So, the Chiefs could use the exclusive tag and any thought another team may have of giving up two draft picks is moot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag

It's week six! They have quite a while. You're like someone who's expecting a call from someone who said they'd call this week, and here it is Tuesday and they haven't called, so you say, Well, that's it they aren't gonna call.

If we tag him, we'll keep him. No one is going to give up draft picks for Allen. If we tag him, it will also put us in salary cap hell. Let's hope we don't have to tag him.

I really doubt He'll sit out a year to spite the Chiefs. I haven't heard any rumblings lately that he hates it here have you? Maybe he's patched everything up? The Chiefs will offer him as much as other teams will, it might be a little more or less but it'll be what he deserves.

No. I have NINETEEN years of watching the same man do the same thing over and over again. You don't throw out the franchise tag to the public if you are close in sides, besides that, Carl doesn't work that way. Carl will wait until the offseason to save a buck now.

Again, did he say the Chiefs are going to franchise him? You're right I'll bet there is a long way to go before both sides are in agreement, but I'll bet anything they're talking.

There's the idea again that somehow Carl is cheap. Look I hate Carl, he's so full of himself it makes me sick, and he's not always the best judge of talent, it's best if he left that to the coaches, I wish he were gone, but I know he's a good negotiator, I've seen it over the same nineteen years you have. I trust him with getting a good deal, and spreading the money around wisely. Say what you will about him, when he really wants to get something done as far as player acquisition or retention it gets done, and it strikes me that he wants to have Allen here.

You take a pretty fair approach, but John Tait throws a wrinkle in your argument about keeping a player we want to keep.

Also, Carl may or may not have made a phone call to Allen's agent, but I truly doubt that they are in heated discussions about working out the numbers. Carl doesn't roll that way, he would rather save the money now.

John Tait had a transition tag, not a franchise tag.

I was thinking about the Tait move, that does go against what I said. But if you remember, the Chiefs had the transition tag on Tait, they took a gamble that no one would pay what it would cost to sign him. The Bears offered a deal that was ridiculous, it was top LT money and at that time Tait was only our RT, you don't pay a RT top LT money. I remember saying wow! If they want Tait that badly they can have him, I think everyone felt that way.

There is no reason for Carl to use the F-tag word unless he is in negotiations currently.

The principle is still the same only the compensation goes up.

We would have to pay JA more AND teams would have to offer more in higher round picks-it's a double-edged sword that effects both current team and the propositional team.

In other words, JA's price tag goes up for us with the franchise tag compared to the transition tag. That's less wiggle room for free agents, because he woud count against the cap at a ONE year deal with huge money.

That's exactly why I'm stressing Carl should get off his duff and get this done PRIOR to the offseason.

According to wikipedia (which is never incorrect, :) ), teams can make a player an "exclusive franchise player" and no other team can negotiate with that player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag

We have plenty of cap space.

We would have far less cap space if we tagged him. Don't be fooled by the internet numbers you see posted.