Realistically, we only have four options for the franchise tag this year; not using it, Jake Long, Sean Smith, Randy Starks. As the season progressed, the popular opinion throughout the media has shifted from us using the tag on Long, to Smith, and now to Starks. With the salary cap currently set to be approximately $120.9 million, we have $35.8 million to spend on draft picks, free agents, and re-signings this year. From NFL.com, each player would cost as follows: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...ag-numbers-tentatively-set-2013-cap-near-121m *For reference, if you don't know the difference between the franchise and transition tags (as I did not), take a look here: http://football.about.com/cs/football101/a/franchisetransi.htm So how would each franchise player affect our total budget? Long, Smith, and Starks would leave us with $25.2, $27.5, and $26.2 million, respectively, under the franchise tag. As the cheapest and most proven option, it's clear why Starks has been the favorite by fans and media, alike, but in the end, this depends on Ireland's valuation of Long's and Smith's potentials; Can Long return to the status of being a franchise left tackle? Can Smith consistently be the shutdown corner he shows flashes of being? If the answer is yes to either of those questions, then this decision is certainly not as cut and dry as it seems, especially considering the amount of depth at defensive tackle in the upcoming draft, relative to the other positions. So what do you all think? Who, if it all, should we use the franchise tag on?
I know it's a joke, but to put into perspective just how unrealistic that is.... WR: Franchise: $10.357
I think it depends on how the negotiations go with Hartline, Long and Bush...if they can lock one of those guys up (my opinionated guess would be Long), then IF they can't work out a deal with Starks, hit him with the tag...He's the one FA that would be left that is most valuable to this franchise, even tho the DL draft is strong...
Randy Starks is the only one who you wouldn't be paying way more than they would get in free agency besides maybe Long
Rather we just out right sign Starks and use the tag on Long/Smith. But of course, Miami does every ****ing thing at the last god damn minute and we'll have to use it on Starks and lose both Smith and Long and get nothing in return. Love our team!
I'm a tad confused. I thought I've read/heard several times that Jake Long's franchise number would be around $15 million. If that is the case, then absolutely not. However, given the numbers in the initial post, I would go like this: -Jake Long: Of the three players we could tag, he is the only one that is capable of being elite at his position. Obviously, through injuries, he hasn't played like it the past couple years, but he's capable. If he is healthy, he is clearly a top-3 LT who you put out there and don't worry about. -Randy Starks: A very good player, just below the elites at his position. Very solid, and fairly consistent as well. But, he could very well be replaced by Jared Odrick, who showed signs of being a beast inside last year. As good as Starks can be, if a far cheaper replacement can be had w/ little drop-off at the position (if any - Odrick could be really good inside for all we know), I'm not sure I see the true value in franchising Starks, or even devoting near big money to him in a 2-3 year deal as well. -Sean Smith: To me, Smith is really a below-average CB, who only excels against the tall guys like Fitzgerald or Johnson, but fails miserably against the smaller, quicker and faster guys, who he sees more of. To me, the idea of placing a franchise tag on a below-average players speaks of gross incompetence by the person making the decision (insert Ireland joke here). So, to me, it comes down to Long and Starks. Long CAN be elite, while Starks is simply very good. Starks can be replaced by a cheaper replacement, while Long, not so much. Yes, we could replace Long, and probably be OK, but for $10 million for one year, I'd take a shot at it and see if he really can be elite. Then, lock him up for a few more years next offseason. At worst, he is a shadow of himself, and - yes - we'll have overpaid him for 2013, but we'll know for sure, and we can move on next offseason. It's worth a shot, I say franchise Long!
The only player the Dolphins have as a free agent who is worth the franchise tag is, Starks. No other Dolphin free agent is worth anywhere close to what it would cost the Dolphins to tag them.
Oh, ouch then. I really do want Jake back for reasons I've stated, but that's just too much .... I think. I mean, we do have the money, but sheesh, that's a ton considering what other plans Ireland MAY have after 3/12.
Starks, only one whose franchise tag money is near what he's worth to us. Would like to keep both Smith and Long too, but they're not worth the money they want or the tag would pay them.
definitely a no-brainer. with the cap remaining potentially flat for a few more years, overpaying for vets will bite you in the arse much more so.
It was a half-joke I suppose. I think in general, retaining Hartline is a lot more important than people here believe. I don't think tagging Hartline at that price is any worse than tagging Long. Ultimately I don't think I would tag anyone. Maybe Starks, but I'm not sure that would be the best idea.
Sign Starks, tag Smith. As much as some malign him around here, losing Smith would make our secondary very weak. Id rather we keep him for a year and try to gear in a rookie or give us another year to hunt for a decent and well priced FA. I think with the upgrades we need, the likelihood that we lose Jake, that creating another hole by losing Smith would not help us short or long term. That said, if Starks goes unsigned, we should tag him instead, but we really should focus on making him a Dolphin before having to use it.
I agree. In regards to Hartline, a lot of people have been kicking him to the curb and suggesting guys like Greg Jennings. GJ is going to be a lot more expensive, a lot less durable, and is 3 years older. Hartline has had to deal with some pretty poor QB play prior to this year, and he really is a lot better than people are giving him credit for. It may not be an apt comparison, but I'll say it anyway; he's been a hell of a lot better than Wes Welker had been for us (who developed into an objectively good player). Now, that $10,000,000 is too much when we could potentially sign a guy like Mike Wallace for less than that annually, but if Hartline is willing to take $5-6 million a year for 3-4, I'm wondering why Ireland hasn't signed on the dotted line. So to bring things full circle, if we could resign Hartline, sign Wallace, and get Floyd, or maybe even Lotulelei, in the first, that'd be great.
I'd franchise Starks, that one is easy in my opinion. I'd transition Sean Smith, and hope to get something in return, let him be someone elses issue at that money. I'm not franchising Jake Long at $15.366 million. That is WAY too much money to pay a guy that does not touch the football, ever. I'm big on line play but damn, the only player on the field I want making that kind of money is a quarterback.
First, I would guess that, based on the media outlet stories so far, that Hartline's camp hasn't agreed to the $5-6M and that's why no deal has been made. I, like you, think that is a decent price for what Hartline brings to the table, however, I'm guessing that Hartline thinks differently (again, based on the media stories to date). Like you, I think Hartline gets a bad rap with Dolfans, mainly because of his lack of TDs, but those same folks aren't taking into account the guys that have been throwing the ball to him, the schemes, the coaching, etc thus far that he's had to deal with in his tenure here... I can see us potentially signing Hartline for a reasonable amount, adding a Wallace and then a draftee, at least someone in the 2nd and again, if I had my way (not being a scout or GM), I'd still take Patterson at #12, if he's there to go along with Hartline and Wallace.... However, if we can't get Wallace (I don't see Bowe being available when all is said and done and I am beginning to feel they aren't too high on Jennings), I think we have double up in the draft with hopefully Patterson and someone else... It's gonna be interesting how this works out...I don't think I'd be very happy with Hartline (re-signed) and Jennings if we don't get someone in the higher rounds of the draft, but if we get Wallace and Hartline, they can wait to see what's in the later rounds, IF someone isn't available for us earlier...
I think it's palatable if we need to buy an extra year at the position so that CB doesn't have to become a 1st or high 2nd round priority.
I just love that no one picked to tag Sean Smith Guy is such a D bag!! I hope he goes somewhere else and drops lots of balls
Yeah, I would not Franchise Smith, but if we resign Starks so do not need to Franchise him, I'd consider Transition tagging Smith. Avg of top 10 is more doable and let someone else set the market for him by signing him to an offer sheet. If it's too big, then don't match, sign another veteran UFA corner and collect our compensatory pick for Smith in 2014.
