Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Nov 26, 2014 at 17:02 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Steelers "Transition" Starks  (Read 1620 times)
bucc-o-pain
No longer a N00b!
**

Karma: 102
Offline Offline

Posts: 78



WWW
« on: Feb 20, 2008 at 20:07 »

Steelers "Transition" Starks

Maybe someone here can help me understand this better. By putting the "transition" tag on Max, the Steelers must pay him the average of the highest paid ten OTs in the league? The Steelers are going to pay Max 6.895 million??? While I do like Max, even the Steelers coaches thought he was a backup until Marvel got hurt.

Is this a panic move to patch up the O-line?
« Last Edit: Feb 20, 2008 at 20:12 by bucc-o-pain » Logged

Tanqueray and Tab and keep 'em comin'.  - Big Ern
SCacalaki
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 4449
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,501


WWW
« Reply #1 on: Feb 20, 2008 at 20:40 »

Quote
By placing the transition tag on Starks, the Steelers also have first right of refusal should another team try to sign the 6-foot-8, 345-pound tackle.

And that's all they get.

Unlike the franchise tag, the Steelers get no compensation should they decline to match an offer from another team.  Not that Starks is worth of the franch tag but transition tag isn't all that exciting IMO.  

Didn't the Seahags get screwed with the transition tag and Steve Hutchinson, ala the "Poison Pill" contract?

The transition tag for Starks says the Steelers want to work out a long-term deal.  Maybe the thought is teams aren't that sure of Starks' abilities, thereby creating a low chance of a poison pill deal.  

The Steelers (nor any other team that I can recall) won't leave the transition tag on Starks.  

In the end, if another team wants Starks, they can get him w/o compensating the Steelers.  

Kind of a fluff move but whatever.
« Last Edit: Feb 20, 2008 at 20:46 by SCacalaki » Logged

Words to live by:  "Dick LeBeau is Dick LeBeau," Tomlin said. "Everybody knows Dick."
sysadmin7
Member
***

Karma: 1267
Offline Offline

Posts: 225



« Reply #2 on: Feb 20, 2008 at 20:41 »

No clue...really, no clue.

I think it's time to fire GM Kevin Colbert. Everything he's done since M. Tomlin has been here has been suspect. Really...M. Starks at LT? Does this mean M. Smith is gone and you spend the extra money on M. Starks? I just don't get it...really don't. Someone clear this up for me...thanks.

 
« Last Edit: Feb 20, 2008 at 22:31 by sysadmin7 » Logged

LINUX = FREEDOM
dcity21
Member
***

Karma: 154
Offline Offline

Posts: 214



WWW
« Reply #3 on: Feb 20, 2008 at 23:27 »

While I'm not exactly sure what this means, I am happy to hear something is happening with Starks..

I think this year on the sidelines was good for him, and beyond that he seemed to take it very well. He played very very well when he got it and he wasn't heard from once all year. In fact, I can remember Tomlin having almost nothing but praise for his attitude..

I agree about Colbert, I would hope he's at the end of his rope. Weird to say considering that this team is still very good and has been for years, but he just doesn't seem to help. He has stayed afloat thanks to the almost no-brain decisions turning out to be better than expected, basically #7.. If this draft isn't a B or better i'll be ready for him to get axed..

But, I do like keeping Starks around, so hopefully that is what this will lead to..



and didn't the Hags get screwed on the Hutch deal cuz they were all tied up in keeping Shaun Alexander? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!  :danceshout:

ahhhh, Glad to see that worked out for them..  
Logged

"i don't know Nutting about baseball.. but i know about Nutting over making some cash.." Ownership ROCKS!!!
Y2Joyce
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 2549
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,861



« Reply #4 on: Feb 21, 2008 at 00:07 »

Whatever. Starks was our best OT last season. He's in his mid-20s and has started for a Super Bowl champ. Letting him go would be insane.  
Logged

Steelers 58-15 when I am in attendance.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,379



« Reply #5 on: Feb 21, 2008 at 07:18 »

Quote
Whatever. Starks was our best OT last season. He's in his mid-20s and has started for a Super Bowl champ. Letting him go would be insane.
I think the real question is why the FO decided to use the transition tag versus the franchise tag.

Quote
NFL teams have two other tools at their disposal that provide for greater leverage in securing Free Agents: the Franchise Tag and the Transition Tag.

Each Club can designate one of its players who would otherwise be an UFA or RFA as a Franchise Player each season. Something that even some of the most knowledgeable sports fans do not realize is that a team has the option of designating a Franchise player with one of two tags: "Exclusive" or "Non-Exclusive".

Any Club that designates a Franchise Player as "Exclusive" shall be the only Club with which that Franchise Player may negotiate or sign a contract. In order to designate an UFA or RFA as an Exclusive Franchise Player, the team must tender the player a one year contract that is the minimum of the average of the five largest salaries (as calculated at the end of the free agency signing period)  for players at the position at which he played the most games during the prior year, or 120% of his prior year salary, whichever is greater.

