Mile High Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Interesting.... NFL | Franchise tag and transition tag prices for defensive players announced Sun, 5 Feb 2006 22:19:04 -0800 Ron Borges, of The Boston Globe, reports the NFLPA has announced the prices for franchise tagged players and transition tagged players for the 2006 season. Defensive ends will carry a franchise tag of $8,332,000 and a transition tag of $7,075,000. Linebackers will carry a franchise tag of $7,169,000 and a transition tag of $6,144,000. Cornerbacks will carry a franchise tag of $5,893,000 and a transition tag of $4,744,000. Defensive tackles will carry a franchise tag of $5,656,000 and a transition tag of $4,463,000. Safeties will carry a franchise tag of $4,109,000 and a transition tag of $3,592,000. NFL | Franchise tag and transition tag prices for offensive players announced Sun, 5 Feb 2006 22:18:42 -0800 Ron Borges, of The Boston Globe, reports the NFLPA has announced the prices for franchise tagged players and transition tagged players for the 2006 season. Quarterbacks will carry a franchise tag of $8,789,000 and a transition tag of $8,327,000. Wide receivers will carry a franchise tag of $6,172,000 and a transition tag of $5,160,000. Offensive lineman will carry a franchise tag of $6,983,000 and a transition tag of $6,391,000. Running backs will carry a franchise tag of $6,085,000 and a transition tag of $5,153,000. Tight ends will carry a franchise tag of $3,327,000 and a transition tag of $2,718,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Cornerbacks will carry a franchise tag of $5,893,000 and a transition tag of $4,744,000. 596293[/snapback] That's cheap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 What I find interesting in these numbers is the disparity at some positions as opposed to others. The way I understand it the franchise price is the average of the top 5 and the transition price is the average of the top 10. So the closer the two numbers are, the more bunched up the salaries are. The smallest difference betwen the two numbers was at quarterback - not what I would've expected - and the largest difference was at defensive end, meaning there are very few defensive ends that get paid much more than the rest. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Safeties will carry a franchise tag of $4,109,000 and a transition tag of $3,592,000. 596293[/snapback] Milloy carries a cap hit of 3, 750, 000 and Vincent 3, 225,000. You'd think with numbers like those (a bit below the average of the top 5 paid Safties) that we'd have one of the best S tandems in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I noticed that while defensive ends and defensive tackles are two seperate categories, offensive linemen are thrown together as one group. I wonder why? My only guess would be that no owner wants to lose their left tackle. The good news is that it will cost the Seahawks almost 7 million to franchise Hutchinson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I noticed that while defensive ends and defensive tackles are two seperate categories, offensive linemen are thrown together as one group. I wonder why? My only guess would be that no owner wants to lose their left tackle. The good news is that it will cost the Seahawks almost 7 million to franchise Hutchinson. 596851[/snapback] this is why it amazes me that so many people ignore the possiblity of hutch leaving seattle.........teams don't tag guards for that very reason...if he wants to test the market he will have that opportunity........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 The Seahawks are some $21M under the cap. Hutchinson has a good chance of re-signing with Seattle before he ever hits the open market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 this is why it amazes me that so many people ignore the possiblity of hutch leaving seattle.........teams don't tag guards for that very reason...if he wants to test the market he will have that opportunity........ 596873[/snapback] Tough to say. I know that they also need to sign Alexander, and that they also have other free agents, but I don't know how vital these other players are. It COULD get very tricky for Seattle, because the re-signed Jones and Hasselbeck in 05 to very large contracts. Even at that, it is tough for me to imagine the Seahawks giving up Hutch. What I DO predict is that it will cost LT money to sign Hutch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 $6.2M seems like a bargain to franchise Nate. Methinks Greggo and Jerry will try to convince Gibbs to trade their 1st for Nate. Gibbs would prolly smack the fools upside the head for wanting to part with a first for Nate. Then Joe calls up Marv and offers their 2nd plus a later round pick, or maybe Nate and one of our 3rds for their 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 $6.2M seems like a bargain to franchise Nate. Methinks Greggo and Jerry will try to convince Gibbs to trade their 1st for Nate. Gibbs would prolly smack the fools upside the head for wanting to part with a first for Nate. Then Joe calls up Marv and offers their 2nd plus a later round pick, or maybe Nate and one of our 3rds for their 1st. 596978[/snapback] I have no idea where you came up with this scenario. Nate isn't worth a first round pick from a playoff team? Of course he is! For one thing, this doesn't appear to be a big year for corners in the draft. Yes, Nate had an off year in 05, but he is still young, big, and he makes plays. Personally, I would reject an offer of the Redskins 1st for Nate as insufficient. I would rather keep him. Jmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I have no idea where you came up with this scenario. Nate isn't worth a first round pick from a playoff team? Of course he is! For one thing, this doesn't appear to be a big year for corners in the draft. Yes, Nate had an off year in 05, but he is still young, big, and he makes plays. Personally, I would reject an offer of the Redskins 1st for Nate as insufficient. I would rather keep him. Jmo. 598137[/snapback] Bill, I tend to agree with you. I think Nate will flourish in the cover-2 scheme. Where we need help is at safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts