PDA

View Full Version : Sirius: Chargers put franchise tag on Sproles


montrose
02-18-2009, 02:47 PM
Just reported.

bronco militia
02-18-2009, 02:49 PM
CHARGERS TAG SPROLES
Posted by Mike Florio on February 18, 2009, 5:25 p.m. EST
The San Diego Chargers have applied the franchise tag to running back Darren Sproles, according to Adam Schefter of NFL Network.

Though Schefter characterizes the move as the biggest surprise of the month, we respectfully disagree. There’s no way that quietly embattled G.M. A.J. Smith could have afforded allowing Sproles to become the next budding offensive star to walk away without immediate compensation.

Three years ago, it was Drew Brees, the 2008 AP offensive player of the year. Last year, it was Michael Turner, an MVP finalist in his first season with the Falcons. Though the Chargers might end up trading Sproles to a new team, they’ll at least get something of value in return.

Or maybe they’ll keep him around. He’s likely not sufficiently durable to be an every-down back. If they pair him with LaDainian Tomlinson, perhaps the one-two punch can fuel the offense without leaving either player worn down for the postseason.

SouthStndJunkie
02-18-2009, 02:52 PM
Smart move.

That One Guy
02-18-2009, 02:56 PM
Wow... I was a fan of Sproles before he blew up but franchise money is a bit high...

GreatBronco16
02-18-2009, 02:58 PM
That is a ton of money for a backup RB. Unless the dolts plan on getting rid of LT.

elsid13
02-18-2009, 02:58 PM
So a 3rd down back is now worth a franchise tag?

Inkana7
02-18-2009, 03:01 PM
If I'm not mistaken, this means he'll probably be making more this season than LT.

Gcver2ver3
02-18-2009, 03:02 PM
i was banking on them not doing this...

i just couldnt envision a 3rd down back being given top 5 RB cash, not even for just 1 season...

oh well, i guess i can officially scratch him off my FA wish list...

broncofan2438
02-18-2009, 03:25 PM
So what does that do to LT?

Popcorn Sutton
02-18-2009, 03:32 PM
That's almost half of what they have in cap space. There has to be some restructure/cuts coming since they reported they are trying to work out a long term deal with Phylis Rivers.

DBroncos4life
02-18-2009, 03:37 PM
Yes, now its looking like they will dump LT. Come to Denver LT come to Denver. :)

Flex Gunmetal
02-18-2009, 03:40 PM
Yes, now its looking like they will dump LT. Come to Denver LT come to Denver. :)

That would be so unbelievably strange.

DBroncos4life
02-18-2009, 03:45 PM
That would be so unbelievably strange.

He will get his ring with us LOL:thumbsup:

cutthemdown
02-18-2009, 03:45 PM
so what is the avg per yr for RBS franchised this yr? If it's 7 million or more Sproles should quickly sign the tender and take the guaranteed money.

He's a little small IMO to really make a ton in the NFL for a lot of yrs. He would be foolish to wait around, sign the tender and get the money, worry about FA next yr.

With LT on team he won't have to carry ball a ton, he will still be fresh.

cutthemdown
02-18-2009, 03:48 PM
Ok It's 6.6 million for tagged Rbs this yr. If I was Sproles I would be happy with that. Sign the tender take the money.

worm
02-18-2009, 03:49 PM
LT in Denver would be worth the price of admission.

broncofan2438
02-18-2009, 03:56 PM
LT in Denver would be worth the price of admission.

Will never happen

Xenos
02-18-2009, 03:57 PM
That is a ton of money for a backup RB. Unless the dolts plan on getting rid of LT.
He's either going to sign a long term deal or get traded. I don't think we'll actually pay the money for the franchise tag.

Broncojef
02-18-2009, 03:59 PM
Yes, now its looking like they will dump LT. Come to Denver LT come to Denver. :)

Oh God no! I would never, ever cheer for Mr. Class. He plays the bench position so well during meaningful games someone will go after him no doubt.

SoDak Bronco
02-18-2009, 04:02 PM
mauauhauhah they shouldve tagged turner last year...A year late AJ dumbass

montrose
02-18-2009, 04:09 PM
Will never happen

If Shanny were still here it would've been a possibility. The two are quite endeared to one another and you know Mike would've loved the chance to put LT in his system.

Karenin
02-18-2009, 04:11 PM
Yes, now its looking like they will dump LT. Come to Denver LT come to Denver. :)

**** no. What do people find so hard to understand about the fact that LT is a league average RB now and is only going to get worse? And he's going to want to get a new contract with 60 million guaranteed... Jesus. Whichever team signs him next will be hamstrung for the next 6 years, you should be praying he doesn't sign here.

DBroncos4life
02-18-2009, 04:12 PM
If Shanny were still here it would've been a possibility. The two are quite endeared to one another and you know Mike would've loved the chance to put LT in his system.

You don't think Turner would love to have him in our system? AFC west players love to stay in the division so I wouldn't rule it out if he was cut.

Xenos
02-18-2009, 04:14 PM
mauauhauhah they shouldve tagged turner last year...A year late AJ dumbass
They did tag Turner last year. But everyone and their mother knew we weren't going to sign him to a long term deal. So in the end, we ended up releasing him from the tag. We'll get a comp pick for him this draft though.

DBroncos4life
02-18-2009, 04:16 PM
**** no. What do people find so hard to understand about the fact that LT is a league average RB now and is only going to get worse? And he's going to want to get a new contract with 60 million guaranteed... Jesus. Whichever team signs him next will be hamstrung for the next 6 years, you should be praying he doesn't sign here.

blah blah blah no one is going to pay him near that much. NOT ONE NFL TEAM. He knows whats up he knows that his career is coming to a close. You turn 30 in the NFL and its about the end. As I said before he has a good year left in him. As far as him being a AVG back in the NFL. I will take his 1200 rushing yards 11tds and whatever he does out of the backfield catching for a year.

Jens1893
02-18-2009, 04:19 PM
You know something is wrong with the CBA when teams can afford to tag marginal players like Matt Cassell and a 5-6 midget like Darren Sproles.

boltaneer
02-18-2009, 04:26 PM
I called this back in December.

I think this eventually leads to a new contract for Sproles and LT.

cutthemdown
02-18-2009, 04:29 PM
mauauhauhah they shouldve tagged turner last year...A year late AJ dumbass

if they would have tagged Turner again, for 2nd yr in a row, you have to pay top 5% of all contracts not just the Rbs. That's qb territory and wuld require like 10 million for a yr or more.

To keep Turner they should have signed him to a long term deal before he hit market again. Stupid Chargers have let Brees, Turner both walk when they could have played cards differently and traded them for picks.

And still no Superbowl appearance for this group.

Man I bet if Chargers knew then what they know now things would be different.

Same with Raiders taking Huff and Russell when they could have had Cutler and Fitz. Broncos dodged a bullet with that one.

cutthemdown
02-18-2009, 04:31 PM
I called this back in December.

I think this eventually leads to a new contract for Sproles and LT.

Best case scenario.

The thing is Sproles not as good as Turner, and when you tag someone you are saying they are worth big money.

If Chargers were going to pay 2 backs they should have kept Turner. Big time front office misplay keeping Turner for another yr for nothing when you could have gotten a pick for him.

orange crusher
02-18-2009, 04:51 PM
Who said Denver's defense didn't do anything right last year? They made Sproles look like a franchise back.

IMO, the best move Sproles could make is to sign on the dotted line right away.

cutthemdown
02-18-2009, 04:52 PM
Who said Denver's defense didn't do anything right last year? They made Sproles look like a franchise back.

IMO, the best move Sproles could make is to sign on the dotted line right away.

yep spend a yr making 7 million and being LT's bkup change of pace. Thats a good amount to make for one yr in the NFL.

TheReverend
02-18-2009, 04:52 PM
if they would have tagged Turner again, for 2nd yr in a row, you have to pay top 5% of all contracts not just the Rbs. That's qb territory and wuld require like 10 million for a yr or more.

To keep Turner they should have signed him to a long term deal before he hit market again. Stupid Chargers have let Brees, Turner both walk when they could have played cards differently and traded them for picks.

And still no Superbowl appearance for this group.

Man I bet if Chargers knew then what they know now things would be different.

