Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year?

Posted: 7/26/2014 8:58 AM

Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


If we let him play out his deal this year, he be playing for his new contract and we all know how players take it to a new level in contract years...we get his best on game days, he ups his value for a new contract...win, win.  Then next offseason we can tag him with the non exclusive franchise tag, let him negotiate a new deal with another team and then we can negotiate a trade with them.  This all happened with the Chiefs and Vikings in 2008 when Jared Allen was "traded" for a first, two thirds and a sixth after negotiating a new deal with the Queens.  We are able to remove the tag at any time before July when it kicks in.  Is there any reason we shouldn't consider this?
Reply | Quote
  • chriskzoo
  • The Den Pro Bowler
  • 9021 posts this site

Posted: 7/26/2014 9:49 AM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


There are $25M reasons we can't afford to.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/26/2014 10:12 AM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


Like I said, we can remove the tag at any time.  Do you really think we wouldn't be able to find someone willing to trade more than a 3rd rounder for him (what we would get as a compensatory pick) and sign him long term?

Last edited 7/26/2014 10:18 AM by GuitarGod19

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/26/2014 12:22 PM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 



I still think Lyingfan has the best idea.

We can do all right here if we trade him during the season.

Granted that's if we are a crummy team at the deadline. Tagging him would cripple us and we could likely get a first and a player THIS year still to build with in 2015. Over time, that's become the smartest course in the event we are losing.

If we aren't, my guess is Suh may stay on will.

I really just don't see the tag as a realistic option. That's me tho. You have good points.

---------------------------------------------
--- GuitarGod19 wrote:

Like I said, we can remove the tag at any time.  Do you really think we wouldn't be able to find someone willing to trade more than a 3rd rounder for him (what we would get as a compensatory pick) and sign him long term?

---------------------------------------------
"He was the backup last year. He was a backup the year before that.He's been a back up his whole career. I don't think anybody would be surprised if I thought he was a backup".

Martin Mayhew on Dan Orlovsky. Detroit Free Press, 2.21.09
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/26/2014 12:58 PM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


Once a player signs the franchise tag offer it is guaranteed.  You can only withdraw the offer if the player has not signed.    Go ahead and offer Suh $27 million to play next year and see how fast it takes him to sign.  I wouldn't want to be the guy between him and the pen.
Reply | Quote
  • coyote12
  • * THE DEN LEGEND *
  • 24800 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 7/26/2014 5:04 PM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


His cap cost this year is $22,412,500  

I believe his tag would be about 26  I doubt  3.5 million would cripple the Lions.

I am not saying we should but think your over stating affect of the tag would have on Lions.

The best is to get a deal done before season starts. The idea of trading him before deadline limits trading partners because of cost.

However I wouldn't be against Lions looking at a trade if a deal is not done.
VinceLombardisGhost wrote:
I still think Lyingfan has the best idea.

We can do all right here if we trade him during the season.

Granted that's if we are a crummy team at the deadline. Tagging him would cripple us and we could likely get a first and a player THIS year still to build with in 2015. Over time, that's become the smartest course in the event we are losing.

If we aren't, my guess is Suh may stay on will.

I really just don't see the tag as a realistic option. That's me tho. You have good points.

---------------------------------------------
--- GuitarGod19 wrote:

Like I said, we can remove the tag at any time.  Do you really think we wouldn't be able to find someone willing to trade more than a 3rd rounder for him (what we would get as a compensatory pick) and sign him long term?

---------------------------------------------

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Reply | Quote
  • trizzbang
  • King of the Jungle!
  • 1003 posts this site

Posted: 7/26/2014 5:23 PM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


The franchise tag gives the Lions their best leverage to sign him long term. Barring a poor year, I fully expect a deal to get done next offseason.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/26/2014 6:27 PM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


Many logic gaps here.

First, trading Suh will be hampered by cost, but he isn't to us?

Missing your point.

Second, so, you're assuming we are going to hit the ground running then, right? 3 million dollars more means 3 million less to spend. Unless we come out winning, this would be a terrible move.

Here's one for you: it's pretty clear you're OK with going into 2014 as is....if we lose....you aren't allowed to make excuses. Sound fair? The reason being: if we are going to win spending more on Suh, we better be pretty damn good...so much so we can give 3 million more to him.

As it is we are stretched thin with cap space....so who goes?

Those who want Suh gone are in favor of using the money elsewhere. You're in favor of using more on him. Which means? We must be ready to win today.

So, this is your stance. No excuses. If they lose....you blame the team.

Fair?

This should be interesting.....

;D


---------------------------------------------
--- coyote12 wrote:

His cap cost this year is $22,412,500  

I believe his tag would be about 26  I doubt  3.5 million would cripple the Lions.

I am not saying we should but think your over stating affect of the tag would have on Lions.

The best is to get a deal done before season starts. The idea of trading him before deadline limits trading partners because of cost.

However I wouldn't be against Lions looking at a trade if a deal is not done.
VinceLombardisGhost wrote:
I still think Lyingfan has the best idea.

We can do all right here if we trade him during the season.

Granted that's if we are a crummy team at the deadline. Tagging him would cripple us and we could likely get a first and a player THIS year still to build with in 2015. Over time, that's become the smartest course in the event we are losing.

If we aren't, my guess is Suh may stay on will.

I really just don't see the tag as a realistic option. That's me tho. You have good points.

---------------------------------------------
--- GuitarGod19 wrote:

Like I said, we can remove the tag at any time.  Do you really think we wouldn't be able to find someone willing to trade more than a 3rd rounder for him (what we would get as a compensatory pick) and sign him long term?

---------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------
"He was the backup last year. He was a backup the year before that.He's been a back up his whole career. I don't think anybody would be surprised if I thought he was a backup".

Martin Mayhew on Dan Orlovsky. Detroit Free Press, 2.21.09
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/26/2014 10:07 PM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 





---------------------------------------------
--- trizzbang wrote:

The franchise tag gives the Lions their best leverage to sign him long term. Barring a poor year, I fully expect a deal to get done next offseason.

---------------------------------------------

The tag gives Suh the leverage. The tag gives Suh a one year deal somewhere around $26M. So we would have to put more money in his pocket than that in the first year, or tons of guarantees overall, for it to make sense for Suh and his agent.

Think about this. Geno Atkins is the top paid DT in the league with a 5 year $53M deal. They gave him a $15M signing bonus and a $4M first year salary. Suh would be crazy to sign that deal, because he would make signicantly more than Atkins just playing under the tag. In fact, Atkins has to play the first 3 years of his deal plus his signing bonus to match what Suh would make with one year under the tag.

As was pointed out, once Suh signs the tag it's guaranteed unless HE chooses to sign a long term deal...we can't take it back.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/26/2014 10:53 PM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 



wesleysh21 wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- trizzbang wrote:

The franchise tag gives the Lions their best leverage to sign him long term. Barring a poor year, I fully expect a deal to get done next offseason.

---------------------------------------------

The tag gives Suh the leverage. The tag gives Suh a one year deal somewhere around $26M. So we would have to put more money in his pocket than that in the first year, or tons of guarantees overall, for it to make sense for Suh and his agent.

Think about this. Geno Atkins is the top paid DT in the league with a 5 year $53M deal. They gave him a $15M signing bonus and a $4M first year salary. Suh would be crazy to sign that deal, because he would make signicantly more than Atkins just playing under the tag. In fact, Atkins has to play the first 3 years of his deal plus his signing bonus to match what Suh would make with one year under the tag.

As was pointed out, once Suh signs the tag it's guaranteed unless HE chooses to sign a long term deal...we can't take it back.
Thank you.

This is something that I keep coming back to.......