If the team elects to name the player "non-exclusive" then the player shall be permitted to negotiate a contract with any Club as if he were an UFA; however, Draft Choice Compensation of TWO first round draft selections shall be awarded to the prior club in the event that he signs with the new club. For Non-Exlusive Franchise Players, the team must tender the player a one year contract that is the minimum of the average of the five largest PRIOR-YEAR salaries for players at the position at which he played the most games in the prior year, or 120% of his prior year salary, whichever is greater.

If the player elects to play with the prior club (the team that designated him with the Franchise tag) and does not negotiate another contract with that team, then the one year salary is guaranteed. Also, if the prior club elects to withdraw the qualifying offer, the player becomes an UFA.

Each Club can also designate one UFA or RFA as a Transition Player. Additionally, (in the final year of the CBA) each club may, in lieu of designating a Franchise Player, designate an additional Transition Player during the same designation period as the Franchise Player designation period. Whew! What that means is that a team may elect to tag two players with the Transition tag or one Transition Player and one Franchise Player in the final capped year. Any Club that designates a Transition Player shall receive the Rights of First Refusal. In order to designate an UFA or RFA as a Transition Player, the team must tender the player a one year contract for the average of the ten largest prior year salaries for players at the position at which he played the most games during the prior year, or 120% of his prior year salary, whichever is greater.

The transition tag is so rarely used that it makes me wonder whether we really might be saving the franchise tag for some purpose; if not, then it's a silly move.  If we are, then clearly we're tagging Red.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
give'emthaboot
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1469
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,837



« Reply #6 on: Feb 21, 2008 at 08:40 »

I agree that it seems weird to transition Starks rather than just signing him long-term to a more cap-friendly deal.  However, I am glad we are making an effort to keep Starks around, and I've said before, I think the Steelers should cut M. Smith and keep Starks.  I just can't see the FO justifying tying up $14+ mill between the two of them, as both of their performances have been suspect the last couple years.

It does bring up the possibility, as Finny mentioned, of tagging Ellen Faneca, which I think would not only be a pretty smart move (even though one could argue it would be foolish waste that kind of money on the guy) but it would be pretty hilarious after all his bitching and moaning last off-season.
Logged

'Oh, my, James Harrison is not going to the White House, he must be a devil worshiper!'
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,848



WWW
« Reply #7 on: Feb 21, 2008 at 08:43 »

Quote
The transition tag is so rarely used that it makes me wonder whether we really might be saving the franchise tag for some purpose; if not, then it's a silly move. If we are, then clearly we're tagging Red.

Finny, I know you've said that franchising Red is a "bandaid" move, and for the most part I agree with you.

But wouldn't that bandaid buy us one more draft to improve the oline?  I think it's gonna take two drafts to get our down guys up to snuff, on both sides of the ball.  Franchise Red, keep Starks, let Red go after we've had a year to draft and develop other talent.

Just a thought.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,848



WWW
« Reply #8 on: Feb 21, 2008 at 08:47 »

Quote
I agree that it seems weird to transition Starks rather than just signing him long-term to a more cap-friendly deal.

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, doesn't this essentially buy us time to sign him after we see what the offers are in FA?  

Quote
It does bring up the possibility, as Finny mentioned, of tagging Ellen Faneca, which I think would not only be a pretty smart move (even though one could argue it would be foolish waste that kind of money on the guy) but it would be pretty hilarious after all his bitching and moaning last off-season.

This is my issue with keeping him.  He's been a pretty mouthy malcontent for the last few years, although I think he just pops off too quickly before thinking about what he says.  How POed is he going to be if he gets franchised?  The upside is that, if he wants a big contract next year, he'd better play like a wild man, cause he'll be another year older and that much less valuable.

 
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,379



« Reply #9 on: Feb 21, 2008 at 09:01 »

Quote
Quote
The transition tag is so rarely used that it makes me wonder whether we really might be saving the franchise tag for some purpose; if not, then it's a silly move. If we are, then clearly we're tagging Red.

Finny, I know you've said that franchising Red is a "bandaid" move, and for the most part I agree with you.

But wouldn't that bandaid buy us one more draft to improve the oline?  I think it's gonna take two drafts to get our down guys up to snuff, on both sides of the ball.  Franchise Red, keep Starks, let Red go after we've had a year to draft and develop other talent.

Just a thought.
Franchising Faneca would give us a year, I suppose, or it might give us a few weeks.  By the latter I mean, it might get Alan and his people to look at an extension that, while not on par with the mad money of free agency, might still be agreeable nevertheless.  

Some folks have suggested that Red might be brought back to try his hand at center, which begs a few questions.  Why wasn't this tried last year, if it's such a good idea?  And while Faneca is smart enough to handle center duties, can he take on the nose tackles?  Who takes LG?  

Either the FO is up to something very smart or very stupid.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!