and Terrell Suggs’s agent have all come to an agreement creating a new position for franchise tags which will cover hybrid 3-4 players like Suggs. He’s going to be franchised as a “defensive end-linebacker” and the tender will now be worth the average between the official tender amounts for the two positions, roughly $8.5 million instead of $8.1 million (linebacker) or $8.9 million (defensive end).
posted
5-13-2008 at 8:29 PM by
Aaron Schatz
||
Extra Points
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Your names and email address are required --- it's part of an effort to reduce comment spam -- but your email address won't be displayed.
If you create a comment, but it doesn't display, that's probably because it didn't pass through our spam filter (make any references to erectile dysfunction medication?), and is living in Comment Limbo Land. Please don't try to post it 14 more times -- try again once, and if it doesn't go through, then send an email to webmaster-at-footballoutsiders.com and let us know. Mentions of ED drugs, poker games, and anything you get email spam about will likely cause your comment to be held for moderation.
Please respect our discussion threads by refraining from the following:
- comments about politics
- ad hominem attacks on other commenters
- posts designed to promote another website
- thread-hijacking, particularly by turning threads that are not about Tom Brady or Peyton Manning into arguments about Brady vs. Manning
- discussing Spygate except in the Irrational Spygate Argument Thread.
Such comments may be deleted.
If you want to reference a link, put it in the URI field (go Rams!). Please don't put the 'less than' sign in the comment text -- it's seen as the beginning of an HTML tag, and that just messes everything up.
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Wow, this is so… sensible.
Now if only they can get these guys working on the CBA…
:: Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabbadu — 5/13/2008 @ 8:47 pm
Sensible, and yet it seems odd that he fought so hard for a 5% difference in his ridiculously high salary. 8 million+…
:: Kiril Savino — 5/13/2008 @ 9:08 pm
Sensible, and yet it seems odd that he fought so hard for a 5% difference in his ridiculously high salary.
Why not fight it? I understand he makes a lot of money any way, but regardless of that, we are still talking about the difference of almost a million dollars here.
And it’s not like he was fighting “hard” for this, either. His agent is going to get the same percentage cut anyway, and it’s not costing him a dime to fight this with the league. So why not do it? All he had to do was tell his agent to pursue it and call him back with the results. And in this case, the agent calls back and tells him he got him an extra $400,000.00 in cash. Easy as that.
Why would any reasonable person not do that?
:: PaulH — 5/13/2008 @ 9:15 pm
I completely agree. As someone who would have to work for A WHILE to earn 400K, I applaud his ability to gain that much extra in a couple of months, especially with the legendarily short career arc of most football players.
:: Bob in Jax — 5/13/2008 @ 10:00 pm
I know when Shawne Merriman was at Maryland he was designated a “Leo,” which stands for linebacker-end-option. That seems to be what the new franchise designation is describing.
:: The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly (aka SJM) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:33 pm
All hail the new age of civility and reason! If only all negotiations could be resolved in such logical, pareto optimal ways.
:: Bobman — 5/13/2008 @ 11:20 pm
I don’t get how this is going to work. I’d guess that Suggs’ money is going to be based on some combination of the tender for LBs and the tender for DEs, rather than being based on the salaries of the highest paid hybrid DE/LBs, right? So hybrid DE/LB will not really be a full “new position” that works the same way as other positions for franchise tags.
And how are these rules going to apply if one of the highest paid players is a hybrid? Say that Suggs signs a new long-term deal that would make him one of the 5 highest paid linebackers in the NFL. Then would his salary count towards the official tender amount for linebackers? Or would it not, because Suggs has a different position - hybrid DE/LB? Or will there have to be another awkward compromise, with him getting partially counted in some way?
