Sounds good, and no rush! I'm way behind on my off-season preparations.

Do we have a deadline yet for Tags and whatnot before FA starts?

It’s ok. We can just assume Arizona won.

That sounds like the sort of task that could be delegated to a team of moderators. Just a thought.

soonertf wrote:So it becomes a bit of a time race? First one to offer 760K + 100K wins. Correct?

Seems like it, but the winning team would be out of signing bonus budget for any other players.

stevebarrett24 wrote:I was always one of those why rush the offseason we can space it out a little more. But I might be rethinking that because this is going to be a long 25 days until the draft starts.

Speak for yourself. I still have 200+ prospects to go look at before I complete my draft board!

I think if a deal is less than the tender amount but a longer term, with some guaranteed, then it’s entirely feasible that an RFA would agree to the offer. Example: A - $2.9 million tender for one year, $0 guaranteed. B - 3 year deal, $1,000,000 salary with $1,000,000 signing bonus. If I were the ag...

It’s about trying to close loopholes when we find them. We’ve done this before with other issues we’ve come across. When we find a loophole that leads to unrealistic results (extreme example of $60 million signing bonus and $450k salary for a 1 year deal) then we should adjust the rule to get a more...

So just so I understand I want to throw this out there. In the AFFL Phillip Rivers is about to sign a 1 year contract for $51 Million, $32 Million guaranteed. We’re saying that if this is slow played for a year wit the new proposals, we are going to be okay with it if next year QB ABC hits free age...

Zapotek wrote:

Jared A wrote:I believe a 1 year no trade clause should be only if the SB is more than 10million dollars.

Agreed.

Edit: Voted for the first option in the poll, but the above is what I'd really prefer.

Same here. Voted for the first option but I prefer Jared's suggestion.