KC from Cali Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 I am not sure of all the rules about FA. I know we promised Nate that we will not franchise him, but maybe we can transition tag him.. I am not sure what the positives/negatives of doing this is.... Please inform me.. Thanks
Kelly the Dog Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 I am not sure of all the rules about FA. I know we promised Nate that we will not franchise him, but maybe we can transition tag him.. I am not sure what the positives/negatives of doing this is.... Please inform me.. Thanks It was either said or implicit in the promise to Nate that we would not tag him, be it the franchise or the transition tag. Neither is going to happen.
KC from Cali Posted February 22, 2007 Author Posted February 22, 2007 We were desperate last year I guess.. Should we transiition tag London or Kelsay?
Kelly the Dog Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 We were desperate last year I guess.. Should we transiition tag London or Kelsay? Most people, including myself, seem to think that it was totally unnecessary to make that promise to Nate, and regardless, it wasn't out of desperation that Marv made it. I wouldn't think it would be wise to transition Fletcher or Kelsay, as that would mean we have to pay them, automatically, a salary worthy of the top ten at their position in the league, and neither of them are likely worth that.
Bill from NYC Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 We were desperate last year I guess.. Should we transiition tag London or Kelsay? Not London. It would probably mean either losing him or having to match a team's long term offer. Neither make sense imo. They should franchise him for a year, then let him walk and re-gain the tag. Just that simple.
Recommended Posts