:: Dan — 5/13/2008 @ 11:31 pm
6 - [nitpick] all three outcomes (8.1, 8.5, and 8.9 million salary) would have been pareto optimal, since the conditions for a pareto optimal solution is simply that no party can be made better off without another being made worse off. Pareto optimality has nothing to do with distribution of wealth. [/nitpick]
:: Jimbohead — 5/13/2008 @ 11:52 pm
Dang… there goes my cap-cutting franchise tag for Tommie Harris (P).
:: Lovie Smith — 5/14/2008 @ 12:17 am
Not only is 400k a lot of money, but every extra penny he makes this year gives him more leverage next year, and over a multi-year deal, that could be a difference of millions. And as for the objection that none of these people need any more than the millions they’re making, remember that the more decent ones among them give a lot of it to charity. And think what difference $400k can make in a community!
:: Some Dude — 5/14/2008 @ 12:35 am
I don’t get how this is going to work. I’d guess that Suggs’ money is going to be based on some combination of the tender for LBs and the tender for DEs, rather than being based on the salaries of the highest paid hybrid DE/LBs, right? So hybrid DE/LB will not really be a full “new position” that works the same way as other positions for franchise tags.
I think it is done simply by taking the tender for the defensive end and the linebacker and then dividing by two. For example, if the tender for the defensive end is 10 million, and for the linebacker is 6 million, the DE / LB would get 8 million. I’m not sure if that is how it will work — to my knowledge, no official clarification has been given — but I believe that will be the case.
:: PaulH — 5/14/2008 @ 1:22 am
As #7 mentions, the it isn’t clear how they are going to handle the reverse situation: if Suggs is a DE-LB hybrid what happens if he gets some ungodly large contract in a year’s time? Does it raise the franschise tag salary for LBs only, for LBs and DEs, for DE-LB hybrids only?
My best guess is that since this new position only exists for franchise tags, he is still a linebacker, and so his salary (if among the top five in the league) only changes the franchise tag salary for linebackers, with no effect on that for DEs. And the franchsie price tag for the hybrid position remains the average of the two.
I wonder if there is a danger of this essentially driving up LB average salaries by establishing a higher salary base for DE-LB hybrids, but which is then factored in for the ‘average LB salary’ thinking.
:: phill — 5/14/2008 @ 3:17 am
I’m looking forward to the Punter/QB designation the Bears try to put on Rexy.
:: James, London — 5/14/2008 @ 4:15 am
If it were up to me, I would have him count as both a linebacker and a defensive end. I think that would be the most fair approach.
:: Tom D — 5/14/2008 @ 4:20 am
I’m not sure I like the way this is heading. There are a lot of players in the league who play both guard and tackle, center and guard, defensive end and defensive tackle, fullback and tight end, and cornerback and safety during the course of the year.
I’d have preferred they kept it tidy. Where did you line up the majority of plays over the two previous years? That’s your position for tag purposes.
:: dryheat — 5/14/2008 @ 7:41 am
Sounds like they need to differentiate Suggs and other DEs who can stand up as some separate position in the game, not just for franchise tag purposes.
Compromise was probably a good idea here, but what if Suggs and his agent were to argue that due to the relative scarcity of franchise caliber players who can play this position, that he should be making more than your average franchise linebacker? The demand for his services is tempered by the limited number of teams running the style of defense suited to him, but there is no denying the scarcity of his skill set.
:: Joe T. — 5/14/2008 @ 9:00 am
Half end, half backer, half man…
It is Endbackerman!
:: Theo, Netherlands — 5/14/2008 @ 9:35 am
Re 16:
“what if Suggs and his agent were to argue that due to the relative scarcity of franchise caliber players who can play this position, that he should be making more than your average franchise linebacker”
What player doesn’t think that?
If Suggs is unhappy he can always hold out, but I doubt the NFL is going to create a special “Terrell Suggs position tag” that is given some arbitrary value.
:: Tom D — 5/14/2008 @ 9:42 am
#17 - Don’t you mean… Back-End Man!
I doubt the franchise tag will be with us for much longer, anyway. I was surprised it survied the last CBA.
