Sun:Ravens will franchise AD

**F Angelos** · 01-15-2007, 11:43 PM

According to Tuesday's paper the Ravens tell Jamison that they will franchise him if necessary. So no more AD threads

**Sephy** · 01-16-2007, 12:28 AM

I'm kind of surprised, actually.

**Merlin** · 01-16-2007, 04:39 AM

This may be a negotiation ploy rather than the final outcome

**F Angelos** · 01-16-2007, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Merlin

This may be a negotiation ploy rather than the final outcome

I doubt it. We're a year or two away from cap jail, we can't afford to give a 30yr old a big signing bonus. The plan obviously is to franchise him for a year and then let him go when JO,Ray and Steve retire.

**PARavensJeff** · 01-16-2007, 08:24 AM

Can the franchise tag be applied for 2 or 3 years? I know the Ravens have been reluctant to use this, especially after the way it went w/ McAllister, but this is a way to keep him for maybe 2 years, then see where he is then. I agree this keeps them from a big signing bonus & that's a good thing w/ the shape our cap will be in the next few years. That said, maybe it is a negotiating ploy, basically telling AD we can hold you out from FA for a couple years by franchising you, then you will be 32 or 33 when this is done. You can take our offer w/ the bonus we are offering or be franchised the next few years.

**ExiledRaven** · 01-16-2007, 08:35 AM

You can apply the tag multiple years, but there is a pretty rough penalty for doing so. I think something along the lines of salary goes up by 20% from the previous tag? Someone throw me a bone.

This is the logical business move to make with AD. You tag and get a new contract or you're going to trade him. At the very least you're going to at least get some kind of compensation for him if you can't work out a deal and feel you can't take the cap hit.

I like the call, but I feel bad for AD, who clearly deserves a shot at big money for once in his until recently underappreciated career.

**deuce** · 01-16-2007, 08:38 AM

I hope it is more along the line of what F-Angelos said. Holding the franchise tag over him as a part of negotiations is a dirty move. Either tag him for a year or negotiate in good faith.

**Sports Steve** · 01-16-2007, 08:46 AM

If they can't get a completed contract they will have to do this . We can't lose AD.

**Losac** · 01-16-2007, 09:09 AM

I think the feeling is we have one more good year (2007) to make a run before a lot of the veterans retire and we'll have to seriously clean house. AD is an important part of Rex's D and we'll need him if we're trying to make a Super Bowl run next year.

**festivus** · 01-16-2007, 09:16 AM

It makes sense for the team & for AD. The franchise tag is essentially a rich contract - average salary of the top 5 players at the position - for exactly one year. AD has what he wants, a nice payday, and the team has what it wants, AD for one more year.

**Mista T** · 01-16-2007, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by deuce

I hope it is more along the line of what F-Angelos said. Holding the franchise tag over him as a part of negotiations is a dirty move. Either tag him for a year or negotiate in good faith.

There's nothing that's bad faith about using all the leverage available to the team in negotiations. Using the tag is a legitimate owners' right - just like it's Thomas' right to sit out the season if he doesn't like the tag.

Note: I didn't read anything in the Sun article that was as definitive as this thread, i.e. it did not state that "Ravens will franchise AD"; rather it stated:

Prediction: .... It appears the Ravens will use the tag on Thomas

Hopefully, where there's smoke, there's fire, and the Ravens will bring the hammer down on Thomas' agent if a reasonable deal cannot be struck. Thomas has become our best player.

**camdenyard** · 01-16-2007, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by festivus

It makes sense for the team & for AD. The franchise tag is essentially a rich contract - average salary of the top 5 players at the position - for exactly one year. AD has what he wants, a nice payday, and the team has what it wants, AD for one more year.

Well, it's not what AD wants. AD, like all other top-shelf FAs, doesn't want big weekly checks. He wants a seven-figure signing bonus. Why do people keep forgetting this?

**festivus** · 01-16-2007, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by camdenyard

Well, it's not what AD wants. AD, like all other top-shelf FAs, doesn't want big weekly checks. He wants a seven-figure signing bonus. Why do people keep forgetting this?

I didn't forget, it's a compromise that could easily work in AD's favor. Now next year, when negotiating (with whomever) for his next contract, his salary will be the franchise salary, not the relative peanuts he's making now.

From the business side, it's not all doom and gloom for AD. There is an upside for him, though as you say it's not the upside he was hoping for.

**B-more Ravor** · 01-16-2007, 09:59 AM

This will mean some major restructuring of contracts to create that cap space. There was a report last month that we were $5.7M under the cap for next year - but that only covers the 38 players under contract for next year. That was also before Suggs hit his $5M escalator.

Releasing Jamal will save them around $8M in cap space, but they still have RFAs and EFAs to tender, which will eat up a sizeable amount of that $8M. They also have to re-sign a couple of other guys and have space to sign their draft picks.

Flynn, Vincent and Mulitalo are all liable to be asked to take a paycut or face being cut.

After that, they will have to look to restructure other deals to get the necesssary space to do all of the above. Thankfully, they haven't had to do so until now, so their cap is relatively clean at this point - but it will make the inevitable cap purge (2009 range) hurt a little more.

**F Angelos** · 01-16-2007, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Mista T

There's nothing that's bad faith about using all the leverage available to the team in negotiations. Using the tag is a legitimate owners' right - just like it's Thomas' right to sit out the season if he doesn't like the tag.

Note: I didn't read anything in the Sun article that was as definitive as this thread, i.e. it did not state that "Ravens will franchise AD"; rather it stated:

Hopefully, where there's smoke, there's fire, and the Ravens will bring the hammer down on Thomas' agent if a reasonable deal cannot be struck. Thomas has become our best player.

When I started this thread last night there was a different story up. It stated specifically that Ozzie was prepared to use the Franchise tag on AD if he had too. That's what Jamison said he was told by Ozzie. Then the full article gets written and now Jamison is predicting the tag. Why the change? I don't know.

**Art-Florida** · 01-16-2007, 10:34 AM

Firstly, I find it hard to sympathise with millionaire players that want to be billionaire players. On the other hand, It's human nature to grab whatever you can out of life. It's all about money.

The bad news: We may either lose AD, or have him steamed about being franchised.

THE GOOD NEWS: We have three or four tweeners that can play OLB. Our depth is fine.

The even gooder news: A hundred years from now it won't mean shit. Think long-term.

**HDDream** · 01-16-2007, 11:53 AM

Ravor, I've heard there's a good chance that we'll see another significant bump in the cap this year. I wonder if the Ravens (if they are planning on using the tag on AD) have some advance knowledge on just how big the bump will be and thus that could be why they would be making this move.

I saw the originial article that was posted and it did have Hensley quoting the whole unnamed source saying that the Ravens were prepared to use the tag if necessary to keep AD. Like Sephy, I was actually surprised when I saw that.

**B-more Ravor** · 01-16-2007, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by HDDream

Ravor, I've heard there's a good chance that we'll see another significant bump in the cap this year. I wonder if the Ravens (if they are planning on using the tag on AD) have some advance knowledge on just how big the bump will be and thus that could be why they would be making this move.

Could be, but everything I've seen says the salary cap for 2007 shall be $109M.

http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/CBA/2006_C...Term_Sheet.pdf

It seems that credits and adjustments will affect the 2008 cap and thereafter (although perhaps the actual CBA says more about 2007 - but I'm not going to waste my time going through that

)

**HDDream** · 01-16-2007, 01:27 PM

Well, I'll take your word on that. You have a pretty good record.

I'll say this much, if AD gets tagged, you can all but say goodbye to Jamal.

**Mista T** · 01-16-2007, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by F Angelos

When I started this thread last night there was a different story up. It stated specifically that Ozzie was prepared to use the Franchise tag on AD if he had too. That's what Jamison said he was told by Ozzie. Then the full article gets written and now Jamison is predicting the tag. Why the change? I don't know.

Some intrigue going on here. Whether or not this is a solid story, I'm glad to see that our FO is at least thinking about threatening to tag him.