(04-11-2024, 08:45 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 07:46 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]give it time, I am sure someone will find a way to get arrested
Maybe Cooke has a few library books that have been overdue since 2011.
Only the bold is necessarily true.
The tag makes it much more likely for sure. Whether or not we would use it is an unknown. Maybe they just weren't happy with Ridley and didn't care to keep him, but it didn't seem way based on how they acted. I think they just got snookered by the tittians.
Oh I'm sure we made an offer and the tacks grossly overbid where we couldn't (or wouldn't) attempt to keep up. I dunno if the tag was ever an option, though, from a fiscal standpoint.
(04-11-2024, 12:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 12:22 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly think I don't know whether or not his agent wanted to see what the market bore out before doing anything.
It's a common negotiating tactic. So that may have been the plan - and it may have been known by our FO.
We can't know unless someone spills the beans.
It's also pretty common not to begin a negotiation with the highest offer you are comfortable with which is likely near where this ended up for the Jags.
So - I find the notion that Jags should have begun the talks by offering ~30 mil per year and crossing their fingers that the agent would advise Allen to sign prior to the tag deadline - I find that notion to be a pipe dream.
I think the likelihood of those stars aligning to be a very low probability. Yet everyone acts as if we have ruined everything because it didn't happen.
I also think that if we get decent production out of Davis and add a receiver before day 3 - we may be better off than had we paid Ridley what it would have cost to keep him.
I didn't say start at the number, but it was clear we would end up somewhere near there. I'm still hung up on the "we're going to start talk sometime soon" thing at the presser that was 3 weeks later than all the other GMs in the league held one. Everything about Baalke is him making things more difficult than they need to be.
(04-11-2024, 12:36 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible his team wanted to set the market but we wouldn't cave. They then seen he was going to play on the tag or take the Burns like offer. It's pretty much the exact same contract Burns got, almost identical with .5 mil more guaranteed. He was never going to get a Bosa type contract but we had to beat the one Burns just got being Allen is the better player. Take our biggest and last offer or play on the tag. It was a good and fair offer for both sides.
The Burns contract was the best thing that happened for Allen. If that never happened it would of likely been a few mil less per year and less guaranteed
Hard to believe since Baalke, by his own admission, dragged his feet for weeks after the season ended. I think the guy just has some kind of Franchise Tag fetish that lets him exert power over the really good players.
Thank you!
(04-11-2024, 01:09 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 12:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't say start at the number, but it was clear we would end up somewhere near there. I'm still hung up on the "we're going to start talk sometime soon" thing at the presser that was 3 weeks later than all the other GMs in the league held one. Everything about Baalke is him making things more difficult than they need to be.
This position assumes:- Baalke/Pederson considered tagging Ridley and rushing a deal with Allen some priority - when we don't actually know where their value of Ridley resided at that time and whether using the tag to protect him was ever a real consideration
- It assumes our FO had knowledge that one of the most savvy agents in pro sports was, or wasn't going to be unnecessarily willing to rush this negotiation for Allen's biggest pay-day in order to help the team re-up a receiver - or whether he always intended to wait until the other cards were dealt in the market. We don't know what was communicated. That agent certainly has deals in his vast catalog that stretched beyond camp attendance to get what he wanted for his athlete. Yet everyone is so comfortable assuming he'd just sign right up in March. We don't know that.
I see this signing as a VERY standard practice and timely procedure. Sorry, I just don't see what I'm supposed to be upset about here.
He should have paid Allen last off season which would have resulted in saving the Jags millions.
(04-11-2024, 09:11 AM)MikePete54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 07:41 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]...wait, I thought he was incompetent?
I am so cornfused
Did I ever said that ?
no, but there are some on here that think he can do no right. Not sure how we can say 'good job Baalke' if others are saying he's a snake in rat's clothing.
I agree with you, he did fine here, as he has in other deals.