Here are Suh's options for 2015, thus far:

1. Sign with the Lions for maybe 15 and a 6 million dollar bonus (21 million)
2. Force the Lions to tag him (26 million)
3. Test the market where some desperate team may pay him a king's ransom (????? million)
4. Test the market and take FMV with a contender and win a Super Bowl ($$$$ more than Atkins)

If the dude and his agents have any brains (and we've always heard how smart Suh is)....they get on their knees and pray to the almighty the Lions apply the tag. He would have made in 2 seasons like 5 million less than Atkins did in 5. This is why I keep asking: what, if any, incentive does Suh have to sign?

This was an absolutely brilliant move by him. There can be no denying that. He may be the smartest financial player I've ever seen in a Lions uni.

And this is also why I continue to agree with Lyingfan.....the ONLY way we can really "win" in this and have a bit of leverage is...IF we are stinking up the joint in week 4 or 5, start making calls and seeing if we can get a contender to kick us something back.

Maybe it's a low first and a player, but expecting a moderate deal with Suh just won't happen at this point which is why I think we should know all the possible outcomes and have time to deal with them all before one actually happens.
"He was the backup last year. He was a backup the year before that.He's been a back up his whole career. I don't think anybody would be surprised if I thought he was a backup".

Martin Mayhew on Dan Orlovsky. Detroit Free Press, 2.21.09

Last edited 7/26/2014 11:01 PM by VinceLombardisGhost

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/26/2014 10:56 PM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 



socko wrote: Once a player signs the franchise tag offer it is guaranteed.  You can only withdraw the offer if the player has not signed.    Go ahead and offer Suh $27 million to play next year and see how fast it takes him to sign.  I wouldn't want to be the guy between him and the pen.
This post made my day, by the way. biggrin

So true. Just SO true.
"He was the backup last year. He was a backup the year before that.He's been a back up his whole career. I don't think anybody would be surprised if I thought he was a backup".

Martin Mayhew on Dan Orlovsky. Detroit Free Press, 2.21.09
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/27/2014 11:09 AM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


Good points by all, I didn't really consider that Suh would sign the tag if he knew we wanted to trade him, he could basically be a FA and negotiate his deal and destination while not completely screwing the Lions. I definitely don't believe he will be traded in season, no one is going to have the available cap space at that point to take on his contract.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/27/2014 1:09 PM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


If the Lions are not able to restructure his contract then Suh could void his contract next year.   The Lions would be forced to pay $9.7 mil in dead money for the bonus money they would still have to pay him, but after that they are out of cap space hell as far as he is concerned.   Somebody please tell me if I am misunderstanding something, okay?   So let's look at the scenarios, assuming a restructuring deal is not reached:

1.  If the Lions tag Suh, they're on the hook for over $26 mil in cap space in 2015.   Not sure how they arrived at that number, but how could they possibly keep many of the 30 some guys who are in their contract years right now, let alone sign any decent FAs?   Tagging somebody is only a one year deal, right?   Maybe they lose him anyway in 2016, but now you've lost some of your better players who are gone to other teams.   Sounds like perpetual mediocrity at best after this year for quite some time.

2.  If they don't tag him and Suh voids his contract, then he's gone unless the Lions can re-sign him to a new contract.   Either way they have to pay him the $9.7 mil in dead money due to the owed bonus money.   Considering the top DTs make about around $12 mil, is he worth $16 mil for 2015?    The guy is as good as it gets, he makes every other defensive player better IMHO.   So, in this scenario Suh is gone next year but the Lions have about $16 mil more in cap space even though they gotta pay Suh $9.7 mil in dead money.        

Last edited 7/27/2014 2:59 PM by Wiseacres

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/27/2014 10:29 PM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


he's an awesome player but i think we can sign 3 really good players for 22 million ... i want him here just dont wanna spend all that money on 3 guys ...trade him if you can , won't be hard with oakland and jets and dallas..they will give anything...but if you can't...let him walk , save that cap money and build a defense with a multiple players at his price
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/28/2014 10:01 AM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 


You absolutely FT Suh next year. Who cares about the tag #? It is only 3 mil more than we pay now so essentially it is costing us a Brandon Pettigrew type player..... Ahhh I think we can manage with one of those?

Suh is the type of talent that a team may be willing to sign even under the franchise tag (2 1st rd picks). Even if Suh were to play under the tag we still get him in contract years for two years and he will be 29 when his contract is up. Basically we get the best Suh in his prime years.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/28/2014 11:30 AM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 



FearTheLionRoar wrote: You absolutely FT Suh next year. Who cares about the tag #? It is only 3 mil more than we pay now so essentially it is costing us a Brandon Pettigrew type player..... Ahhh I think we can manage with one of those?

Suh is the type of talent that a team may be willing to sign even under the franchise tag (2 1st rd picks). Even if Suh were to play under the tag we still get him in contract years for two years and he will be 29 when his contract is up. Basically we get the best Suh in his prime years.
IF Mayhew and Lewand somehow survive to next year, they should be fired the second they offer Suh the franchise tag.  With CJ's salary jumping 7 mil next year, you are going to have about 65 million tied to 3 players.  Even if the salary cap goes to 140 million next year, thats almost 50% going to 3 players.  Talk about an extreme mismanagement of resources.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/28/2014 11:31 AM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 



FearTheLionRoar wrote: You absolutely FT Suh next year. Who cares about the tag #? It is only 3 mil more than we pay now so essentially it is costing us a Brandon Pettigrew type player..... Ahhh I think we can manage with one of those?

Suh is the type of talent that a team may be willing to sign even under the franchise tag (2 1st rd picks). Even if Suh were to play under the tag we still get him in contract years for two years and he will be 29 when his contract is up. Basically we get the best Suh in his prime years.

Me thinks if the D comes out and gets embarrassed in games, you will change your tune.

And 3 million dollars is also:

DeAndre Levy this year (3.2 million cap hit)
Golden Tate this year  (3.1 million cap hit)
Reiff through the rest of his rookie deal (2.1 & 2.5 million)
Joique Bell this year (2.3 million)

In addition to this: what you also have to consider is....those contracts are going UP in value as well as is the standard in the NFL. For example....

Levy goes from a hit of 3.2 to 4.5 (+1.3 million)
Tate goes from a hit of 3.1 to 5.3 (+2.1 million)
Bell goes from a hit of 2.3 to 3.5 (+1.3 million)
Reiff goes from 2.1 to 2.5 (+400k)

In total...that's about 5 million MORE we are already spending on those players alone. It doesn't count 2015 hits against:

Tulloch who we are on the hook for 5 million for.
Quin who we are on the hook for 5 million for.
Ziggy who we are on the hook for 5 million for.
Reggie Bush who we are on the hook for 4.5 million for.
Jason Jones who we are on the hook for 3.5 million for.

Just doing some basic math....we are at a projected cap hit of 102 million with just:

Calvin, Stafford, Suh (on the tag), Levy, Tate, Bell, Reiff, Tulloch, Quin, Ziggy, Reggie, Jason Jones.

We need 22 to field 2 starting units. Not counting special teams, but so far for 102 million, we are fielding only 12 players. We need a total of 53. Guys like Ebron already will be making close to 3. Slay 1.5 and KVN over 1...that's another 5 million and 3 starters. So we are at 107 million with 15 of 22 starting roster spots filled and absolutely no depth. You want to say Swanson and Jonte will be starters? Cool, that's another million. So, you have 17 of 22 guys. Warford adds close to a million, still that's only 18 and close to 110 million dollars there.

