The cost of a #1 reciever | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

The cost of a #1 reciever

ArmyFin7

ArmyFin7

U cry about the $$$, we do the dirtywork
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
5,298
Reaction score
46
Location
Ft. Polk, La
So I was doing more digging on the net....

With no new CBA all players with less than 6 yrs in the league will be RFA's instead of UFA's. I wanted to know exactly what that meant. Basically an RFA gives the team the ability to put 1 of 4 tenders on a player.

a 1st and a 3rd round tender = a 2.562 million dollar salary for the season.
a 1st round tender = a 2.017 million dollar salary
a 2nd round tender = 1.417 million dollar salary
$927,000 tender will net the team a draft pick of the same round the player was drafted.


Now common sense tells me if guys like Marshall and V. Jackson arn't resigned they will get the 1st and 3 round tender since there is no salary cap to worry about.

So if Miami negotiates a contract with one of these guys, their respective team has the ability to match the contract and keep the player. If they decide not to match the offer, Miami gets the player, but has to give up the draft picks = to the tender that was on the player.

Seems like a steep price to pay right???

It would seem to me if Miami wants a shot at a legit #1 reciever in the draft it will cost us at least a 1st round pick...so is throwing in a 3rd really that much to ask considering you're at least getting a proven commodity?

Keep in mind Roy Williams was traded to Dallas for more than this.

May also help in getting a guy like marshall or Boldin slightly below market value. If you're San Diego or Denver, it might be more inticing not to match the offer Miami makes on the player considering the draft picks you get in return.....

What do you guys think?
 
According to the site Ronnie will be an RFA....think he'll get the 1st or the 2nd round tender?

Dansby will be an UFA if he isn't resigned....
 
A 1st and 3rd for Marshall, Jackson, Boldin isn't that much of a price to pay, ESPECIALLY IF you're thinking of drafting a WR with the 1st rounder anyways. An extra 3rd for a proven WR...I can live with that.

However, I don't think the FO would be planning on using a 1st rounder on a WR (more likely ILB). In that light, I doubt they'd trade the picks.

What will be interesting is what happens with Austin. His tender might not be high enough to ward off our FO.
 
oasis said:
A 1st and 3rd for Marshall, Jackson, Boldin isn't that much of a price to pay, ESPECIALLY IF you're thinking of drafting a WR with the 1st rounder anyways. An extra 3rd for a proven WR...I can live with that.

However, I don't think the FO would be planning on using a 1st rounder on a WR (more likely ILB). In that light, I doubt they'd trade the picks.

What will be interesting is what happens with Austin. His tender might not be high enough to ward off our FO.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't think so either, but after reading the transcript of the Ireland interview where he makes mention that the fins need a legit wideout and he knows the cost of getting one....makes it seem like a more legit possibility to me.

I wouldn't give up a 1 and a 3 for anyone other than Marshall or Jackson.

Boldin is not a FA of any kind, that would have to be a straight up trade.

I love the idea of having Marshall, Hartline, Bess, Camarillo.....we could finally line up Bess in the slot where he would be most dangerous.
 
oasis said:
A 1st and 3rd for Marshall, Jackson, Boldin isn't that much of a price to pay, ESPECIALLY IF you're thinking of drafting a WR with the 1st rounder anyways. An extra 3rd for a proven WR...I can live with that.

However, I don't think the FO would be planning on using a 1st rounder on a WR (more likely ILB). In that light, I doubt they'd trade the picks.

What will be interesting is what happens with Austin. His tender might not be high enough to ward off our FO.
Click to expand...

Your logic is sound but our front office places a high emphasis on building through the draft. That means that they probably will not give up a 1st and 3rd - for anyone. Parcells also doesn't like investing in a WR in the first round because of risk (it took Matt Millen about 4 first rounders before he came up with a real good one in Calvin Johnson).
So this is the big dilemma - we need a genuine #1 WR and we don't want to risk the farm to get him. I would not be surprised if we traded a good player to get the right player.
 
spiketex said:
Your logic is sound but our front office places a high emphasis on building through the draft. That means that they probably will not give up a 1st and 3rd - for anyone. Parcells also doesn't like investing in a WR in the first round because of risk (it took Matt Millen about 4 first rounders before he came up with a real good one in Calvin Johnson).
So this is the big dilemma - we need a genuine #1 WR and we don't want to risk the farm to get him. I would not be surprised if we traded a good player to get the right player.
Click to expand...


We don't have anyone on our roster other than Long that is worth a legit #1.
 
I don't think we need a high grade #1, I just think we need a better set - period.

I don't think we will draft a WR in the 1st round nor would I agree with it. I also wouldn't give up a 1st and a 3rd for a receiver unless our team was completely stacked at every other position - we ARE NOT.

Fans always want the big name hotshot offensive players but its not rational or smart for a rising team (read: non-powerhouse) to go after. We will not give up high draft picks and pay a huge salary for a high-end receiver unless we are 100% sure that investment will be the final piece of our Superbowl puzzle.

I expect the team to develop Hartline as a #2, Bess as a #3 slot guy, and go after a guy like Antionio Bryant who can probably net you 65 catches and 900 yards any season.

We can get a guy like him who will give us good (not great) production for a smaller salary and NO draft picks. We can use those draft picks to build our defense and after next year, we will need a receiver (which I doubt) they we can re-examine this issue.


Bottom line is it simply would not make sense for the front office to invest so much at the wide receiver position when we are not a complete team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MD
I'm fine going any way to fix the receiver problem except the draft. I wouldn't mind A.Bryant and a better TE (Scheffler if he's free) but if we trade for a number 1 then let it be B.Marshal, V.Jackson, A.Johnson or C.Johnson. All of them are pure studs that are young, I doubt A.Johnson would ever be available but you get my point.

Then if a high end WR drops to our pick then go for it, load up on the offense and give Henne every opportunity to succeed!!!
 
3rdandinches said:
I'm fine going any way to fix the receiver problem except the draft. I wouldn't mind A.Bryant and a better TE (Scheffler if he's free) but if we trade for a number 1 then let it be B.Marshal, V.Jackson, A.Johnson or C.Johnson. All of them are pure studs that are young, I doubt A.Johnson would ever be available but you get my point.

Then if a high end WR drops to our pick then go for it, load up on the offense and give Henne every opportunity to succeed!!!
Click to expand...

in this FA class we can fill the hole at TE adn WR via trade/FA pick ups and taht can allow us to load up on defense in the entire draft and still get a WR in the later rounds that has NOTHIGN in common wiht what we have now plz (like Austin, speed, accel, u know NOT A POSSESSION rec.)

I'd get Bryant in FA, DANIELS TE in FA (if not Sheffler or Scaife) then Floyd in FA as well as Franklin NT and go allllllllllll defense in the draft...ILB, 2 OLBs, 1 CB, 1 RB, 1 Safety.

Franlkin and Solai as NT would be a sickkk line up.
 
That would work if Daniels, Floyd, or Franklin were actually going to be UFA's, but they will be RFA's and will require draft pick compensation.
 
I dont care what it takes... Get Vincent Jackson in hee puhlease!!! He would make us a legit playoff contender... Just imagine if we had a WR catch those passes that Ginn dropped against Indy, SD and NO!
 
i know this is stupid, but what are the chances the cowboys trade r.williams since Austin stepped up and is now their #1.?? maybe we can steal Willims for cheap?
 
Roy Williams is getting paid a fat paycheck. I don't see the front office trading for him with that contract. With no cba you might even see Dallas cut him and chalk it up as a loss. Patrick crayton should be starting over Williams and that's saying a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom