Would be a hell of a shocker if it went down with starks for albert straight up. We are totally reaching with all these hypothetical scenarios lol. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4
If we were to get a player from them who would you want? Their o line isn't that great. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4
Outside of a good LT who you could lock up long-term, I'd prefer a pick. Although they stuck with the 3-4 this year, KC is interesting. Starks and a pick for Albert? That's a thought. EDIT: It certainly wouldn't be a high pick.
I could swear there were reports witnessing Randy Starks getting injured and rehabbing it. Besides his contract can no longer be re-worked whether he's traded or not. No team will trade for him.
Would not be the first time KC paid a lot (draft) for a d-lineman that was mismatched for their scheme
I could be wrong about this but there's a provision in the CBA that says contracts can't be re-worked within a year of being signed and normally there's an exception for franchise tag one year contracts, but that exception is only active for certain dates and if the team does not get the player re-worked within those dates the exception expires and the contract can no longer be re-worked because it was signed less than a year prior. The Dolphins allowed that date to come and go without re-working Randy's contract into an extension. If a team traded for him, they would have to let him play out his one year and potentially become a free agent next year. They could slap their own franchise tag on him, but I believe the rule about their franchise pay having to be 20% or whatever higher than the previous year's salary would apply. Essentially no team in their right mind is trading for a player on a one year franchise tender at this stage in the game. It's ovah. Put away the Madden sticks.
Debbie Downer ladies and gentlemen. Since Albert and Starks are both on the franchise tag (Albert at $9.828 and Starks at $8.45), a swap of the two players (plus other considerations) "could" occur, technically speaking. I mean we're taking on the $1m+ extra salary. Is it practical in that you'd be taking a risk of not being able to sign Albert to a long term deal after the season ends... I guess the same risk you have in keeping Starks on the roster and not being able to sign him once the season ends.
to add to this, recall Paul Soliai... I believe we could have negotiated a contract with him after his franchise tag season (before March FA period). We chose not to, and ultimately resigned him to a pretty fair deal.
If that's the case, then, that's a valid point. Is this because he signed the franchise tender? It can't be voided at this point and replaced with a long-term contract?
Well, that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense that a franchised player is not allowed to void their tender to sign a long-term deal. That doesn't seem to help the player OR the team. So, you're saying the Dolphins could not sign Starks to a long-term deal... right now... even if both sides wanted to?
I think part of the job of GM is to try and accumulate an abundance of talent at one position, then flip someone for a draft pick before you lose them in free agency, pretty elementary stuff..if Odrick is indeed dominating on the inside which was being reported then I mentioned last week that it might be something we look into if the offer was no less than a 2nd rounder, but I guess it's a moot point.
Wasn't Richard Seymor traded in a similar circumstance? Of course that happening again would be very improbable.
You're missing some of the details. A team wanting to apply the franchise tag to a player does so by submitting a franchise tender. The player can decide to SIGN that tender, or not sign it. If he doesn't sign it, he can negotiate with any team he wants (provided the franchise tag is not the exclusive rights variety, which is more expensive than normal). However if he signs an offer sheet with a team, and the original team doesn't match, the new team has to give two 1st round picks. Randy Starks signed the tender with the Dolphins. From that point on he has a one year contract with the Miami Dolphins for a guaranteed $8.45 million. It's just like any other contract. The only difference is because the contract was originally a franchise tender, there's a window of time during which the team can re-negotiate the contract into a long term deal despite the fact that the contract was only signed less than a year ago. That time window has closed. To answer your question, no. They cannot sign Randy to a long term deal anymore. The window of opportunity closed. Now the NORMAL rules governing contracts applies to that contract...and normal rules dictate that no contract signed within the last year can be re-worked in the same year.
Unfortunately that link doesn't help much because the Langoliers keep eating up any dates that have already passed during this league year, and the deadline for signing players with signed one-year franchise tenders to a contract extension has already passed.
I understand the rules of the non-exclusive tag, I was just unaware of the last little bit concerning the one-year no-renegotiating rule and how that actually applied to franchise tenders. It just doesn't seem to help Starks or the Dolphins at this point (or any franchise/franchised player), as now both sides' hands are tied, and a long-term deal is impossible until the one-year period is up. If that's the case... and, I'm not arguing it isn't... it just seems risky for both sides, and I don't see how or why owners or players would agree to that rule as it applies to the franchise tender. It just makes zero sense to me.