So far you have those 18 guys and you have a

QB

2 RBs

2 WRs

1 TE

1 OT
1 OG
1 C
1 DT
3 LBS
2 DEs
2 CBs
1 S

This for 110 million dollars. We still need...1 more OT, 1 more OG, 1 more DT, 1 more S (or it could be Ihedigbo, for 2 million more)....just to have a starting unit on each. Then we need to add an additional.....31 players for depth and to give us options.


Granted: I'm not sure what the cap will go up to next season, but I don't think it's going to be enough to pay out ALL of our escalating contracts. AND an additional 3 million to Suh even if we wanted to cut a few guys.

So, I ask again: who do you cut to find that extra 3 million for Suh?

In fact, what other players of note, besides Pettigrew (which isn't going to happen), are you going to cut just to keep the band together after this year? Frankly, I don't think it's any where as simple as 3 million more. The more I look at the numbers, the more I see we are strapped with a bunch of huge contracts that will hurt us in addition to the Suh deal (for instance, Reggie Bush who is declining in skill--just based on age--is going to make 4.5 million each of the next 2 years then 5 million....for a guy who will be 32 by the time it's said and done, I'd say that's over priced).

"He was the backup last year. He was a backup the year before that.He's been a back up his whole career. I don't think anybody would be surprised if I thought he was a backup".

Martin Mayhew on Dan Orlovsky. Detroit Free Press, 2.21.09

Last edited 7/28/2014 11:35 AM by VinceLombardisGhost

Reply | Quote
  • chriskzoo
  • The Den Pro Bowler
  • 9021 posts this site

Posted: 7/28/2014 11:35 AM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 



FearTheLionRoar wrote: You absolutely FT Suh next year. Who cares about the tag #? It is only 3 mil more than we pay now so essentially it is costing us a Brandon Pettigrew type player..... Ahhh I think we can manage with one of those?

Suh is the type of talent that a team may be willing to sign even under the franchise tag (2 1st rd picks). Even if Suh were to play under the tag we still get him in contract years for two years and he will be 29 when his contract is up. Basically we get the best Suh in his prime years.
This is nonsense.  For what they would be paying Suh, they could have 2 Top-10 cornerbacks.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/28/2014 11:48 AM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 



FearTheLionRoar wrote: You absolutely FT Suh next year. Who cares about the tag #? It is only 3 mil more than we pay now so essentially it is costing us a Brandon Pettigrew type player..... Ahhh I think we can manage with one of those?

Suh is the type of talent that a team may be willing to sign even under the franchise tag (2 1st rd picks). Even if Suh were to play under the tag we still get him in contract years for two years and he will be 29 when his contract is up. Basically we get the best Suh in his prime years.

And it's a good bet that the league wide cap goes up that $3 million next year as well.  Obviously getting a long-term deal with him is the best play, but I wouldn't say "no way" to using the FT rather than losing him for nothing.

It also sounds like if he voided his deal to test free agency, we'd only have about $16 million in cap space next year as a result.  How are we going to replace a top 10 defensive player's impact for that?  I don't know that $16 million in cap space when we just lost our best defensive player is all that much of a boon.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/28/2014 11:51 AM

Re: Why Can't We Tag Suh Next Year? 



chriskzoo wrote:
FearTheLionRoar wrote: You absolutely FT Suh next year. Who cares about the tag #? It is only 3 mil more than we pay now so essentially it is costing us a Brandon Pettigrew type player..... Ahhh I think we can manage with one of those?

Suh is the type of talent that a team may be willing to sign even under the franchise tag (2 1st rd picks). Even if Suh were to play under the tag we still get him in contract years for two years and he will be 29 when his contract is up. Basically we get the best Suh in his prime years.
This is nonsense.  For what they would be paying Suh, they could have 2 Top-10 cornerbacks.
If Suh leaves, he leaves almost $10 million of dead money with him, so we don't get to use what we would be paying him fully on other players.  We'd get about $16 million more than we would otherwise, using that $26 million number for the FT.

What two Top-10 cornerbacks that are going to be free agents next season can we sign for a total of $16 million?
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >