@hoorta said:

2) or non-exclusive tag him (see the quote from Sporting News) pay him the average of the five highest salaries in the league.

Ah... thus your bringing QB salaries into the mix...

Since I already learned something this morning, it's time to call it a day... Goodnite everybody!

@tour2ma said:

I forget the exact percentage, but when to retag a player there's a multiplier to his prior year's tag... and it gets pretty steep for the 3rd tagging.

You may be the cap guru- which I still don't entirely understand, at least as it relates to dead cap. But I have a pretty good handle on the Franchise tag. 1st tag = average of the five highest paid players at his position. 2nd tag equals a 120% increase over the 1st tag. Third tag? you have two options. 1) give the player a 144% raise. 2) or non-exclusive tag him (see the quote from Sporting News) pay him the average of the five highest salaries in the league.  The Steelers had no choice but to let him walk. You can't tag a player four times.  

"In the case of Bell, even though he did not get an accrued season in 2018, if he were to be tagged again by the Steelers in 2019, it would count as his third franchise tag; it would not revert to his second. Per the CBA, Pittsburgh in that case would be required to tender Bell non-exclusively (with first- and third-round comp picks attached) at the average of the top five highest-paid players at the league's highest-paid position."

@hoorta said:

 and what I was saying was- it wouldn't have mattered if it was an accrued season or not- Bell already had enough accrued seasons. The Steelers tagged him a second time. Which counted in the progressive UFA scale, at least to my understanding. So it was pay Bell top QB money, or let him walk.  

I forget the exact percentage, but when to retag a player there's a multiplier to his prior year's tag... and it gets pretty steep for the 3rd tagging.

@choco said:

Optics imo....browns already took flak for signing him. They push an appeal and win, the public outcry will start up again. Apparently the duration was negotiated with hunts lawyer this time, so he accepted the 8 games and is putting it behind him.

Not appealing was absolutely the right call. 

Great point choco & I agree. Accept it & move on.

Mike

@ibleedbrown said:

I don’t fully understand the logic in not appealing the length of the suspension? Does he somehow think by doing that the whole world will sigh and proclaim, “he really IS an ok dude. He served his time...”

If memory serves, it’s his first official offense, and it seems that any past players who have appealed similar decisions for a first offense get anywhere from 2 games to half the sentence lopped off.

It’s not like the NFL is the actual court system with pages and pages of regulations for things like this. They pretty much make it up as they go and hope it appeases the court of public opinion. It’s kind of asinine from a business perspective why he wouldn’t appeal. 

Optics imo....browns already took flak for signing him. They push an appeal and win, the public outcry will start up again. Apparently the duration was negotiated with hunts lawyer this time, so he accepted the 8 games and is putting it behind him.

Not appealing was absolutely the right call. 

@gunz41 said:

From my understanding, and yes I know it's a different example, just using it to loosely connect it, is that it wouldn't have counted as 3rd tag, as last year wasn't accrued. 

But like I said, I didn't look up the rule. Just what I thought the poster was meaning by his post about accrued. I could certainly be wrong, it has happened once in my life lol jk

 and what I was saying was- it wouldn't have mattered if it was an accrued season or not- Bell already had enough accrued seasons. The Steelers tagged him a second time. Which counted in the progressive UFA scale, at least to my understanding. So it was pay Bell top QB money, or let him walk.  

@hoorta said:

Bell was a different case- with different rules...  Le'veon already had four accrued seasons in 2017, and was eligible to become a UFA. The Steelers slapped Franchise Tag #1 on him, which he signed. Bellyachin' Bell couldn't come to an agreement with Pittsburgh- so the Steelers slapped Franchise Tag #2 on him, which he didn't sign. This year, the Steelers only options were to hit Bell with Franchise Tag #3, paying him Cousins\ Rodgers money, trying to work out a sign & trade, or let him walk. We know how that turned out.   

So it would seem whether a player signs his franchise tag or not- it still counts against the team that's trying to franchise him. It was uncharted territory, as Bell was the first player IIRC to go that route and not sign the tag. 

From my understanding, and yes I know it's a different example, just using it to loosely connect it, is that it wouldn't have counted as 3rd tag, as last year wasn't accrued. 