Both sides had plenty of opportunity to negotiate a long term deal. The Dolphins applied the tag in February. The deadline for signing a franchised player to a long term contract expired some time in mid July. They had like 5 whole months to negotiate a long term deal if they were going to negotiate one. They didn't. At this point even if the deadline were to be extended there's no reason to believe Miami and Randy Starks would agree on a long term deal. If they were amicable to a long term deal they'd have signed one during that more-than-ample 5 months of time window.
He was only on the field for a few snaps. He was with the 1st string offense which only graced the field for 10 plays. On 2 of those 10 plays (3rd downs) they had 3-WR personnel out there and so he had to come off the field. He lined up as a fullback on 5 of the remaining 8 plays. This is why I projected him to be the starting fullback. I think they're trying to develop a comfort level with Charles Clay playing that position when they call for one to be on the field. On 1 of the 3 plays when Charles Clay was on the field but not at fullback, Dustin Keller was in the backfield, and several times they had both Michael Egnew and Kyle Miller lined up at fullback, so I doubt they truly think it necessary to roster Jorvorskie Lane or Evan Rodriguez unless they're compelling. Right now I think you'd have say that Charles Clay is the 1st string fullback and Jorvorskie Lane is 2nd string.
And to add to that....on the official site, there's a video of Clay and he basically says his goals are about blocking. Seems very gung-ho.
Good news I've always loved Clay's potential......I really thought he was going to get 600 yards last year. Hopefully he steps it up this year, would love to have a poor mans version of Larry Centers or something
I don't know if I'd go that far- There are still 3-techniques 1-gap 3-4 defenses(When Paul Pasqualoni was here), and I'm not sure Randy Starks suffered all that much as a 2-gap DE with Mike Nolan in 2010 and 2011. He wasn't a great run defender, but he isn't so much in general.
IMO, the versatility of Clay and ERod make them both more desirable for making the roster than Lane. Either one could play FB, TE or H-Back. I'd keep both, along with Kelller, Sims, and Egnew. Keep 3 RBs, Miller, Gillislee and Gray. Thigpen would technically be a 4th RB, but mainly the return specialist. That is a pretty talented and versatile bunch right there.
The only reason numbers wise to not keep both Clay and ERod would be if we wanted to keep another RB, such as Miller, Gillislee, Gray and Thomas, along with Thigpen. Last year we carried Lane as a pure FB, Clay as a TE/FB, Fasano, Mastrud, and Egnew. 3 RBs, in Bush, Miller and Thomas, as well as RS Thigpen who could play RB if need be. We also rostered 6 WRs in week 1. No PS for ERod, he played in 12 games last season.
The Dolphins can still sign Starks to a contract once the season is over PRIOR to free agency starting in March 2014. I went back and looked at some notes on Soliai's 2012 offseason. There was no mention that we couldn't negotiate a contract with him until free agency started. Plenty of articles discussing the matter and that his agent commented in February 2012 that he had no contact with the team and that he expected them to go in another direction due to the new defense. He didn't say something to the effect of "I don't know why you are asking me, I can't talk to them about a new deal until after free agency starts." I would think the same applies here with Starks. I believe what you have referred to (one year non negotiate period) applies to the 2013 season and corresponding cap # for Starks. That cap # can't be relieved.. so why negotiate until after the season ends anyway.
I kind of feel sorry for Jags fans. That team never seems to get any coverage on NFLN. From what I've seen they have talked about every other team quite a bit, even the Raiders, who probably rival the Jags for worst overall roster in the league.
They ain't true burners, but probably fall between Hartline and Gibson for speed. Mid 4.5s or so. That is more than acceptable if they run crisp routes and such. FWIW, that is also about what Stedman Bailey runs.
Me too. Our little Bumphis is growing on me faster than Bess in 2008. Chad Bumphis = CB Country Bumpkin = CB Coincidence? I think not.
You can watch Gray on about 2-3 plays and see already he has far better innate instincts as a runner than Thomas does, and I probably like Thomas better than 90% of the folks here.
That is precisely why I want to see Davis and Taylor brought along slowly, like Sam and Pat were. With Grimes, Marshall and Patterson, IMO, we are pretty solid for our top 3 corners, so no reason to force feed the rooks other than injuries that could occur during the season. Knock on wood.