:: Independent George — 5/14/2008 @ 10:25 am
RE#16, #18 - surely then he’d get the average of the 5 highest paid Terrell Suggs in the league, which would mean he’d be paid nothing as there’s no Terrell Suggs in the league with a contract.
:: Podge — 5/14/2008 @ 11:02 am
I’m still disappointed that Dallas Clark didn’t use Aaron as an expert witness to prove that he should be designated a wide receiver, not a tight end, for the purposes of his franchise player designation.
:: Bad Doctor — 5/14/2008 @ 11:34 am
Dan (7):
Your scenario is interesting. There’s two interesting scenarios if Suggs gets a huge contract–how it could impact other DE/OLB’s, and how it could impact pure DE’s and pure LB’s. (Silly side note: can we just call them DEOLB’s?… like in the Bannana barge song? “DEOLB! Me say DEOLB! Daylight come and me wanna go home! OK, sorry for the silliness).
In the first case, the DEOLB franchise number is now effectively (1/10)*(X1 + X2 + … + X5 + Y1 + Y2 + … + Y5), where Xi and Yi are the salaries for the ith best paid DE and LB respectively. The number doesn’t change if the DEOLB salary is an X or a Y, but it does change if considering it an X or a Y changes the other salary that gets kicked out of the top 5. Say you have LB’s making 10, 9, 3, 2, and 1, and DE’s making 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, and a DEOLB making 8. If you count him as a DE, then the DEOLB number becomes 6.3, but if you count him as a LB, then the number becomes 6.9, because as a DE he kicks a 7 out of the calculation with his 8, but as a LB he kicks a 1 out with his 8.
The second scenario is the one I think dan and phil were referring to. How does he affect the franchise number for DE’s and LB’s if he has a top 5 salary for either, or both positions?
My solution would be to make it depend on the numbers. If his salary is in the top 5 for DE’s, count him as a DE when determining the DE and DEOLB franchise numbers. If his salary is in the top 5 for LB’s, count him as a LB for determining the LB and DEOLB number. If he qualifies in the top 5 for both, count him as both, so he would drive up both the DE and the LB, and the DEOLB franchise number.
Of course, this is kind of player-friendly for the owners to buy…
:: MJK — 5/14/2008 @ 12:07 pm
Actually, while I think this compromise makes a great deal of sense, if I was God for a day here’s what I would do:
I would get rid of the very detailed franchise differences and create fewer, coarser categories for dividing up players to get franchise numbers based on skill sets:
* “Rushers” - players that line up on or within 2 yards of the LOS and rush the passer more than 50% of their snaps. This will include pretty much all D-linemen, and some 3-4 OLB’s.
* “Off-the-line coverage players” - players that line up on or within 2 yards of the LOS and drop into coverage more than 50% of the time. This will include some 3-4 OLB’s, a very few DE’s, and most CB’s.
* “Second Row Defenders” - players that line up 3-8 yards or so of the LOS on more than 50% of their snaps. This will include all 4-3 LB’s, all 3-4 ILB’s, some zone-type CB’s, and a few safeties like Rodney Harrison that essentially play hybrid S/LB.
* “Safeties” - any player that lines up more than about 8 yards off the LOS more than 50% of the time. This would include most safeties.
That way, you’re covered if the game evolves and some team comes up with a defensive concept where one of their “CBs” blitzes on 90% of their downs, while a “DE” drops into coverage, or if someone revives the “46″ defense and some safety starts claiming he should really be paid like a LB.
Actually, if I was really God for a day, I’d probably do completely different things that have nothing to do with football, but you get the idea…
:: MJK — 5/14/2008 @ 12:15 pm
If George Blanda had been franchised, would they average quarterbacks and kickers? Or would they weight it according how much he played at each position?
I mean, do you average Devin Hester with return guys and receivers, but Najeh Davenport (ok, stop laughing!) as a returner, a special teams all-purpose and a running back?
This could get out of hand easily.
:: Israel — 5/14/2008 @ 12:54 pm
PS - And Max Starks’ transition tag should include a bit of tight end money too.
:: Israel — 5/14/2008 @ 12:55 pm
Re 24:
There is no special team position catagory, and Devin Hester is listed as a running back on the Bears roster (so he could keep his 23), so if they wanted to franchise him it would have to be under running back. How’s that for strange?
:: Tom D — 5/14/2008 @ 1:45 pm
I think Dan (post #7) raises a basic methodological problem with the hybrid approach. Under that approach, it becomes unclear how to determine whether Suggs’s salary counts as that of a LB or of a DE for purposes of calculating subsequent franchise tag numbers.
For those mathematically inclined, think of the present categories as somwhat analogous to invariant subspaces under the action of an operator (which in turn is analogous to the operation of determining the franchise player’s salary and the “new” franchise average for that positon). The problem here is that the hybrid LB-DE “category” is not invariant under the operation of “application of the franchise tag,” unless we define a new position–but that simply redefines the problem without solving it. In other words, there would then be other players at the boundary between LB and LB-DE, and between DE and LB-DE, who would then challenge their classifications.
:: smashmouth football — 5/14/2008 @ 2:14 pm
#8 Jimbohead, I may have had poor explanations back in grad school, but aren’t two of the measures that (1) no participant was made worse off and (2) all or most are better off?
Using those as the criteria, it worked for me. Suggs’s alternatives were LB money or a long hold out, acrimony, trade, etc. So he’s better off playing and with money above an LB tender but not “best” off which would have been Freeney money.
Likewise, the Ravens still have their man (a holdout would have been worse) at a reasonable price (Freeney money would have been worse). Holding firm at LB money, in my view, would have forced a holdout/trade/acrimony, etc. So they’re both a little better off than the potential outcomes, but nobody got 100% ofwhat they could have demanded, and nobody loses.
Using your explanation, I guess I see $8.1M making both sides worse off–Suggs purely financially and Ravens because of the potential for losing him increasing, a holdout, acrimony. $8.9M would be great for Suggs for one year, but may have poisoned future negotiations (worse for both long term). I see the middle ground as the only one without a likely negative outcome.
:: Bobman — 5/14/2008 @ 2:20 pm
28 - (yay for econ threadjacks) I’m probably less educated in this than you are, but when have I ever backed down from a bad idea? It looks like wikipedia backs me up definitionally at least (link in the name).
“Given a set of alternative allocations of, say, goods or income for a set of individuals, a movement from one allocation to another that can make at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is Pareto efficient or Pareto optimal when no further Pareto improvements can be made.”
and
“A common criticism of a state of Pareto efficiency is that it does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources, as it may lead to unjust and inefficient inequities.”
My understanding is that football organizations are relatively unresponsive to concerns about acrimony, and i don’t think anyone expected Suggs would hold out through training camp for an 800k raise. And it doesn’t seem like the amount of venom spewed in the media (a fine measure of sensed acrimony) correlates highly to whether someone gets re-signed (see Lance Briggs).
Thats why, personally, I see a purely monetary measurement to be sufficient to describe the overall welfare of each party. Hence, a change to any of these salary levels is not necessarily a pareto improvement. I guess it comes down to how much, if at all, the Ravens organization values good player-management relations.
:: Jimbohead — 5/14/2008 @ 3:23 pm
Terrell Suggs is not worth 8.5 million, the Ravens should pull the tender out from under him.
:: Zack Attack — 5/14/2008 @ 7:15 pm
I know I mentioned this before, when this issue first came up, so I won’t harp on it too much. But why not eliminate position entirely and just make it so the franchised player gets the average of say, the top ten players period (regardless of position)? This solves the problem of position as we don’t have to worry about what position a player “really” plays.
