if we dont resign smoot...
 

why dont we put the franchise tag on him if we cant sign him and trade him for a pick or something? that way we would get something for him.

I'm sure that will happen. Especially if they've already resigned Pierce.

From what I've heard, I don't even think they're going to franchise him...

Maybe they want him to test the market and see what other teams think he's worth?

Yeah, franchising Smoot is a bad idea. He is not worth the top 5 salaries for cb'S IN THE LEAGUE. I think he shoud fall somewhere between 8-15, top 5 is tooo much money for him.

he is worth that much because the cap went up in value, each year players salaries go up.

but correct me if im wrong, if we tag him and he signes with another team, dont we lose the franchise tag for the life of the contract?

also, smoot could take the tag money since its more than he would make per season otherwise and screw us over.

I think it's very unlikely that we would franchise him

[url="http://www.askthecommish.com/"]www.askthecommish.com[/url] has some great info on the cap, free agency, etc.

Here's a blurb about the franchise tag

[quote]Each team can name one Franchise Player and one Transition Player. Or, the team may elect to designate two Transition Players in lieu of naming a Franchise Player. When the team places either tag on a player, they have effectively offered the player a one year contract at a predetermined annual wage.

For Franchise Players, that wage is the average of the top 5 players at the player's position. For the Transition Tag, that wage is the average of the top 10 players at the player's position. The player is still free to negotiate with other teams. However, if the player signs with another team, then that team must fork over two first round draft picks to the prior team. As you can guess, not too many teams are eager to part with such lofty compensation. For Transition Players, the prior team maintains the Right of First Refusal, which in essence means that a Transition Player is really a RFA.

Why do teams so rarely use either the Franchise Tag of the Transition tag?

There are a couple of reasons. First and foremost is the Salary Cap. When a team designates a player with either tag, the predetermined annual wage we cited above immediately hits the team's salary cap. For example, last year when the Bengals elected to name Takeo Spikes their Transition Player, he was guaranteed an annual salary of $4.8M (the average of the top 10 NFL LBs' 2002 salaries), and this amount immediately hit the Bengals 2003 Salary Cap. Also at work is a notion of professional courtesy. Many NFL players look upon the Franchise or Transition tag with an unfavorable view. As such, naming a player with one of these tags could send a bad message to other players on the team.[/quote]
Does anyone really think someone would give up 2 first round picks for Smoot??

[QUOTE=jamf]he is worth that much because the cap went up in value, each year players salaries go up.

but correct me if im wrong, if we tag him and he signes with another team, dont we lose the franchise tag for the life of the contract?

also, smoot could take the tag money since its more than he would make per season otherwise and screw us over.[/QUOTE]

That is not a very good way to evaluate what you should pay a player. A player should only make top 5 money ONLY if his play dictates it.
Not because we have the money to pay him or throw away. We have other needs to address besides corner back, plus there other great corner backs in this league. Freddy Smoot is replaceable.
Our reckless spending is why we have $10.1 million dollars of our cap in dead money this year. You know the players we overpaid for like Dan Wilkinson, Dave Fiore, Mark Brunnell...etc. The list is too long to list.

although he may be a forum favorite maybe there is a possibility we let him go and get a phillip buccanon from the raiders or draft antrel Rolle this year in the draft

They don't have to give up 2 first rounders, if the holding team agrees to a lesser deal. Look at what we did with Champ last year.

[QUOTE=cpayne5]They don't have to give up 2 first rounders, if the holding team agrees to a lesser deal. Look at what we did with Champ last year.[/QUOTE]
Right, but Champ was traded not franchised.

Either way, is Smoot worth even one #1?? I doubt it.

Basically it's not worth it to franchise him and guarantee him that top 5 salary and that's why it's very unlikely we'd tag him.

Phillip Buchanon's name has come up a couple of times here. He is not a FA; he is under contract.

He does not like his contract and thinks he deserves more money so he is complaining and asking for a trade.

The next big tackle Buchanon makes will be his first one and he did not have anything resembling a great year. A Bay area Raider fan tell me that Buchanon gets beat deep about twice a game.

So, if the Skins lose Smoot, I doubt that it would be smart for them to trade for (he's under contract, rmemever) a malcontent who gets beaten deep and then start him at CB.

In my opinion, of course...

Well said Curmudgeon.

The problem with trading a malcontent (and I'm not saying Smoot is one, but he certainly isn't showing the team much love right now) is that you are likely to get a malcontent in return. In order to get rid of a headache, you usually acquire one.

I disagree I think it is worth it to franchise him. That way even if we can't reach a deal we can have him on the team for next year. You got to remember that next year is real important, its almost like a superbowl run cause we all know about the cap in 2006. I also believe it is important not to just let smoot walk, we can get something for him.

You also got to remember that if smoot is allowed to walk he can sign with any team. And I know of a team that really needs a right cornerback and has lots of cap space. That team is the Dallas Cowboys.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Right, but Champ was traded not franchised.[/QUOTE]

We put the franchise tag on him, then traded him to Denver.

I think it would be worth it to franchise Fred Smoot. If we can't trade him, or sign him, then we'd have to pay him $5-8 million (don't know the exact numbers here). That's not really a cap killer. It's better than letting him leave for nothing.