Same with Raiders taking Huff and Russell when they could have had Cutler and Fitz. Broncos dodged a bullet with that one.

Wasn't he an RFA the year before?

???

boltaneer
02-18-2009, 04:53 PM
Best case scenario.

The thing is Sproles not as good as Turner, and when you tag someone you are saying they are worth big money.

If Chargers were going to pay 2 backs they should have kept Turner. Big time front office misplay keeping Turner for another yr for nothing when you could have gotten a pick for him.

Well, the story is that no one would give up what they wanted for Turner in a trade.

It's pretty much a given that they'll get a 3rd round comp pick for him so they didn't miss out on too much because the best offer I read about was a 2nd from Tennessee.

snowspot66
02-18-2009, 05:00 PM
I'd take a second over a comp third any day (who wouldn't?). They played their cards wrong.

boltaneer
02-18-2009, 05:01 PM
if they would have tagged Turner again, for 2nd yr in a row, you have to pay top 5% of all contracts not just the Rbs. That's qb territory and wuld require like 10 million for a yr or more.

To keep Turner they should have signed him to a long term deal before he hit market again. Stupid Chargers have let Brees, Turner both walk when they could have played cards differently and traded them for picks.

And still no Superbowl appearance for this group.

Man I bet if Chargers knew then what they know now things would be different.

Same with Raiders taking Huff and Russell when they could have had Cutler and Fitz. Broncos dodged a bullet with that one.

The difference between Sproles and Turner is that everyone viewed Turner as a franchise type of back.

Franchising either one of them carries a big risk if they can't trade them because they have LT and then they're stuck with a $6+ million backup RB.

But the difference between this year and last year is that there weren't any huge concerns with LT's health last year where there is now so that gives the tag on Sproles more legitimacy this year. Last year, everyone knew Turner wouldn't sign a long term deal in San Diego because he and everyone else knew he could be a starter anywhere else. Teams just don't view Sproles as that type of back so I see this tactic as a way to keep him from hitting free agency and re-signing with the team.

I'll be shocked if he plays this year for the tag. He'll have a new contract.

cutthemdown
02-18-2009, 05:05 PM
Wasn't he an RFA the year before?

???

I thought Turner played one yr after being tagged, if he was able to be tagged last yr instead of walking you would think Chargers would have done that. I'm pretty sure Chargers already used the franchise tag on him once, tried to trade him, didn't get what they thought was value, so they kept him and let him walk the next yr.

I could be wrong though any Charger fans know for sure what the deal was.

If he wasn't already tagged the previous yr Chargers should have tagged him last yr, he was a coveted FA, someone would have given you a trade for him.

boltaneer
02-18-2009, 05:07 PM
I'd take a second over a comp third any day (who wouldn't?). They played their cards wrong.

The real reason he was kept was for insurance if LT got hurt and it did happen. Unfortunately, Turner didn't really impress in the AFC Championship game so it backfired in that manner.

Had Turner blew up the Patriots and helped the team to the Super Bowl, everyone would be praising the Bolts for making such a smart move on Turner. It's easy to second guess that move now.

Turner was one of my favorite players when he was here and I was happy that they were able to keep him for one more year. I wish they had some way to re-sign him but it just wasn't a possibility with the way things worked out.

boltaneer
02-18-2009, 05:08 PM
I thought Turner played one yr after being tagged, if he was able to be tagged last yr instead of walking you would think Chargers would have done that. I'm pretty sure Chargers already used the franchise tag on him once, tried to trade him, didn't get what they thought was value, so they kept him and let him walk the next yr.

I could be wrong though any Charger fans know for sure what the deal was.

If he wasn't already tagged the previous yr Chargers should have tagged him last yr, he was a coveted FA, someone would have given you a trade for him.

They never franchise tagged Turner. He was a RFA still so he got the 1st and 3rd round tender placed on him in 2007.

From what I understand they were willing to deal him for a first but no team wanted to meet the price.

gyldenlove
02-18-2009, 05:30 PM
if they would have tagged Turner again, for 2nd yr in a row, you have to pay top 5% of all contracts not just the Rbs. That's qb territory and wuld require like 10 million for a yr or more.

To keep Turner they should have signed him to a long term deal before he hit market again. Stupid Chargers have let Brees, Turner both walk when they could have played cards differently and traded them for picks.

And still no Superbowl appearance for this group.

Man I bet if Chargers knew then what they know now things would be different.

Same with Raiders taking Huff and Russell when they could have had Cutler and Fitz. Broncos dodged a bullet with that one.

The QB money rule is in the 3rd year, not the 2nd. They could have tagged Turner at 120% of his salary last year.

TheChamp24
02-18-2009, 05:55 PM
The difference between Sproles and Turner is that everyone viewed Turner as a franchise type of back.

Franchising either one of them carries a big risk if they can't trade them because they have LT and then they're stuck with a $6+ million backup RB.

But the difference between this year and last year is that there weren't any huge concerns with LT's health last year where there is now so that gives the tag on Sproles more legitimacy this year. Last year, everyone knew Turner wouldn't sign a long term deal in San Diego because he and everyone else knew he could be a starter anywhere else. Teams just don't view Sproles as that type of back so I see this tactic as a way to keep him from hitting free agency and re-signing with the team.

I'll be shocked if he plays this year for the tag. He'll have a new contract.

I'll be shocked if he doesn't play under his tagged contract. No way does he get that much money signing a new deal.

cutthemdown
02-18-2009, 06:05 PM
The QB money rule is in the 3rd year, not the 2nd. They could have tagged Turner at 120% of his salary last year.

ty good info

Dudeskey
02-18-2009, 06:11 PM
Yes, now its looking like they will dump LT. Come to Denver LT come to Denver. :)

That would be awesome... He could do to the Chargers like what Marcus Allen did to the Raiders after they let him go to the Chiefs...

400HZ
02-18-2009, 08:13 PM
I'll be shocked if he doesn't play under his tagged contract. No way does he get that much money signing a new deal.

I could see it. Maybe $8 or $9 million up front on a 6 year, $25 million contract. That's better than the franchise tag for Sproles.

ZONA
02-18-2009, 10:20 PM
To be totally fair, he's not just a 3rd down back. He is also amazing on special teams. Still not worth top 5 RB cash but he is more then just a 3rd down back.

SouthStndJunkie
02-18-2009, 11:01 PM
I could see it. Maybe $8 or $9 million up front on a 6 year, $25 million contract. That's better than the franchise tag for Sproles.

Sproles would be better off from a financial standpoint taking the franchise tag money this year and then signing a new deal next year....he can essentially cash in twice that way.

6+ million this year and then he can sign a deal like you mentioned next year with some team.

Atlas
02-18-2009, 11:11 PM
yep spend a yr making 7 million and being LT's bkup change of pace. Thats a good amount to make for one yr in the NFL.

It doesn't matter. S.D. has huge cap space. This doesn't hurt them one bit.

Xenos
02-18-2009, 11:12 PM
if they would have tagged Turner again, for 2nd yr in a row, you have to pay top 5% of all contracts not just the Rbs. That's qb territory and wuld require like 10 million for a yr or more.

To keep Turner they should have signed him to a long term deal before he hit market again. Stupid Chargers have let Brees, Turner both walk when they could have played cards differently and traded them for picks.

And still no Superbowl appearance for this group.

Man I bet if Chargers knew then what they know now things would be different.

Same with Raiders taking Huff and Russell when they could have had Cutler and Fitz. Broncos dodged a bullet with that one.
We wouldn't have gotten anything for Brees if we had slapped the franchise tag on him in 2005. Remember, he was coming off that major shoulder injury and only two teams were interested in him. Heck, I guaranteed you he would have signed the franchise tag faster than I can say amoeba offense if we had used it because even he was that worried about his shoulder.

cutthemdown
02-18-2009, 11:17 PM
It doesn't matter. S.D. has huge cap space. This doesn't hurt them one bit.

I didn't say anything about salary cap. I just said Sproles should sign it and be happy. That's a good chunk of money to probably only have to carry ball 1015 times a game and return some kicks.

No doubt salary cap wise not many teams will have a problem anymore. Most teams will leave money unspent under the cap.

That's why teams can now afford to franchise tag bkup qbs, bkup rbs, a FS in St Louis, etc etc.

What hurts SD is not cap space, if anything its cheap owner who doesnt do as much as he could.

Xenos
02-18-2009, 11:24 PM
I didn't say anything about salary cap. I just said Sproles should sign it and be happy. That's a good chunk of money to probably only have to carry ball 1015 times a game and return some kicks.

No doubt salary cap wise not many teams will have a problem anymore. Most teams will leave money unspent under the cap.

That's why teams can now afford to franchise tag bkup qbs, bkup rbs, a FS in St Louis, etc etc.

What hurts SD is not cap space, if anything its cheap owner who doesnt do as much as he could.
The Chiefs are cheap. We're not. We've have always used up to the cap limit (sometimes way over like when Butler took over). The difference is that we didn't spend our money on big name FA like the Broncos did over the past few years under Shanahan.

And like I said earlier, I don't think Sproles is going to play under franchise tag this year. He either gets signed to a long term deal or he gets traded. He may not make as much in one year if he gets the long term deal, but he gets more guaranteed money with a long term deal, which is vital when you're playing in a sport where your career can just end in one play.

400HZ
02-19-2009, 07:12 AM
Sproles would be better off from a financial standpoint taking the franchise tag money this year and then signing a new deal next year....he can essentially cash in twice that way.

6+ million this year and then he can sign a deal like you mentioned next year with some team.

Ya but a multitude of things could happen next year that could lower his value. He could get hurt, he could be less effective, he could be replaced. Players don't like getting franchise tagged, they like to have at least a modicum of long term security. He could gamble on being better next year and increasing his pay day I guess, but most players go for the long-term contract up front.

Drek
02-19-2009, 07:13 AM
I could see it. Maybe $8 or $9 million up front on a 6 year, $25 million contract. That's better than the franchise tag for Sproles.

What possibly makes you think that?

6 years with an AAV of just over $4M, with only a couple million more guaranteed than what he now has in hand from the tag?

Unless Sproles' agent is a complete moron he sees one of two scenarios in front of him and his client now.

Scenario 1: The Chargers keep Sproles and LT. Sproles stays in his 3rd down back/return man role and makes top 5 RB money for doing so. He's looking at FA again next year at only 26, where his tag money climbs 20% or he gets to test the open market.

Scenario 2: The Chargers cut LT and Sproles is asked to shoulder the load as the feature back. Then he and his agent will want the security of a long term deal, but the guaranteed money needs to be big enough to be worth giving up the potentially huge payday of being a proven franchise back next year hitting the market. A $2M bump in guaranteed money isn't going to do it.

Its the same problem the Patriots will face when trying to shop Matt Cassel. Any team interested in Sproles or Cassel will want to know they can extend him. Both players basically have $7M and $14M respectively guaranteed for a one year deal. That means any extensions they sign need to not only surpass that figure, but surpass it by enough to make them want to give up free agency or another big tag for next year, when both players will likely be able to return to their current teams for the one year deal, collect huge game checks, and ride the bench while keeping their value at or near peak level.

400HZ
02-19-2009, 07:20 AM
What possibly makes you think that?

6 years with an AAV of just over $4M, with only a couple million more guaranteed than what he now has in hand from the tag?

Unless Sproles' agent is a complete moron he sees one of two scenarios in front of him and his client now.

Scenario 1: The Chargers keep Sproles and LT. Sproles stays in his 3rd down back/return man role and makes top 5 RB money for doing so. He's looking at FA again next year at only 26, where his tag money climbs 20% or he gets to test the open market.

Scenario 2: The Chargers cut LT and Sproles is asked to shoulder the load as the feature back. Then he and his agent will want the security of a long term deal, but the guaranteed money needs to be big enough to be worth giving up the potentially huge payday of being a proven franchise back next year hitting the market. A $2M bump in guaranteed money isn't going to do it.

Its the same problem the Patriots will face when trying to shop Matt Cassel. Any team interested in Sproles or Cassel will want to know they can extend him. Both players basically have $7M and $14M respectively guaranteed for a one year deal. That means any extensions they sign need to not only surpass that figure, but surpass it by enough to make them want to give up free agency or another big tag for next year, when both players will likely be able to return to their current teams for the one year deal, collect huge game checks, and ride the bench while keeping their value at or near peak level.

