1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers. We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Franchising Michael Turner...

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by Electric Chair, Jan 22, 2008.

  1. Electric Chair

    Electric Chair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,559
    Ratings:
    +579
    Seems like a no-brainer to me. We can afford the $6.88 million that it would cost (if I remember correctly), and it allows us two major benefits: 1. At least one more first round draft pick once we trade him. 2. We decide where he gets to play the remainder of his career (not in our division).

    I would have loved to see the team take more advantage of the guys skill set this year, but after the playoff run he just had, it only adds to his value watching how well he played in LT's absence.

    Our cap is in excellent shape, and even if the move blows up in our face and we have to eat the contract (not gonna happen), it's a one year hit and we go another year of not having to worry about the RB position.

    I know that Franchise Players receive guaranteed money, but once a trade partner is found, you simply rework the deal, let Turner's people hammer out the details of his contract with his new team, and trade him with almost zero cap implications.

    I'm sure that AJ's plans will come to light soon enough, I just do not see how we can't take advantage of this situation... Unless there is something that I am missing as far as how the whole thing works.

    What am I missing here?
     
  2. SanDiegoRon

    SanDiegoRon BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +321
    there's a boatload of RB's in this draft, some that will come cheaper...
     
  3. boltmanbz

    boltmanbz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,369
    Ratings:
    +86
    if we got the room which we do, and AJ thinks Turner is needed for next years run at the superbowl MT will be back and AJ will tag him
     
  4. Electric Chair

    Electric Chair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,559
    Ratings:
    +579
    You guys are missing the point.

    I don't want to keep him. I want to trade him. He is a known commodity, unlike any of the RB's in the draft. Teams can roll the dice in the draft, or use that same pick to acquire a stud like Turner.

    You guys don't want an extra first round pick, or you don't think that anyone would trade for an obvious star in the waiting?
     
  5. Electric Chair

    Electric Chair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,559
    Ratings:
    +579
    We can use the extra #1 on a RB. Worst case scenario is we don't let him sign with Denver or Oakland.
     
  6. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    Actually, Turner has to signoff on the team he is being traded to as well. If Turner says "NO" and another team flashes the first round picks, he can not be forced to accept the offering teams terms. That is the only caveat I see in your post.

    I said the only way Turner gets tagged is if LT is hurt and I suspect we have not heard the whole story on LT - yet.
     
  7. SanDiegoRon

    SanDiegoRon BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +321
    Oh I understand completely... I just don't believe the market will bear the cost of a "older" veterans dollar requirements AND a first rd pick...

    when they can get a kid, like:
    Rashard Mendenhall 5-11, 225 4.48 Illinois
    *Felix Jones 6-0, 207 4.40 Arkansas
    Chris Johnson 5-11, 200 4.35 East Carolina
    *Jonathan Stewart 5-10, 235 4.40 Oregon
    *Jamaal Charles 6-0, 200 4.40 Texas

    a few of whom exactly match MT's skill set...
     
  8. turbo_turtle

    turbo_turtle In Disguise

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,685
    Ratings:
    +890
    I got you now.

    Since we do not have a 2nd rounder this coming draft because of the Chambers trade.

    I think AJ would be more of a genius if he would tag him and send Turner to any team that AJ wants to send him for another 1st round draft pick to possibly gain more pick using the extra pick gained for Turner to possibly get more picks in this years Draft.

    I like the idea.
     
  9. boltssbbound

    boltssbbound Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    7,073
    Ratings:
    +1,554
    I would do it, if for no other reason than to keep him out of Denver. Even if we only got a 2nd round pick for him, I think it would be worth it.

    The risk is that Turner would just sign the 1 year tender and we'd be stuck with his salary, but I have a hard time believing Turner would do that because:

    1) He wants to start and

    2) He wants a long-term contract
     
  10. ntman68

    ntman68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,051
    Ratings:
    +139
    I thought someone had posted earlier that tagging Turner would really screw him, as it is very unlikely that anyone would trade a #1 for a running back given the relative ease of drafting a serviceable one?
     
  11. Boltdiehard

    Boltdiehard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,817
    Ratings:
    +1,171
    There's no doubt in my mind that Shanahan has a hard-on for the Burner.
     
  12. Shamrock

    Shamrock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,922
    Ratings:
    +1,243
    I'm with EC on this.

    Tag him. At worst SD eats the one year deal, and we have insurance for Tomlinson.

    I'm not buying that there are enough RB's in the draft to keep the market down for Turner. Too many ball watchers reading some college stat sheet. The only rookie RB who shined bright this past season was AP, and he lived up to his detractors by not being able to stay healthy all season.

    If some team wants to by-pass paying a 2nd rounder to SD to get Turner, then go ahead and buy one of those unproven college kids. Have fun with the 50% bust rate.
     
