Steelers to tag Reed and Hampton.

by theatrain on Feb 23, 2010 11:42 PM EST

Here's the story

It looks like the Steelers will place the Franchise tag on Snack and the Transition tag on Reed. KDKA just reported that Hampton will be given the Franchise tag if he is not signed to a new contract. Hampton's retainment has huge draft implications. With him brought back, our need shifts from the D-line to other positions, namely safety or offensive line.

Other eams can offer Reed a contract, but the Steelers have a right to match the offer, something I hope they would do.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

i really really hope the steelers are able to lock up reed or hampton in a real contract in the next 2 days

if they are able to lock up one, obv the other gets the franchise tag. if they aren’t able to get either, obv the priority is to franchise hampton.

but i’m really worried about tagging reed. the only way it would realistically work is if NO other team is interested in signing him to a contract worth more than 2.6mil/year (that’s why transition tagging max starks worked because no other team was interested in paying him more than 6.9mil per year). the steelers would have a right to match the offer if another team goes for reed, BUT only that exact offer.
so say the bengals decide to offer reed a 11mil/4years contract and throw in a clause about how the entire thing is guaranteed if he plays 6 games or more in the state of pennsylvania then the steelers won’t/can’t match it.

by t1mmy10 on Feb 24, 2010 12:50 AM EST reply actions

Confused

That is someting I have never understood. Lets say the bengals offer him the contract and it states he can’t play more than 2 games in heinz field. What is stopping the steelers from matching that contract, then imediatly signing him to the excact same contract minus that clause?

by Thandrill on Feb 24, 2010 10:18 AM EST up reply actions

short explanation: he could refuse to sign unless the steelers give him more money in the new contract

long explanation: a player who is franchised/transition tagged has very limited options. yes, any team can go out and make him an offer but 1) (i think) that offer has to be more than what the tag amount is (i have a big test on friday, but will read the CBA and find out exactly if that true). 2) the player really doesnt have negotiation power after he’s tagged. his options are to accept the new offer or the franchise/transition tag offer. that’s it. he can claim he won’t accept the new offer unless it’s higher but the other team knows no player really wants a 1 year large contract & would prefer a longer term one a little less money.

(sorry for this round about explanation). now if the steelers were to sign him to a “fully guaranteed contract” and then try to renegotiate because they basically NEED to renegotiate. reed would have all the bargaining power (and all teams know this). why would he sign the same contract, but only not guaranteed when he could sign a BIGGER contract? and reed would end up getting want he wanted in the first place. so if the steelers were willing to do that, then why not just sign him to that amount to begin with instead of tagging him?

as for the scenario you referred to (not allowing reed to play at heinz field), that particular thing has never been done. and it’s probably isn’t allowed to forbid a player playing for another team/at a certain stadium in his contract. that’s why i went with the guaranteed example

by t1mmy10 on Feb 24, 2010 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

so i read it (i couldnt help myself being a football junkie)

this applies for franchised/transitioned/and players given a one year RFA offers:

if they agree to terms with another team, they then submit the main “principles” of the agreement to the original tagging/tendering team. these principles only include things like yearly salary, signing & other bonuses, incentives, and guaranteed money…and things that affect those. the original tagging/tendering team then has the option to accept those principles and keep the player or accept compensation (if there is any). if they choose to accept those, they work out some of the finer details of the contract and can sign a completely new contract HOWEVER anything new they sign with the player must be more in the “player’s interest” than what those originally principles were.

so not allowing a player to play more than X number of times at a stadium isn’t a possible thing to include, but the guaranteed money thing is. and if the steelers would choose to accept that contract then they are required by the league to pay reed a lot more total contract money to lower the guaranteed amt & then may have to be able to “show” in an arbitrator’s court that the renegotiation was more in reed’s interest than the original contract (because the other team could argue what the steelers did wasnt fair…unless the new contract as as much guaranteed money, if not more.)

i hope that makes sense

by t1mmy10 on Feb 24, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions

Ok that makes sense. Thanks!

by Thandrill on Feb 24, 2010 2:49 PM EST up reply actions

Fear the pissed off, franchised Snack...

"OOH! A piece of candy. OOH! A piece of candy."
-James Woods

by Steel Spike on Feb 24, 2010 12:54 AM EST reply actions

So Snack is livid about the tag he specifically asked not to get?

"People hate the Patriots because they cheat. People hate the Steelers because the Steelers are everything that they want their team to be."

Xbox Live Gamertag- Alf Ardanyu

by SoCalSteelerFan on Feb 24, 2010 1:48 AM EST up reply actions

He said a couple weeks ago

that he would be very unhappy were he to be franchise tagged…

"OOH! A piece of candy. OOH! A piece of candy."
-James Woods

by Steel Spike on Feb 24, 2010 2:28 AM EST up reply actions

Ya, he would be mad, but if they Franchise him, he has more of a reason to work out a deal before the season starts. I see them franchising him and then working out a 3 year deal with him finishing out his career a Steeler. He will be upset, but in the end he will be happy because they will pay him and give him the years. All sides will be happy and the Steelers will either draft Dan Williams or Iupati in the first.