I doubt that San Diego is seriously considering option #2. If LT is cut, they will draft a runningback early who will carry the bulk of the load. They know Sproles, and they know that he is at his most effective as a returner and as a 3rd down back when there are opportunities to get the ball in space. If they think that he can do that AND run the ball 20 times a game all season long then they are freakin high.

I just think that Sproles will end up with a decent sized long term deal. I stated my reasoning in the post above. If that doesn't work out, no biggie, $6 million isn't going to sink the franchise.

Drek
02-19-2009, 07:34 AM
I doubt that San Diego is seriously considering option #2. If LT is cut, they will draft a runningback early who will carry the bulk of the load. They know Sproles, and they know that he is at his most effective as a returner and as a 3rd down back when there are opportunities to get the ball in space. If they think that he can do that AND run the ball 20 times a game all season long then they are freakin high.

I just think that Sproles will end up with a decent sized long term deal. I stated my reasoning in the post above. If that doesn't work out, no biggie, $6 million isn't going to sink the franchise.

But thats just the point. No one is going to want to bet on Sproles as a 20+ carries a game guy for 16 weeks, let alone that and still let him return on STs.

So he's going to be a situational back behind someone regardless, which significantly reduces his chances of significant injury. If he just has a couple big games next year his value will stay at least as high as it is now, and he'll get 85% of the guaranteed money you proposed for a 6 year deal in year one.

So why in the world would he sign that? To do the Chargers a favor? Last I knew that wasn't really the norm in the NFL.

If he isn't being asked to carry the load as the feature back he's basically got zero incentive to take a long term deal that doesn't at least double the tag number. The odds on him having a significant injury would be very, very low and next year he'd be looking at a similar tag pay day or a free agency contract that would bring at least $6-7M in guaranteed money with it.

The guaranteed money on an extension for him starts at about $12M if you ask me, and you won't get that over a 6 year deal. He probably will want a 3 or 4 year deal tops, giving him one more contract before turning 30.

The salary and AAV isn't going to mean anything now that he's tagged, your GM has put his single year guaranteed money well above what the free market likely would've determined for him and so now the franchise is stuck negotiating from that poor footing.

Unless Sproles is going to be asked to shoulder most of the RB load, which is a net loss for the Chargers in terms of actually winning football games, he's got all the leverage to just play out the tag and make even more money next year.

400HZ
02-19-2009, 07:42 AM
But thats just the point. No one is going to want to bet on Sproles as a 20+ carries a game guy for 16 weeks, let alone that and still let him return on STs.

So he's going to be a situational back behind someone regardless, which significantly reduces his chances of significant injury. If he just has a couple big games next year his value will stay at least as high as it is now, and he'll get 85% of the guaranteed money you proposed for a 6 year deal in year one.

So why in the world would he sign that? To do the Chargers a favor? Last I knew that wasn't really the norm in the NFL.

If he isn't being asked to carry the load as the feature back he's basically got zero incentive to take a long term deal that doesn't at least double the tag number. The odds on him having a significant injury would be very, very low and next year he'd be looking at a similar tag pay day or a free agency contract that would bring at least $6-7M in guaranteed money with it.

The guaranteed money on an extension for him starts at about $12M if you ask me, and you won't get that over a 6 year deal. He probably will want a 3 or 4 year deal tops, giving him one more contract before turning 30.

The salary and AAV isn't going to mean anything now that he's tagged, your GM has put his single year guaranteed money well above what the free market likely would've determined for him and so now the franchise is stuck negotiating from that poor footing.

Unless Sproles is going to be asked to shoulder most of the RB load, which is a net loss for the Chargers in terms of actually winning football games, he's got all the leverage to just play out the tag and make even more money next year.

I think the odds of him returning to obscurity are higher than most people think. He's essentially had 3 or 4 big games in his career and has already spent one season on IR. Weighed against that, $25 million over 6 with a nice amount up front shouldn't look that bad. If he wants a 3 or 4 year deal with a $12 million dollar bonus like you say, then it won't be in San Diego. I'm not sure who would pay that.