  13. boltssbbound

    boltssbbound Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    7,073
    Ratings:
    +1,554
    :yes:

    If Thomas Jones is worth a 2nd rounder, I definitely think Michael Turner is.
     
  14. efunk_adelic

    efunk_adelic BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Ratings:
    +3
    Turner deserves to be a starter on another team. It's like were keeping him here hostage.
     
  15. wrbanwal

    wrbanwal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    9,707
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    this is going to be a tough call this off season. I think the decision will be affected by the status of LT. If he needs time to heal and isn't ready for the start of the season then I say we keep MT. We know what he brings to the table.

    However, the lines need upgrading. If we can pull something off and improve our trenches then I say pull the trigger

    nice knowin ya MT.


    :tup::tup:
     
  16. boltssbbound

    boltssbbound Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    7,073
    Ratings:
    +1,554
    I'm advocating a franchise and trade. Not looking to keep him here against his will. Just to get something for him.
     
  17. AnteaterCharger

    AnteaterCharger Calibrating Bolttalk, Podcast by Podcast Staff Member Super Moderator Podcaster

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,112
    Ratings:
    +2,931
    if its a second rounder trust me someone will bite on Turner, he's too good. Hell I can imagine Atlanta grabbing him so they could go get a QB in the first round
     
  18. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    Agreed.

    Since you and I are one of the resident old farts, what is your opinion if someone tells you as a life long fan that the players want a Lombardi worse than you or I?

    I am thinking it is not possible since these dudes will not be around long. Hell, I think it is somewhat disrespectful to even think that a player today who was not born when we were attending the games could want it worse than us? :icon_shrug:
     
  19. Shamrock

    Shamrock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,922
    Ratings:
    +1,243

    No, I didn't forget him. I purposely ignored him so that I would be granted with your presence this afternoon. :lol:
     
  20. Thread_Killer

    Thread_Killer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    4,365
    Ratings:
    +680
    I agree with this as well. Not much of a downside here. Since it’s only a one-year cap hit, it won’t impact AJ’s ability to lock up our core players.

    And our team is already deep, stocked with young talent. It’s not like we need cap room to fill 5 or 6 positions via free agency.
     
  21. Retired Catholic

    Retired Catholic BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,894
    Ratings:
    +347
    It's not only a draft choice we could be dealing with here. We need FAT BOYS. A lower round pick or two and a capable player for the O Line could also be a possibility. I would view a third and a guard as a viable swap. It's possible we wind up with a front line veteran road grader. The guy wouldn't have to be a pro bowl talent, just younger and capable of replacing Goff, since the guy is getting long in the tooth. We could also swap him for a DB and then draft a FAT BOY with our first pick, but I lean toward a second rounder, which is what we are most likely to get, or an O Lineman and a third or fourth. Keeping MT out of Denver or Oakland is a plus of franchising him that won't show up in the cap figures.
     
  22. Shamrock

    Shamrock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,922
    Ratings:
    +1,243
    I totally agree.

    Just go to MT's agent (Bus Cook) and tell him to find a nice NFL team for Turner. Heck, go to the Bears. We'll take our own 3rd rounder back as compensation. :lol:
     
  23. SanDiegoRon

    SanDiegoRon BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +321
    . point 1 - I agree with the tag... but EC's premise, as I understood it, was to tag him for trade... and what was the downside...

    . point 2 - if you are NOT watching the ball when evaluating RB's, you are missing the show... I AM a ballwatcher when the RB has it...
    :lol: ... so, are you saying that when/if MT leaves and Stewart/Mendenhall are available at our pick, you'd be unhappy if we took one, because of the bust factor...

    . point 3 - second rd ??? - where'd that come from...:icon_shrug: ... I was under the impression that franchising "normally" implies a first-rdr... a second would be a no brainer (if I was another GM)...

    this should be interesting... looking forward to seeing if/how this plays out...
     
  24. RM24

    RM24 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,109
    Ratings:
    +264
    Oh, HELL No!! I would be pissed if we decided to go to anybody in the AFC West. Even worst, imagine New England getting him? NOOOO!!!!!!!! :icon_evil:
     
  25. Electric Chair

    Electric Chair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,559
    Ratings:
    +579
    I agree with Ron, I want first round compensation. Just a year ago we turned down a future #1 because AJ demanded a #1 and #3. I don't know why the compensation would now plummet all the way down to a #2, especially considering how little he was used.
     
  26. Retired Catholic

    Retired Catholic BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,894
    Ratings:
    +347
    Once a guy is franchised, he belongs to the team period and trade terms are at the discretion of the teams involved. I think the mandate for draft choices involves transitional players and is dependent on the size of the proffered contract.
     

Share This Page