So Will We Have The Money For Betts????

[The Zimmermans]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Uhhh... Betts has been injured every season he's been in the league, including this one. Plus, he's never even started half a season and has still managed to get injured repeatedly. I don't doubt that some team will sign him to be a starter, but I also think that team will be a bit disappointed when Betts goes down in the preseason from another ankle issue.

Exactly why I wanna deal bett's instead of portis. He's having a good season, so his market value is increasing.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Zimmermans

Exactly why I wanna deal bett's instead of portis. He's having a good season, so his market value is increasing.

We can't deal him because he wont be under contract come March, and we are past the trading deadline.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We can't deal him because he wont be under contract come March, and we are past the trading deadline.

So, does anyone know if any of the tags (franchise, transition, etc.) give us a draft pick if we don't match an offer?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

So, does anyone know if any of the tags (franchise, transition, etc.) give us a draft pick if we don't match an offer?

The franchise tag would require us to devote the average salary of the five most highly paid backs in the NFL to our salary cap. If a team signed Betts, we'd be entitled to two first round picks (or otherwise negotiated compensation). We would never franchise Betts because no team is going to deem him worthy of a deal commanded by the top 5 RBs in the league.

The transition tag means we have to tender the average salary of the top 10 backs in the league. We get the right to match any contract, but if we let him go, we get no compensation.

I originally posed the idea, but after thinking about it, tagging him is not a realistic option. Probably going to have to let him walk.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

That'd be retarded. While I think Betts has performed admirably these past few weeks, Portis is head and shoulders better than him when he's 100%.

It wouldn't be retarded. What would be retarted is to pay big money to both Betts and Portis along with all the money tied up in the WR's. Portis is the better back but we can win with Betts. There is not a huge drop off. The number one off season priority should be rebuilding the defense. One of them is probably going to have to go but we must get something for one of them. Both have had injuries so whoever we can get the most value for I would move. Try and get some draft picks and start rebuilding the sorry pathetic ass defense.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The franchise tag would require us to devote the average salary of the five most highly paid backs in the NFL to our salary cap. If a team signed Betts, we'd be entitled to two first round picks (or otherwise negotiated compensation). We would never franchise Betts because no team is going to deem him worthy of a deal commanded by the top 5 RBs in the league.

The transition tag means we have to tender the average salary of the top 10 backs in the league. We get the right to match any contract, but if we let him go, we get no compensation.

I originally posed the idea, but after thinking about it, tagging him is not a realistic option. Probably going to have to let him walk.

I don't see any teams wanting to give up picks for him when we clearly won't be keeping him.

[onlydarksets]

Unless we do a sign-and-trade.

[onlydarksets]

Of course, the problem with that is that we have to gauge his market value, which we don't seem to be very good at doing. Plus, we have to avoid a big signing bonus, otherwise we eat that too. However, if it lets us get a decent player in return, it might be worth it.

[celts32]

It won't even come down to money...if someone offers him thier starting job he will leave.

[wilsowilso]

Betts has had a history of durability issues and he isn't really all that great imo. He is good, but not great and he wants to start so that pretty much means he is gone. We can't afford him anyways.

[MTK]

The problem is we would have to re-sign him at a nice chunk of change, and who knows if he would even be open to that. You'd have to think he will be eager to test the free agent waters and who can blame him? He deserves the shot at a starting job and it's not going to happen here.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The franchise tag would require us to devote the average salary of the five most highly paid backs in the NFL to our salary cap. If a team signed Betts, we'd be entitled to two first round picks (or otherwise negotiated compensation). We would never franchise Betts because no team is going to deem him worthy of a deal commanded by the top 5 RBs in the league.

The transition tag means we have to tender the average salary of the top 10 backs in the league. We get the right to match any contract, but if we let him go, we get no compensation.

I originally posed the idea, but after thinking about it, tagging him is not a realistic option. Probably going to have to let him walk.

I agree, tagging him probably doesn't make much sense. I think he'll be gone.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Portis is the better back but we can win with Betts.

What is the basis for this comment? Washington is 2-6 when Betts is the starter. He's nowhere near the complete player that Portis is and he's far less durable. And those of you that seem to think quality backs are a dime a dozen must not have noticed all the blitz pickups that Betts missed yesterday.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The franchise tag would require us to devote the average salary of the five most highly paid backs in the NFL to our salary cap. If a team signed Betts, we'd be entitled to two first round picks (or otherwise negotiated compensation). We would never franchise Betts because no team is going to deem him worthy of a deal commanded by the top 5 RBs in the league.

The transition tag means we have to tender the average salary of the top 10 backs in the league. We get the right to match any contract, but if we let him go, we get no compensation.

I originally posed the idea, but after thinking about it, tagging him is not a realistic option. Probably going to have to let him walk.

Until the owners work out the whole use of poison pills issue, using the transition tag at all is just asking for trouble.

[The Zimmermans]

Yeah, Betts might have vision problems, cause he never picks up the right blitzer. He needs to stand further behind the line, cause the linebackers run right by him half the time. Poor JC