RealGM

Looking at what JA has done in locking players up over the last 2 years, I have to say I'm impressed. Assuming the following 3 VERY REASONABLE offseason goals: (1) he goes out and secures an OT & OG in either FA or the draft, (2) Uses some of our cap space to address S & WR as well, (3) resign Danieal Manning, Desmond Clark to reasonable deals this summer

Then, heading into the UNCAPPED offseason, the Bears will only have the following starters unsigned:

QB Kyle Orton
DL Alex Brown
DL Dusty Dvoracek
LB Jamar Williams (I am assuming he will be starting)

(I am assuming Adewale is getting cut)

and the following notable reserves

DL Mark Anderson
DL Israel Idonije

I think this is huge when you look at some of the other teams that have to lock up their stars in an uncapped year and remain fiscally responsible. We could be major players for the top DL, WR or even QB when you look at the list of 2010 FA coming up. Its a stellar list of names :

http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features ... eam&y=2010

After most of the premier FAs got either signed or franchised this year, I hesitate to get excited about anyone on that 2010 list. Wait and see, I guess...

The Franchise tag works different in the uncapped 2010.

In the uncapped year (2010), a club may designate one additional Transition Player. A Transition Player must be offered a minimum of the average of the top 10 salaries of the prior season at the player’s position or 120 percent of the player’s previous year’s salary, whichever is greater. A Transition Player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no compensation.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:2xZdkW_MpA4J:www.sportsagentblog.com/2008/06/03/nfl-collective-bargaining-answers/+franchise+player+2010+nfl&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Not sure if a team gets the regular franchise guy in addition to this Transition player or just the Transition player. But the "no compensation" if you don't match a contract is going to be big IMO.

Just as important for me is that the Bears will not have to lay out huge money to sign their own guys - leaving them in great position for the short term financially. I just hope they don't use the cap max/min as an excuse to not spend money.

emperorjones wrote:
Not sure if a team gets the regular franchise guy in addition to this Transition player or just the Transition player. But the "no compensation" if you don't match a contract is going to be big IMO.

That's a BIG question - there's got to be an answer to this out there somewhere....

I can see transition players signing with another team and sending out strong signals to their existing team NOT to match and that they'd sit out if the offer was matched.

Chewie wrote:

emperorjones wrote:
Not sure if a team gets the regular franchise guy in addition to this Transition player or just the Transition player. But the "no compensation" if you don't match a contract is going to be big IMO.

That's a BIG question - there's got to be an answer to this out there somewhere....

I can see transition players signing with another team and sending out strong signals to their existing team NOT to match and that they'd sit out if the offer was matched.

I can only assume on this one, but it sounds like "in addition" to means that along with the existing franchise and transistion tags, this is an extra one where you at least have the ability to match a contract. There is no added compensation, but this at least allows teams with less money to retain one extra key player to the team.

It sounds like this is just a preventative measure to avoid big market teams from completely dominating the free agency market.