The fact that we AREN'T setting the market is a good sign that we're keeping the deal realistic enough that the player and team alike can reasonably expect to play out the full length of the agreement. We've come a long way from greasepaint, at least in the eyes of most.
(04-11-2024, 10:04 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 09:52 AM)snarkyguy_he_him_his Wrote: [ -> ]Those players mean when they're still playing. Josh was done for a while at that point
The time from the last game until free agency starts is an exclusive access period for negotiations. It amazes me that he waited on both Engram and Allen in consecutive years.
So guy who is consistent in how he operates is amazing?
Seems to me like the team had a plan. The tag takes away urgency. We had time to work out a deal that worked for everyone, while also affording us time and resources to focus on the other signings that didn't have the same luxury of drawing out the particulars of an offer. In both instances, we retained guys who we absolutely couldn't afford to lose.
Maybe that's the amazing thing - we're actually getting good guys,
and keeping them.
(04-11-2024, 10:17 AM)RicoTx Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 10:15 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Folks still just assuming Allen's agent ever had any intention of signing a deal prior to letting the 2024 edge market play out, I see.
Maybe, maybe not. Seems unwise to assume.
Allen signing prior to the tag deadline was always a pipedream IMO
It’s still Baalke’s fault.
Unless something good happens…
...then it's Baalke's fault that he didn't make something good happen sooner?
I think I'm learning.
(04-11-2024, 01:11 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 12:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't say start at the number, but it was clear we would end up somewhere near there. I'm still hung up on the "we're going to start talk sometime soon" thing at the presser that was 3 weeks later than all the other GMs in the league held one. Everything about Baalke is him making things more difficult than they need to be.
Hard to believe since Baalke, by his own admission, dragged his feet for weeks after the season ended. I think the guy just has some kind of Franchise Tag fetish that lets him exert power over the really good players.
Thank you!
(04-11-2024, 01:09 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]This position assumes:- Baalke/Pederson considered tagging Ridley and rushing a deal with Allen some priority - when we don't actually know where their value of Ridley resided at that time and whether using the tag to protect him was ever a real consideration
- It assumes our FO had knowledge that one of the most savvy agents in pro sports was, or wasn't going to be unnecessarily willing to rush this negotiation for Allen's biggest pay-day in order to help the team re-up a receiver - or whether he always intended to wait until the other cards were dealt in the market. We don't know what was communicated. That agent certainly has deals in his vast catalog that stretched beyond camp attendance to get what he wanted for his athlete. Yet everyone is so comfortable assuming he'd just sign right up in March. We don't know that.
I see this signing as a VERY standard practice and timely procedure. Sorry, I just don't see what I'm supposed to be upset about here.
He should have paid Allen last off season which would have resulted in saving the Jags millions.
Then why weren't you and all the others gnashing your teeth over it now doing so back then?
The reality is that most of the ppl losing their minds over the timing of this deal were on the fence about his value at the end of 2022. The debate here over the value of pressures despite inconsistent sack numbers has waged on for years as we watched Allen work his way toward "elite pass rusher" status.
If you were one of the 4 or 5 fans around here that wanted to pay him last offseason - good for you.
Most were content to wait.
The vast majority seemed adamant about not paying him more than peanuts and many others wanted to upgrade his spot.
The Jags added seven notable free agents that offseason, and it is likely they opted for a strategy of adding talent over extending Allen at that time. Turned out pretty well as that talent put them in the playoffs for only the second time in 12 years.
Of course this position of yours also assumes Allen and his agent would have taken a deal commensurate with his 2022 performance at that time. Maybe they would have. Maybe they'd have bet on the player outperforming that offer.
(04-11-2024, 01:31 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 01:11 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you!
He should have paid Allen last off season which would have resulted in saving the Jags millions.
Then why weren't you and all the others gnashing your teeth over it now doing so back then?
The reality is that most of the ppl losing their minds over the timing of this deal were on the fence about his value at the end of 2022. The debate here over the value of pressures despite inconsistent sack numbers has waged on for years as we watched Allen work his way toward "elite pass rusher" status.
If you were one of the 4 or 5 fans around here that wanted to pay him last offseason - good for you.
Most were content to wait.
The vast majority seemed adamant about not paying him more than peanuts and many others wanted to upgrade his spot.
The Jags added seven notable free agents that offseason, and it is likely they opted for a strategy of adding talent over extending Allen at that time. Turned out pretty well as that talent put them in the playoffs for only the second time in 12 years.
Of course this position of yours also assumes Allen and his agent would have taken a deal commensurate with his 2022 performance at that time. Maybe they would have. Maybe they'd have bet on the player outperforming that offer.
I was because it was clear Allen was an elite talent. Set the market instead of being the team that has to continually "one up" the team that did set the market.
This is also why I am very adamant about signing Trevor long term right now because if Baalke waits, it will likely result in having to pay a crazy number next summer.
It is what it is at this point.
Glad Allen is paid and will be a Jaguar for a while.
(04-11-2024, 12:00 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 11:35 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Agree with this, and i actually dont think we were that interested in Ridley moving forward. Tagging Allen initially instead of Ridley seems to bear this out. We must have seen something in season that we didnt like. I think the signing backfires on the Tacks.
This feels like the rationalization of a scorned woman. It's much more plausible that Baalke followed his own historical behavior pattern and didn't talk to Allen before tagging him thinking that Ridley would hang around and re-sign in free agency.
(04-11-2024, 10:15 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Folks still just assuming Allen's agent ever had any intention of signing a deal prior to letting the 2024 edge market play out, I see.
Maybe, maybe not. Seems unwise to assume.
Allen signing prior to the tag deadline was always a pipedream IMO
You honestly think that if the offer he signed was on the table he would've walked away from it?
I certainly do believe that if we put the agreed offer on the table before FA began any agent worth his salt would have told him to wait to see how the market plays out.
Given the choice of the two, I am much happier that we chose not to risk losing Allen over Ridley. Do you not think that the FO considered the possibility of losing either guy, replacing either guy, and chose the most prudent avenue?
If we REALLY wanted Ridley, would you think that sacrificing the second round pick was too steep a price for us to make our BAFO while he was still able to negotiate exclusively? Why fart around with a tag in that case, either? Tells me they were willing to risk the loss, or were prepared to replace him via other avenues if someone chose to grossly overbid our offer. We weren't hoodwinked. We knew full well what the probable outcomes would be.
(04-11-2024, 01:31 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 01:11 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you!
He should have paid Allen last off season which would have resulted in saving the Jags millions.
Then why weren't you and all the others gnashing your teeth over it now doing so back then?
The reality is that most of the ppl losing their minds over the timing of this deal were on the fence about his value at the end of 2022. The debate here over the value of pressures despite inconsistent sack numbers has waged on for years as we watched Allen work his way toward "elite pass rusher" status.
If you were one of the 4 or 5 fans around here that wanted to pay him last offseason - good for you.
Most were content to wait.
The vast majority seemed adamant about not paying him more than peanuts and many others wanted to upgrade his spot.
The Jags added seven notable free agents that offseason, and it is likely they opted for a strategy of adding talent over extending Allen at that time. Turned out pretty well as that talent put them in the playoffs for only the second time in 12 years.
Of course this position of yours also assumes Allen and his agent would have taken a deal commensurate with his 2022 performance at that time. Maybe they would have. Maybe they'd have bet on the player outperforming that offer.
I don't feel like I'm gnashing my teeth, I just have criticism over how Baalke goes about his work. I wonder how many people will feel like I do if they pick up TLaw's 5th year and then Tag him without attempting to negotiate a contract extension first? Based on social media about half of the population thinks they should move on right now anyway, so nothing will surprise me.
(04-11-2024, 01:47 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 10:04 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The time from the last game until free agency starts is an exclusive access period for negotiations. It amazes me that he waited on both Engram and Allen in consecutive years.
Cam as well.
Yep, you're right. 3 times now he's forced the Tag when it likely wasn't needed. It'll make an interesting psych study some day.
(04-11-2024, 01:51 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 12:00 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]This feels like the rationalization of a scorned woman. It's much more plausible that Baalke followed his own historical behavior pattern and didn't talk to Allen before tagging him thinking that Ridley would hang around and re-sign in free agency.
You honestly think that if the offer he signed was on the table he would've walked away from it?
I certainly do believe that if we put the agreed offer on the table before FA began any agent worth his salt would have told him to wait to see how the market plays out.
Given the choice of the two, I am much happier that we chose not to risk losing Allen over Ridley. Do you not think that the FO considered the possibility of losing either guy, replacing either guy, and chose the most prudent avenue?
If we REALLY wanted Ridley, would you think that sacrificing the second round pick was too steep a price for us to make our BAFO while he was still able to negotiate exclusively? Why fart around with a tag in that case, either? Tells me they were willing to risk the loss, or were prepared to replace him via other avenues if someone chose to grossly overbid our offer. We weren't hoodwinked. We knew full well what the probable outcomes would be.
And I'm not saying that was the opening offer, I'm saying the process simply could've gotten there sooner, but you don't know if you don't even pick up the phone to the guy to get started. Instead Trent likes to toss out the Tag, which to me seems like an unnecessary flex to slap on players you really want to keep.
(04-11-2024, 01:16 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 09:11 AM)MikePete54 Wrote: [ -> ]Did I ever said that ?
no, but there are some on here that think he can do no right. Not sure how we can say 'good job Baalke' if others are saying he's a snake in rat's clothing.
I agree with you, he did fine here, as he has in other deals.
The fact that we AREN'T setting the market is a good sign that we're keeping the deal realistic enough that the player and team alike can reasonably expect to play out the full length of the agreement. We've come a long way from greasepaint, at least in the eyes of most.
Oh Ok. Baalke is not very popular here, but he has done a good job to me.
Our offseason is pretty good actually, but the most important is coming with the draft.
I read a lot of speculations on this board, as if people were in the office...
The Josh Allen deal is a good one and well deserved. I also think that will give Walker some more motivation to perform at a high level to get this kind of deal too.
(04-11-2024, 02:02 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 01:51 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]I certainly do believe that if we put the agreed offer on the table before FA began any agent worth his salt would have told him to wait to see how the market plays out.
Given the choice of the two, I am much happier that we chose not to risk losing Allen over Ridley. Do you not think that the FO considered the possibility of losing either guy, replacing either guy, and chose the most prudent avenue?
If we REALLY wanted Ridley, would you think that sacrificing the second round pick was too steep a price for us to make our BAFO while he was still able to negotiate exclusively? Why fart around with a tag in that case, either? Tells me they were willing to risk the loss, or were prepared to replace him via other avenues if someone chose to grossly overbid our offer. We weren't hoodwinked. We knew full well what the probable outcomes would be.
And I'm not saying that was the opening offer, I'm saying the process simply could've gotten there sooner, but you don't know if you don't even pick up the phone to the guy to get started. Instead Trent likes to toss out the Tag, which to me seems like an unnecessary flex to slap on players you really want to keep.
If I'm the player, you gotta pay extra for me to forgo free agency or forgo getting a glimpse of free agency if I'm tagged. The highest bids come when there are multiple bidders present. That is no secret.
Kinda like selling your house. Your realtor has a buddy in his office who has a buyer who wants to see your house before it goes on the market next week. You allow him to show the property and his buyer makes a pretty good offer immediately after the showing, but the market is hot and there are already 15 scheduled showings the day your property is scheduled to hit the market and most homes are getting multiple offers on the first day. That pre-listing offer better be beyond my expectations of what I'd get in the market to accept it without letting the property actually hit the market. Maybe that's just me.
