Wow for a team who's receivers are piss poor except for this guy...no franchise tag or attempt to sign him to a new contract. He's now a restricted free agent.

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/news/story?id=4946520

this was the smart move to make by the Cowboys.

if someone wants to overpay him, get a 1st and 3rd

Piss poor receivers ? Come on we got Roy Williams

quote:

---

Wow for a team who's receivers are piss poor except for this guy...no franchise tag or attempt to sign him to a new contract. He's now a restricted free agent.

---

YOu mean no attempt other than tendering him a $3MM+ contract offer that would require another team to give up a 1st rounder, 3rd rounder, and still leave Dallas with the right to match the offer? Newsflash - No team is going to give up a 1st, 3rd, and big contract to get a guy that has had one good year, and even if they did, Dallas can match.

It would have been absolutely stupid to offer Miles $9MM this year, which is what the franchise tab would have cost them.

Miles will end up playing for $3-4MM, and Dallas will have the chance to see if his development really was legit - and if he pans out again, then NEXT year they could negotiate the big, long-term deal while having the franchise tag in their back pocket if need be. Blowing that wad this year would be absolute idiocy.

Now if Miles is willing to take a discount to get a long-term deal done now, go for it. Reports I've heard are that he isn't.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 2/26/2010 10:58a).]

Some people don't understand the franchise tag, apparently.

Yeah, that $3MM tender and the strings attached to it practically IS a franchise tag, for 1/3 the price of a real franchise tag.

No one in NFL history has put a franchise tag on an RFA because the team can gain all the leverage they need under the RFA tender offer rules.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 2/26/2010 11:02a).]

I understand completely how the franchise tag works, the $9 Mil isn't at question. No way he's worth that & I understand the business decision. However, not signing him to a longer term contract is an idiot move IMO. SOMEONE will come knocking with the tender the Cowboys have offered. Cowboys have zero at receiver without Austin.

quote:

---

SOMEONE will come knocking with the tender the Cowboys have offered.

---

At which point, the cowboys get the opportunity to either match the contract and keep him, or let him go and get that team's 1 & 3.

No matter how you try to spin it, him being a RFA at a 1 $ 3 tender is GREAT for the Cowboys.

I'm willing to bet Miles doesn't get any offers, much like he didn't last year with a much lower tender and much less compensatory pick strings attached.

And even if he does, as long as Dallas can match, it doesn't matter anyway. They will match.

If Miles wants $45MM for 7 years (rumor is he wants an RW-type deal), why be in a hurry to give it to him now when you don't have to? He could be a flash-in-the-pan and then you just signed up for another s*** contract like RW or MB3. At least wait until your hand is forced to give that kind of deal.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 2/26/2010 11:19a).]

Its stupid to say this was stupid.

If another team actually signs him to a deal, which he'll have to agree to, then the Cowboys are in a great position. Either they take the picks or they match and he's locked in for years to come. It sure beats having to negotiate a deal this year.

the cowboys ONLY rational move in this was to do what they did.

it woulda been completely idiotic for them to give him a high dollar contract at this point especially with the labor mess still an unknown.

the chances of losing Austin under this scenario are very slim, and now Jerry has protected that slim chance by at least getting a 1st and 3rd rounder if it happens. THE COWBOYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MATCH ANY CONTRACT OFFERED AUSTIN right now so they really dont lose anything. its simple NFL GMing 101 (something Jerry hasn't always done well with, but has done right this time).

not sure what more you want out of him.

quote:

---

If Miles wants $45MM for 7 years (rumor is he wants an RW-type deal), why be in a hurry to give it to him now when you don't have to?

---

That I did not know, and don't disagree with the move. He's a $3-4 mil a year guy, but not Roy/TO type money guy (yet). He brings a lot more to the table that stats IMO, he brings some stability to the position and the locker room. A 3-4 yr/$12-15 mil deal is what I could see being offered (right now).

To me, that is a better deal for the Cowboys because if he proves to not be a one pump chump, they get a bargain for a couple of years vs. if he produces next season, he's going to want a longer term/higher money contract.

quote:

---

Yeah, that $3MM tender and the strings attached to it practically IS a franchise tag, for 1/3 the price of a real franchise tag.

---

What DD said.

The Cowboys would have been idiots to franchise him and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

They got him for 3mm, and if someone wants him, a 1st and a 3rd is more valuable than he is anyway.

If someone grabs him, cool, you now get Dez, Been, Thomas or Tate and then have an extra 3rd to play with.

quote:

---

A 3-4 yr/$12-15 mil deal is what I could see being offered (right now).

---

And why would Austin take that deal if one more good season could nab him $40MM+, including a bonus that may exceed $12MM by itself? He's not going to tie himself up for 4 years with such a good chance at a huge payday on the horizon.

I think both sides are playing their cards right. The big picture is that Miles is close enough to landing himself a huge deal that it doesn't make sense to give a big discount, while in the meantime, Dallas still has leverage and it's not worth the risk of giving the big deal now. In the end, you have a logical stalemate for now and the real negotiations will play out after next season.