But like I said, I didn't look up the rule. Just what I thought the poster was meaning by his post about accrued. I could certainly be wrong, it has happened once in my life lol jk

@gunz41 said:

I think he is not meaning on a rookie deal, but any deal. I don't know the rule, but hes meaning accrue for the 1 year deal. Think Leveon Bell. When he was originally going to come back, he was going to do it right before his play wouldn't have effected his FA. Last year never counted, so Pitt could have done the same thing and not have had the multiplier with tag

Bell was a different case- with different rules...  Le'veon already had four accrued seasons in 2017, and was eligible to become a UFA. The Steelers slapped Franchise Tag #1 on him, which he signed. Bellyachin' Bell couldn't come to an agreement with Pittsburgh- so the Steelers slapped Franchise Tag #2 on him, which he didn't sign. This year, the Steelers only options were to hit Bell with Franchise Tag #3, paying him Cousins\ Rodgers money, trying to work out a sign & trade, or let him walk. We know how that turned out.   

So it would seem whether a player signs his franchise tag or not- it still counts against the team that's trying to franchise him. It was uncharted territory, as Bell was the first player IIRC to go that route and not sign the tag. 

@the-gipper said:

I think we only signed him to a one year deal. 

I also think that it is only the team that originally drafts someone that retains those  5 year rights.   If he gets cut by that original team....he is then a pure free agent, free to deal with whomever....no matter how many years he has in the league.

If that is wrong, please advise.

Nope- apparently FA rights depend on accrued years of service:  https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cleveland-browns/kareem-hunt-21828/ 

Straight out of the NFL bylaws... 

"In the 2018 league year, players with three accrued seasons who have received a qualifying offer become restricted free agents when their contracts expire at the end of the 2017 league year on March 14.

Unrestricted free agents have completed four or more accrued seasons. Upon expiration of his 2017 contract, an unrestricted free agent can sign with any club with no draft choice compensation owed to his old club."

To jog your memory a bit- the Patriots were able to slap a second round tender on Gordon, even though they didn't draft him...   

@the-gipper said:

I think we only signed him to a one year deal. 

I also think that it is only the team that originally drafts someone that retains those  5 year rights.   If he gets cut by that original team....he is then a pure free agent, free to deal with whomever....no matter how many years he has in the league.

If that is wrong, please advise.

I think he is not meaning on a rookie deal, but any deal. I don't know the rule, but hes meaning accrue for the 1 year deal. Think Leveon Bell. When he was originally going to come back, he was going to do it right before his play wouldn't have effected his FA. Last year never counted, so Pitt could have done the same thing and not have had the multiplier with tag

@the-gipper said:

Precisely, they make it up as they go, and appeals are often dismissed...

In addition....it really may not have been considered his "first offense".   The NFL's investigation was apparently also looking into 2 other incidents......so in essence, they may have viewed those as "prior offenses"...to this incident with the girl at The Nine.

Josh Gordon, Ray Rice and Tom Brady all come to mind as players who have appealed first infractions and had their suspensions reduced. 

You may be on to something though with the “2 other incidents” thing. Has it even been reported what those incidents were? If not, appealing would probably bring them to light, and Kareem probably could use less bad publicity, so 8 games it is...

@ibleedbrown said:

I don’t fully understand the logic in not appealing the length of the suspension? Does he somehow think by doing that the whole world will sigh and proclaim, “he really IS an ok dude. He served his time...”

If memory serves, it’s his first official offense, and it seems that any past players who have appealed similar decisions for a first offense get anywhere from 2 games to half the sentence lopped off.

It’s not like the NFL is the actual court system with pages and pages of regulations for things like this. They pretty much make it up as they go and hope it appeases the court of public opinion. It’s kind of asinine from a business perspective why he wouldn’t appeal. 

Precisely, they make it up as they go, and appeals are often dismissed...

In addition....it really may not have been considered his "first offense".   The NFL's investigation was apparently also looking into 2 other incidents......so in essence, they may have viewed those as "prior offenses"...to this incident with the girl at The Nine.

If memory serves, it’s his first official offense, and it seems that any past players who have appealed similar decisions for a first offense get anywhere from 2 games to half the sentence lopped off.