(04-11-2024, 02:30 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 02:02 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]And I'm not saying that was the opening offer, I'm saying the process simply could've gotten there sooner, but you don't know if you don't even pick up the phone to the guy to get started. Instead Trent likes to toss out the Tag, which to me seems like an unnecessary flex to slap on players you really want to keep.
If I'm the player, you gotta pay extra for me to forgo free agency or forgo getting a glimpse of free agency if I'm tagged. The highest bids come when there are multiple bidders present. That is no secret.
Kinda like selling your house. Your realtor has a buddy in his office who has a buyer who wants to see your house before it goes on the market next week. You allow him to show the property and his buyer makes a pretty good offer immediately after the showing, but the market is hot and there are already 15 scheduled showings the day your property is scheduled to hit the market and most homes are getting multiple offers on the first day. That pre-listing offer better be beyond my expectations of what I'd get in the market to accept it without letting the property actually hit the market. Maybe that's just me.
He knew he was getting paid, by us or another team... a bidding war wasn't necessary, 17.5 sacks and his pressure rate soeak for themselves. Nor do I think he wanted a drawn out process that would come with that but that's just speculation
Why do some people think that if a team offers a team friendly early extension a player will automatically sign it?
Players and agents are also considering the best time to negotiate a deal based on when they think they will have highest possible market value. If they believe they are still getting better and that waiting another season to sign a new deal would be to their financial advantage, why would the sign early.
Of course every team would love to ink a deal right before a player's break out season. That doesn't mean the player and their agent are in any rush to start negotiating a new contract.
Why would Allen want to negotiate a long term extension coming off a 7 sack season?
(04-11-2024, 04:57 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]Why do some people think that if a team offers a team friendly early extension a player will automatically sign it?
Players and agents are also considering the best time to negotiate a deal based on when they think they will have highest possible market value. If they believe they are still getting better and that waiting another season to sign a new deal would be to their financial advantage, why would the sign early.
Of course every team would love to ink a deal right before a player's break out season. That doesn't mean the player and their agent are in any rush to start negotiating a new contract.
Why would Allen want to negotiate a long term extension coming off a 7 sack season?
And it worked because he got Burns money. If that Burns trade didn't happen Allen would of gotten less. I think he was going initially going to get Watts contract, or just beat it like we did Burns and then Burns got his so we had to cough up that money. If you look at Allen's and Burns contracts they are pretty much the same contract. Joe Schoen did all the hard work and Baalke just pretty much copied it. I think Burns is a really good player but Allen is a tier above imo.
(04-11-2024, 05:14 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 04:57 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]Why do some people think that if a team offers a team friendly early extension a player will automatically sign it?
Players and agents are also considering the best time to negotiate a deal based on when they think they will have highest possible market value. If they believe they are still getting better and that waiting another season to sign a new deal would be to their financial advantage, why would the sign early.
Of course every team would love to ink a deal right before a player's break out season. That doesn't mean the player and their agent are in any rush to start negotiating a new contract.
Why would Allen want to negotiate a long term extension coming off a 7 sack season?
And it worked because he got Burns money. If that Burns trade didn't happen Allen would of gotten less. I think he was going initially going to get Watts contract, or just beat it like we did Burns and then Burns got his so we had to cough up that money. If you look at Allen's and Burns contracts they are pretty much the same contract. Joe Schoen did all the hard work and Baalke just pretty much copied it. I think Burns is a really good player but Allen is a tier above imo.
If they were basing Allen's contract off of what Burns got, then I'm surprised it was so similar because I think most people would consider Allen a tier above Burns, and typically the better player would look at a what the lesser player's contract and negotiate with the expectation of it being x percentage larger.
I think Allen was very reasonable by not demanding his contract be significantly larger than Burns.
(04-11-2024, 01:10 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 08:45 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The tag makes it much more likely for sure. Whether or not we would use it is an unknown. Maybe they just weren't happy with Ridley and didn't care to keep him, but it didn't seem way based on how they acted. I think they just got snookered by the tittians.
Oh I'm sure we made an offer and the tacks grossly overbid where we couldn't (or wouldn't) attempt to keep up. I dunno if the tag was ever an option, though, from a fiscal standpoint.
He wasn't worth coming anywhere close to the Titans' offer. He's not a true #1.
(04-11-2024, 08:41 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 05:14 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]And it worked because he got Burns money. If that Burns trade didn't happen Allen would of gotten less. I think he was going initially going to get Watts contract, or just beat it like we did Burns and then Burns got his so we had to cough up that money. If you look at Allen's and Burns contracts they are pretty much the same contract. Joe Schoen did all the hard work and Baalke just pretty much copied it. I think Burns is a really good player but Allen is a tier above imo.
If they were basing Allen's contract off of what Burns got, then I'm surprised it was so similar because I think most people would consider Allen a tier above Burns, and typically the better player would look at a what the lesser player's contract and negotiate with the expectation of it being x percentage larger.
I think Allen was very reasonable by not demanding his contract be significantly larger than Burns.
Go look at the 2, they are almost identical. I think Allen is better but Burns has more career sacks and Giants overpaid a bit. I'd put Allen and Hunter as the same level player and he got more than Hunter and also more than Watt, which Allen isn't better than Watt.
We had all the leverage, it was take our highest offer or play on the tag and risk injury and 88 mil guaranteed. He did the smart thing and take the huge contract and it worked out for both side. Don't be a Yannick and lose many millions
(04-11-2024, 09:05 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 08:41 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]If they were basing Allen's contract off of what Burns got, then I'm surprised it was so similar because I think most people would consider Allen a tier above Burns, and typically the better player would look at a what the lesser player's contract and negotiate with the expectation of it being x percentage larger.
I think Allen was very reasonable by not demanding his contract be significantly larger than Burns.
Go look at the 2, they are almost identical. I think Allen is better but Burns has more career sacks and Giants overpaid a bit. I'd put Allen and Hunter as the same level player and he got more than Hunter and also more than Watt, which Allen isn't better than Watt.
We had all the leverage, it was take our highest offer or play on the tag and risk injury and 88 mil guaranteed. He did the smart thing and take the huge contract and it worked out for both side. Don't be a Yannick and lose many millions
You can't really look at Watt's contract and compare. That contract is from 2021. His would have dwarfed everyone else's contracts if he were negotiating it in 2024. His guaranteed money and yearly average isn't that much less than what Allen got and that was before 4 years of inflation.
(04-11-2024, 09:28 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2024, 09:05 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Go look at the 2, they are almost identical. I think Allen is better but Burns has more career sacks and Giants overpaid a bit. I'd put Allen and Hunter as the same level player and he got more than Hunter and also more than Watt, which Allen isn't better than Watt.
We had all the leverage, it was take our highest offer or play on the tag and risk injury and 88 mil guaranteed. He did the smart thing and take the huge contract and it worked out for both side. Don't be a Yannick and lose many millions
You can't really look at Watt's contract and compare. That contract is from 2021. His would have dwarfed everyone else's contracts if he were negotiating it in 2024. His guaranteed money and yearly average isn't that much less than what Allen got and that was before 4 years of inflation.
You can still look at it but thats why guys like Burns and Allen are making more. Garrett signed his 4 years ago and got 100 mil guaranteed which is still more than what Allen and Burns got. Parsons will likely sign a deal that will be equal to Bosa's
To me its Watt, Bosa, Garrett, and Parsons in the top tier, and then teir 2 you have guys like Allen, Hunter, and Crosby. If Allen has another year this year like he did last year he can join that top tier.