There's also the potential new CBA to consider in 2011, and unless you have a bonafide proven UFA star you may lose, I think it could be dangerous territory to start handing out big, multi-year contracts before you know what the salary cap climate could be in 2011. 2010 is a year to clear dead weight contracts, not expose yourself to new long-term dead weight contracts on potential one-hit wonders.


[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 2/26/2010 6:27p).]

NFL careers end in a heartbeat. There's guarantee Austin even plays 2 more years, and the $40+M deal only happens if he survives physically.

Would it be possible do split the difference? Try to get a front-loaded 3 year deal worth ~$15, front-loaded?

The way I understand NFL contracts, a bird in the hand makes sense. What am I missing, other than the greed?

If his career ends, he's not getting a whole lot of that $15MM anyway - at least not much more than the $3MM+ he's already bound to get for next year. The special 2010 FA rules greatly restrict how front-loaded deals can be - they aren't letting anyone manipulate this uncapped year.

Careers can be short, but that's a two way street. This may very well be his only shot at the HUGE deal that could impact his family for generations (if he's smart). And you just don't see 26 year old, 1300 WR's disappear in a heartbeat, at least not many that aren't substance abuse related.

He's got a great QB with a track record of staying pretty healthy, a good running game to compliment, and unlike last year, he's going into the season with his coaches intending to make him the #1 guy. Conditions are ripe for another good year and getting that payday.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 2/26/2010 9:25p).]

quote:

---

Would it be possible do split the difference? Try to get a front-loaded 3 year deal worth ~$15, front-loaded?

The way I understand NFL contracts, a bird in the hand makes sense. What am I missing, other than the greed?

---

This was my point. I would think Jerry & Co would have given him a middle of the road contract and either save from having to shell out the big bucks, yet still be protected if he doesn't pan out.

From Austin's perspective it's a better position to be in if he produces next season, but I think it's the opposite for the Cowboys.

[This message has been edited by mts6175 (edited 2/27/2010 2:32p).]

The Cowboys did it right. Anybody who says otherwise just has an axe to grind.

Assume the Cowboys lose Austin... Don't they also get an extra opportunity to sign another team's player?

That might only apply to unrestricted free agents. The rules are confusing. Especially since the Cowboys made the NFC Semis and that changes the rules again.

Are you really still arguing the they made a bad move? He is a RESTRICTED Free Agent.

Don't let you heart cloud your brain. Austin is nice but he's not Jerry Rice or Michael Irvin.

Way to join the party a week later and read the thread.

Wow for a team who's receivers are piss poor except for this guy...no franchise tag or attempt to sign him to a new contract. He's now a restricted free agent
------------------
knowledge FAIL

A week later or not... you're still wrong.

I still enjoy the thread title considering no RFA in the history of the NFL has ever been franchised.

The thread title was the title to the linked article genius. Glad to see you actually read the link.

piag and poodoo, way to read the posts on this thread to really figure out what my opinion of the situation is.

quote:

---

I understand completely how the franchise tag works, the $9 Mil isn't at question. No way he's worth that & I understand the business decision.

---

quote:

---

That I did not know, and don't disagree with the move. He's a $3-4 mil a year guy, but not Roy/TO type money guy (yet). He brings a lot more to the table that stats IMO, he brings some stability to the position and the locker room. A 3-4 yr/$12-15 mil deal is what I could see being offered (right now).

To me, that is a better deal for the Cowboys because if he proves to not be a one pump chump, they get a bargain for a couple of years vs. if he produces next season, he's going to want a longer term/higher money contract.

---

Like I said, welcome to last week.


[This message has been edited by mts6175 (edited 3/4/2010 6:42p).]

ESPN:

quote:

---

Boys could place tender offer on Austin

---

You:

quote:

---

The thread title was the title to the linked article genius. Glad to see you actually read the link.

---

Yes, I can read, and apparently, it does indeed make me the genius between the two of us.


[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 3/4/2010 7:25p).]

quote:

---

IRVING — The Dallas Cowboys gave restricted free agent Miles Austin the highest possible tender offer Thursday, requiring any team that signs the Pro Bowl receiver to give up a first- and third-round pick as compensation.

The move, which was expected, likely means Austin will return to Dallas next season. He's essentially been offered a one-year deal for $3.168 million, but team owner Jerry Jones has said he'll consider giving Austin a longer, more lucrative contract.

The Cowboys made tender offers to 11 of their restricted free agents and signed another to a one-year deal. The only player left out: kicker Shaun Suisham, who struggled after replacing Nick Folk late in the season.

---

Read the top of your browser or tab when you open the link. It will give you the non-updated title. It was copied and pasted when I posted the topic.

Obsession noted by the way, not sure why you're all over my jock to dispute on every post I make on this board. Get a life.

[This message has been edited by mts6175 (edited 3/4/2010 9:42p).]

Alright drama queen. I disagreed with you on the "why" to TO's fall-off and think it was stupid for franchise tag and Miles to be uttered in the same sentence. Pardon my obsession. Sometimes I just can't help myself when I see someone write something absurd. I certainly wasn't the only one in this thread.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 3/5/2010 9:07a).]