I think this news points to them being really interested in a safety though in the first, but I am finding it more and more likely that they wait on Myron Rolle in the 3rd and pick D-line or O-line rounds 1 and 2

by Michael Uhlhorn on Feb 24, 2010 2:36 AM EST up reply actions

You should read mojo's story right down there \|/

"OOH! A piece of candy. OOH! A piece of candy."
-James Woods

by Steel Spike on Feb 24, 2010 2:47 AM EST up reply actions

personally, i dont know how ANYONE could be livid with a cool guaranteed 7.8 million for a year

but that’s just me

by t1mmy10 on Feb 24, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions

He stated he wants a long term contract

and franchising would only guarantee for one year.

"OOH! A piece of candy. OOH! A piece of candy."
-James Woods

by Steel Spike on Feb 24, 2010 1:49 PM EST up reply actions

lol i know

i didnt mean to imply that you were wrong with your facts.

i’m just saying i think it’s kinda crazy he was claiming it would be a “slap in his face.” and i understand the whole thing about long term security/more money in the long run/etc. i still think he word use was a lil over the top

by t1mmy10 on Feb 24, 2010 2:10 PM EST up reply actions

According to the Trib

Hampton and his agent have both said they are okay with him being franchised, provided a long term deal comes out of it. story

by mojo88 on Feb 24, 2010 2:05 AM EST reply actions

Good!

Hopefully they can get him signed to a 3-4 year deal, and we can be quit of all this drafting mounds cody nonsense….

"OOH! A piece of candy. OOH! A piece of candy."
-James Woods

by Steel Spike on Feb 24, 2010 2:32 AM EST up reply actions

If Dan Williams is available at #18

Snack is gone, traded to the best offer they can find, and thereby unloading the hefty 1 year contract and possible long term one.

by SteelerMessican on Feb 24, 2010 6:56 AM EST reply actions

This is the best thing that can happen for the Steelers

Hampton will have to show he can still play like he has in the past, because again like last season after his best statistical season, he will be playing for another and probably his last contract extension. If he does well again, you can try and sign him. If he does poorly we part ways or we sign him to a much more reasonable contract. I hate the idea of signing a player who is on the field 2-4 plays a series for a run stuffer. The NFL is going towards a passing league not a running one and I see the big defensive tackles jobs becoming less and less.

I see us signing Reed long term after next season. We have no idea where the cap will be after the un-capped year and if we over pay for a kicker it could come back to haunt us with players like Woodley’s contract up after next season and will be in for a hefty pay raise.

by daburgh73 on Feb 24, 2010 9:00 AM EST reply actions

thing is, “over-paying” for a kicker is like paying a 500K to 1 mil too much a year. you’re not going to break the bank with that, but you will lose games with a kicker like kris brown.

by t1mmy10 on Feb 24, 2010 1:29 PM EST up reply actions

Understood

Kickers win games, thats why I said we will sign him long term. Its stupid from a business point of view to over pay now and be locked into a deal with a guy when the cap could go down.

So when it comes down to it if you want to spend an extra million on Reed vs. makin sure you can lock up some one like Woodley with that extra million or so a season id say draft a kicker.

by daburgh73 on Feb 24, 2010 2:12 PM EST up reply actions

I really hope a long term deal does not come out of the tag

Hampton has maybe two quality years left. The Steelers get one of those with a tag. Any contract with Big Snack will have to be at least three years, possibly four. So, the Steelers would end up paying three years for two years of productivity under a contract versus one year for one year of productivity under the cap.

This is what I’m going to dub the “James Farrior Syndrome.” Just because a player has some good years left does not make it practical to resign him (unless he asks for one or two years). If you pay a player for four years and get two good years out of him, that is a bad deal. I believe the Steelers will regret their recent trend of signing “old” guys to long term contracts, especially when alternatives, like the franchise tag, are available.

Hines Ward has proven himself a worthy investment post-30, but his deal has not yet expired. If his production plummets this year, his extension may not look so good the next couple years either.

by CarlWeathersMustache on Feb 24, 2010 9:39 AM EST reply actions

do you think a 3 year/18 mil total contract including a 9-10 mil signing bonus is too much to pay? i think that would be reasonable to sign hampton to something like that & cut him after 2 years. that would only mean we’d have a 3-3.33 mil cap hit in his 3rd year (when he’s not on the team). i think that’s pretty acceptable.

by t1mmy10 on Feb 24, 2010 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

How about

we sign Hampton to a Non-exclusive tag and a team like denver snatches him up and gives up two 1 round draft picks, we can settle for a 1st& 3rd round this year, and that way we can have flexibility of trading…. just a thought

Steelers football is 60 mins.

by tannofsteel84 on Feb 24, 2010 2:41 PM EST reply actions

It would be nice, I suppose...

But I don’t think Casey has the same value in trade as he would have as a free agent. I doubt many teams would be willing to give up two first round picks for a 30+ nose tackle. Especially a team ran by a man tutored by a draft maximizer (McDaniels and Belichek).

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preperation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on Feb 24, 2010 2:47 PM EST up reply actions