Yet another Stud Safety a potential Free Agent?

[Bill Lundberg]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...el-rfa-tender/

A caveat on the lowest-level RFA tender

Posted by Mike Florio on March 4, 2010 10:33 AM ET
With the Rams reportedly thinking seriously about using the lowest-level restricted free agency tender on safety Oshiomogho Atogwe, a franchise player in 2009, our interpretation of the CBA on this point has been confirmed -- a restricted free agent who is limited only by a right of first refusal is not entitled to a one-year salary that equates to 110 percent of his 2009 pay.

But there's a catch.

As a league source explains it, and as we've confirmed by reviewing the CBA (Article XIX, section (i)(1)), the tender applies only until June 1. At that point, the team must offer the greater of the prior tender or 110 percent of the player's 2009 salary. Otherwise, the player becomes a free agent.

So what this means is that, for a player like Atogwe, the Rams' window of opportunity would apply from March 5 until May 31. At that point, they'd have to decide whether to give Atogwe nearly $7 million -- or let him go.

As a result, the lowest-level tender has a specific shelf life when applied to a guy who made huge money in the prior year. And if means that, if Atogwe doesn't get a long-term deal by the end of May, he'll get a crack at one in June, since the Rams will most likely let him walk in lieu of offering him the kind of contract they're apparently not willing to offer him now.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Atogwe is an incredibly underrated player.

[Brock]

There would be a ton of teams after him.

[Fritz88]

Pioli

[The Franchise]

Go get him now. I don't care if he's going to be getting $6-$7 million a year. No salary cap = me not giving a shit.

[OnTheWarpath15]

The lowest RFA tender compensation is an original round pick.

OJ was taken in R3.

If the Rams put the lowest tender on him, almost every ****ing team in the league will be after him.

[Bill Lundberg]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

The lowest RFA tender compensation is an original round pick.

OJ was taken in R3.

If the Rams put the lowest tender on him, almost every ****ing team in the league will be after him.

And then the Rams have first right of refusal correct? So basically, they are just letting the rest of the league set the market for him then they will match.

I guess my thinking is you have to front load the hell out of the contract offer and probably put a poison pill in it to make sure they don't match. If the Rams were willing to pay him $7 million or more, then they would have placed a higher tender on him. If I'm understanding this correctly.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by Bill Lundberg

And then the Rams have first right of refusal correct? So basically, they are just letting the rest of the league set the market for him then they will match.

I guess my thinking is you have to front load the hell out of the contract offer and probably put a poison pill in it to make sure they don't match. If the Rams were willing to pay him $7 million or more, then they would have placed a higher tender on him. If I'm understanding this correctly.

Basically this. And some team out there WILL put a poison pill in there to get him.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Bill Lundberg

And then the Rams have first right of refusal correct? So basically, they are just letting the rest of the league set the market for him then they will match.

I guess my thinking is you have to front load the hell out of the contract offer and probably put a poison pill in it to make sure they don't match. If the Rams were willing to pay him $7 million or more, then they would have placed a higher tender on him. If I'm understanding this correctly.

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Basically this. And some team out there WILL put a poison pill in there to get him.

Yep.

One thing about front-loading contracts, because I've seen it mentioned a couple of time because of the lack of a cap.

Teams are going to want to front load deals, but I think doing so may effect the decision making of the players.

Getting your guaranteed money spread out? Security.

Getting all up-front? Not so much. Matt Cassel is an example of this. Granted, he'll get his money, but then could be out on his ass - where a player that has his guaranteed money spread out is less likely to be cut, and enjoys more long-term security - IMO.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Yep.

One thing about front-loading contracts, because I've seen it mentioned a couple of time because of the lack of a cap.

Teams are going to want to front load deals, but I think doing so may effect the decision making of the players.

Getting your guaranteed money spread out? Security.

Getting all up-front? Not so much. Matt Cassel is an example of this. Granted, he'll get his money, but then could be out on his ass - where a player that has his guaranteed money spread out is less likely to be cut, and enjoys more long-term security - IMO.

Yeah but Atogwe has talent....you know...something that Mark Castle doesn't have.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Yep.

One thing about front-loading contracts, because I've seen it mentioned a couple of time because of the lack of a cap.

Teams are going to want to front load deals, but I think doing so may effect the decision making of the players.

Getting your guaranteed money spread out? Security.

Getting all up-front? Not so much. Matt Cassel is an example of this. Granted, he'll get his money, but then could be out on his ass - where a player that has his guaranteed money spread out is less likely to be cut, and enjoys more long-term security - IMO.

It's likely that I don't understand how the system works, but it seems to me like getting all your money up front would help your job security. Two years from now, if I've got Matt Cassel for $500,000 because I paid him a lot up front, or I've got Matt Cassel for $3.5 million because I paid him less up front, I'm more likely to keep him if he's cheaper.

It would seem that the team has the bigger risk because the $500,000 Matt Cassel is going to be more likely to try to get out of his contract and go somewhere else.

But maybe I don't understand how the "up front" money works. I try to be logical about it, but the NFL's system is not always logical. I wish they'd just require a straight up dollars-per-year contract system so that teambuilding was more about who has the best players and less about who has the best accountants.

[RJ]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I wish they'd just require a straight up dollars-per-year contract system so that teambuilding was more about who has the best players and less about who has the best accountants.

I'm going to be really pissed if I find out after all this time that what we really needed was a better accountant.

[HotRoute]

it seems like there are more good safeties available through free agency than ever before. i wouldnt be surprised if we didn't take a safety at all in this years draft

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

It's likely that I don't understand how the system works, but it seems to me like getting all your money up front would help your job security. Two years from now, if I've got Matt Cassel for $500,000 because I paid him a lot up front, or I've got Matt Cassel for $3.5 million because I paid him less up front, I'm more likely to keep him if he's cheaper.

It would seem that the team has the bigger risk because the $500,000 Matt Cassel is going to be more likely to try to get out of his contract and go somewhere else.

But maybe I don't understand how the "up front" money works. I try to be logical about it, but the NFL's system is not always logical. I wish they'd just require a straight up dollars-per-year contract system so that teambuilding was more about who has the best players and less about who has the best accountants.

I'm assuming that a salary cap will be re-instated at some point in the future.

Let's continue to use Cassel as an example.

Keep in mind that guaranteed money is exactly that - the only money in a contract that a player is guaranteed to receive.

Cassel's contract calls for $28M guaranteed, all to be paid in the first two years of a six year deal.

That means that after this season, the Chiefs can cut him with absolutely no penalties.

Had that $28M been spread out over the life of the deal, averaging just under $5M guaranteed per - and the Chiefs wanted to cut him after this upcoming season - they'd still owe him over $18M, and face a huge cap hit/penalties. Which means they'd be more likely to keep him, because it would cost significantly more to cut him.

Now, if there is never a salary cap re-introduced, this all means nothing - but IMO, there will be.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Yeah but Atogwe has talent....you know...something that Mark Castle doesn't have.

what in the holy **** does our QB have to do with this?