[azrael492]

Originally Posted by FC1

Hi Left Noob.

Thanks. Unfortunatly I understand the difference between releasing and the waivers system - what I don't understand is the reasons/situation behind a team using it or not.
i.e. Why does a NFL Team release a player, as opposed to placing them on waivers (or visa-versa).
Thank you anyway

Hello FC1, Welcome to GTG.

I think a reason they would put a player on waivers instead of just releasing them is the contract. As Lefty showed in his post, if a player is picked up on waivers, the team that picked him up is responsible for his contract. If they just released the player, they would still have to pay the buyout.

[FC1]

Yes that would make sense.
Thank you

[Bette]

What's really going on with Trent Green and the Chiefs? Or does this come under opinion? He's one of the good guys. Dont think that he deserves this.

[azrael492]

It is jsut my opinion, but theyknow he is not going to lead them anywhere. They want to trade him, but want to get more than he is worth. He will be in Miami next season because they need a fill in QB until they get somebody younger.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Bette

What's really going on with Trent Green and the Chiefs? Or does this come under opinion? He's one of the good guys. Dont think that he deserves this.

Well, it's a case of very poor negotiating by the Chiefs. Everyone in the world knows two things: 1. That the Chiefs want to trade Green and 2. That Green wants to play for Miami. So now K.C.'s front office wants to haggle over the price? Miami knows they have the Chiefs over a barrell, but K.C. seems determined to try and work a more favorable deal. So it's kind of a stalemate right now, but ultimately, the Chiefs aren't going to get a drastically better deal than what's already on the table.

[Bette]

Ok, free agency, restricted free agent, free agent, franchise tag. I know free agency pretty much ended the dynasty thing. (Except for the pats) but thats about it. Please clarify and keep it simple.

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by Bette

Ok, free agency, restricted free agent, free agent, franchise tag. I know free agency pretty much ended the dynasty thing. (Except for the pats) but thats about it. Please clarify and keep it simple.

far as i know this is how it goes

Free Agent ...... the player can sign with anyone they want

Restricted Free Agent ..... if the Pats have a player that is a restricted free agent, the player can get offers from other teams but if the Pats match the offers he has to stay

Franchise Tag ...... a player given this tag from a team has to stay with that team but is garrunteed to be paid the average of the top 3 players in the league at his position (i believe it is top 3 could be top 5)

hope that helps Bette (and thanks for recognizing the greatness that is the Patriots)

[Bette]

Yes, it helps a lot. Seems so simple now I dont know why I was confused.

(you mean the greatness that WAS the Pats. Moss will take care of that for them)

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by simple simon

far as i know this is how it goes

Free Agent ...... the player can sign with anyone they want

Restricted Free Agent ..... if the Pats have a player that is a restricted free agent, the player can get offers from other teams but if the Pats match the offers he has to stay

Franchise Tag ...... a player given this tag from a team has to stay with that team but is garrunteed to be paid the average of the top 3 players in the league at his position (i believe it is top 3 could be top 5)

hope that helps Bette (and thanks for recognizing the greatness that is the Patriots)

I think it's top 5.

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

I think it's top 5.

i thought so too but i second guessed myself

[Lefty Noob]

You guys are right, it is top 5 at the position.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by simple simon

i thought so too but i second guessed myself

cut it out...that's my job...to second guess you...

[Bette]

Average of top five, unless you are at the head of that top five, that should be a good deal. Then why are players generally unhappy with the franchise tag??

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Bette

Average of top five, unless you are at the head of that top five, that should be a good deal. Then why are players generally unhappy with the franchise tag??

Because they can't get bonus money or a long-term deal under it, both of which are generally attractive to these guys.

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by Bette

Average of top five, unless you are at the head of that top five, that should be a good deal. Then why are players generally unhappy with the franchise tag??

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Because they can't get bonus money or a long-term deal under it, both of which are generally attractive to these guys.

and i think many of them feel that they are at the top of their respective positional heap ....... so even the tag itself is a pay cut