I can’t imagine the players would complain, as it means they either don’t get franchised (which they tend not to appreciate), or they get a lot of money if they do. I imagine the owners wouldn’t like it though.
Now, I suppose one could argue “but BDC, no kicker or right guard or strong safety or whatever is worth that much money”, and my response to that is well then they aren’t really a franchise player, now are they?
I guess for me, I liked the original idea of the franchise designation. Players could become free agents, but it was also recognized that some players were simply too important to let go. Except that isn’t how it is used these days.
:: BDC — 5/14/2008 @ 10:23 pm
Jimbohead,
Thanks. The first section in your post more or less lines up with my understanding (somebody better off and nobody worse off) but my understanding of the actual situation seems to be what was inacccurate. I was probably thinking of the Lance “I will never play another down for you jerks” Briggs situation in Chicago last year.
Clearly a team losing/alienating a popular player is bad in the locker room, on the field, and in the media. (that would have beenthe Ravens “worse off” scenario in my mind) But that does not seem to have been the case in Baltimore. And really for Suggs, he had a baseline of $8.1M and that was not going to go DOWN (unless he held out, which was pretty far-fetched), so he really had no worse-off scenario (but a load of better-off ones).
Still, though, it’s been fun chatting.
:: Bobman — 5/14/2008 @ 11:47 pm
But BDC, the tag is often just a useful tool to get around some arbitrary dates in the NFL calendar. Neither the team nor the player sees it as anything other than that maybe half the time. (admittedly, maybe less)
Case in point, Indy and Dallas Clark a couple months ago. They were negotiating and knew they’d make him the richest TE in the land–he’s very valuable to their O (but not worth $12M a year or whatever the average of the top players regardless of position are worth).
But the deal wasn’t done by the NFL deadline, so they franchised him to protect their position, and 2 days later he had a record contract. In that case it was like a bridge loan–nobody really cares about the terms because it’s for such a short time. It’s a useful tool. My impression is that that scenario happens a handful of times each season–maybe not within two days, but inside a couple months. So if the NFL implemented your suggestion, they should also probably create a temporary “30 day off the market” mechanism for those deals that aren’t ironed out in time.
:: Bobman — 5/14/2008 @ 11:55 pm
Re 33:
Please understand, I wasn’t suggesting this would ever actually happen (I know it won’t), not that it is even good for the NFL (I am not sure if it is or isn’t). I guess it was more of a, “personally, this is what I would like to see”, kind of thing. To me, it seems silly when I see someone like a kicker get franchised, and then paid some small amount of money (compared to what a true franchise player would make). I mean really, a kicker is a franchise player? Or a TE? Like I said, it is really just a personal peeve of mine, and of course my suggestion would eliminate it.
One thing though that does actually matter. I was under the impression that a player who was franchised was unable to negotiate a new contract until a certain point? Or is that only if he signs it? How, for instance, in the Dallas Clark situation, did that work out? And how did franchising him help? I ask this in the sense of how the franchise actually works, not how I wish it worked :)
:: BDC — 5/15/2008 @ 12:48 am
BDC, It kept Clark off the market; i.e. nobody else could negotiate with him. Now clearly the team and his agent were 95% along in negotiations, so it’s pretty unlikely anybdy would have wooed him away at that point.
One way to look at it is “franchise player this year” or “our single most important guy whose contract is up.” Let’s face it, Manning is the Colts’ franchise player every year, but since he’s usually locked up for 5-7 year stretches, the rules allow them to look for “this year’s franchise guy.”
In other news, I think that when the FO staff is working feverishly on the book in the offseason, they should turn XP over to a handful of responsible charters/posters. Otherwise we’d miss the great Kenny Wright story (link at my name). I knew he was run down by cops and arrested. Bad enough for a pro athlete.