It’s not like the NFL is the actual court system with pages and pages of regulations for things like this. They pretty much make it up as they go and hope it appeases the court of public opinion. It’s kind of asinine from a business perspective why he wouldn’t appeal. 

@nero said:

I said that because I believe that you have to play 6 regular games to accrue (right term? #secondlanguage) a season. In my mind, we would hold his rights for one more season while we would have him for a playoff run. But maybe I was wrong and playoff games count too.

I think we only signed him to a one year deal. 

I also think that it is only the team that originally drafts someone that retains those  5 year rights.   If he gets cut by that original team....he is then a pure free agent, free to deal with whomever....no matter how many years he has in the league.

If that is wrong, please advise.

@nero said:

I said that because I believe that you have to play 6 regular games to accrue (right term? #secondlanguage) a season. In my mind, we would hold his rights for one more season while we would have him for a playoff run. But maybe I was wrong and playoff games count too.

Two things.

1) Dorsey doesn't want to get a bad rap among players shafting Hunt to control his rights for another year.

2) Signing OBJ says it's win now mode. Bet the ranch Kareem is activated the second the rules say he can be.

@tour2ma said:

Only a question of when the trade happens.

NFL in-season trade deadline is usually at the end of October. That would put Hunt back in our lineup before the deadline.

So IMO, unless Dors gets "an offer he can't refuse", you hold onto Duke for now and then around mid-season when some team(s) will be desperate for an RB you fleece 'em.

Exactamundo Tour. Should Chubb get hurt before Hunt's suspension is over, minus Duke, we're up shit Creek at running back. I'm sure Dorsey will take that possibility into account before he decides to move Johnson.

@the-gipper said:

Again, with the time on the Exempt list....it was more like a 13 game or more suspension....so you got what you want.

I said that because I believe that you have to play 6 regular games to accrue (right term? #secondlanguage) a season. In my mind, we would hold his rights for one more season while we would have him for a playoff run. But maybe I was wrong and playoff games count too.

@darren15 said:

OK now do we grab CJ Anderson on a 1 year deal ?  or draft a RB in rounds 5-7 ? As Duke will still be traded in my opinion

Only a question of when the trade happens.

NFL in-season trade deadline is usually at the end of October. That would put Hunt back in our lineup before the deadline.

So IMO, unless Dors gets "an offer he can't refuse", you hold onto Duke for now and then around mid-season when some team(s) will be desperate for an RB you fleece 'em.

@the-gipper said:

Yes, no, that is why getting rid of him, imo, would be dumb.  And yes, he is a weapon....one that can run and one that can catch. All teams want a guy like that.

If we got rid of him....we would need to look for someone just like him.   And I do not believe Hilliard...or Chubb....are that guy.

It will be fun seeing who teams chose to dble team.. Pick your poison..

@clevelandwantsplayoffs said:

So 2 RBs until week 9? 

unless there’s a rookie in the mix.

1. Chubb

2. Hilliard

3. Rookie?

Personally I don’t see Duke as a RB, but more of a weapon.

Yes, no, that is why getting rid of him, imo, would be dumb.  And yes, he is a weapon....one that can run and one that can catch. All teams want a guy like that.

If we got rid of him....we would need to look for someone just like him.   And I do not believe Hilliard...or Chubb....are that guy.

@nickers said:

I think the games missed is retro to the sentence so to speak.. meaning.. when KC cut him.. I think they're counting these games (2018) as well..

If they don't, they should.  After all, Usually when someone is cut, they can be picked up right away and put into the lineup.   Putting Hunt on the exempt list excluded any team from doing that. If anyone had signed him, the NFL would not let him play.  If that isn't a suspension, what is it?

@dawg-in-md said:

Duke has great hands, he isn't going anywhere with that length of suspension. BTW Hunt deserved every game he received, no excuses for domestic violence, period!

It was a love tap.  4 games max...givwn the current climate

@tiamat63 said:

Duke is all but expendable now because Hunt should have all the mental reps he'll need and be able to contribute every down once he's back. 

So 2 RBs until week 9? 

unless there’s a rookie in the mix.

1. Chubb

2. Hilliard

3. Rookie?

Personally I don’t see Duke as a RB, but more of a weapon.