What I did NOT know was that he was allegedly buying/selling 2 ounces of weed IN THE POLICE DEPT PARKING LOT!!! I’m gonna conduct a little test with my 7, 5 & 3 year-old sons tonight. I’ll ask the best place to commit a crime–next to a police car, or far away from the cops. Pretty sure they’ll all start with, “You shouldn’t do it anywhere,” but conclude, “AWAY from the cops.” Sheesh! How did someone this dumb manage to survive 30 years?
:: Bobman — 5/15/2008 @ 1:34 pm
Sensible, and yet it seems odd that he fought so hard for a 5% difference in his ridiculously high salary. 8 million+…
He didn’t fight any harder than the Ravens did, and $400,000 is probably worth more to Suggs than the team.
:: Kevin11 — 5/15/2008 @ 3:25 pm
re: 30
This would be correct. The Ravens should let him walk. Then, next year the Cardinals can bring him home to where he belongs- Arizona.
A guy like him in the missing piece to the Cardinals defense.
I think the Cardinals will be 9-7 or 10-6 in 2008 and with a guy like Terrell Suggs on board in 2009 this team can make a Super Bowl run.
:: CardinalWayne — 5/15/2008 @ 4:56 pm
People must have their heads up their asses if they think he belongs anywhere else but K.C. He’d finally reach his full potential under the watchful eye of Herm Edwards. I could see him putting up career stats nearly as good as Derrick Thomas. Of course he wont match DT, due to the wasted Baltimore years. I’ve read he’s a religious man, he could lead the Chiefs in prayer at the pre-game breakfast. With god on our side we have a much better shot at bringing the Lombardi trophy home to Arrowhead. What a defense we’ll have in 09 with Suggs and Dorsey! I’m going to be so pumped in 2 years. This year we’re going to weed out the men from the boys. We can use this year to see who can perform up to Croyle’s standards. Croyle will probably win team MVP and then we can just continue to build around him for 09 with the additions of Suggs and Chad Johnson.
:: ArrowheadAndy — 5/15/2008 @ 5:08 pm
re:39
Why would the Chiefs get Chad Johnson?
Sorry, buddy, but the Cardinals will be the best team sporting the color red for the foreseeable future.
:: CardinalWayne — 5/15/2008 @ 5:30 pm
re38
You are right Chiefs stink in 2008. But you are wrong about 2009. Chiefs going to be bad for long time. bad coach, bad mangement, bad everything.
quarterbacks sucks and that is never good for a team trying to win.
Chad Johnson and T Suggs not going to Chiefs.
T Suggs would be good fit for Raiders. More likely he go there than KC. Better team, better weather and better defense. Suggs fits in Raiders 4-3 3-4 hybrid defense.
Also Croyle is a bad qback. Will find out sooin he can’t cut it as starter in NFl. Maybe in Arena Football he could.
Croyle would b e 3rd string Qb if he play for Raiders.
:: Raiderjoe — 5/15/2008 @ 7:38 pm
Who turned Ozzy Osbourne onto Footballoutsiders.com?
:: Parker W. — 5/15/2008 @ 8:11 pm
Re 35: I was under the impression that he was tagged as a non exclusive franchise player which means other teams could negotiate with him? So I don’t see how that helps anyone. I admit, the various designations confuse me so perhaps I have this one all wrong.
:: BDC — 5/15/2008 @ 11:19 pm
Re 35: I was under the impression that he was tagged as a non exclusive franchise player which means other teams could negotiate with him? So I don’t see how that helps anyone.
Other teams can negotiate with players who are tagged with the non exclusive franchise designation, but if they sign that player, they have to give the other team 2 first round picks. So, unless someone really wanted Dallas Clark, the Colts could safely assume he wouldn’t be taken by any other team.
:: Alex — 5/16/2008 @ 2:52 pm
#15 - Tackle, guard and center all fall under the “offensive line” designation when it comes to franchise tags. Halfbacks and fullbacks share the same designation (”Running back”) too.
:: langsty — 5/18/2008 @ 6:03 am