2026 Free Agent Thread

If you want to compare projected cash value in 2026 (more reasonable because it takes out the proration from the cap hit...probably still not great because it eliminates the cost/benefit of the multi-year term vs. the 1 year term).

• Metcalf: Only cash he's earn is his annual salary. That's $25mm this year. Next year, his salary will drop to $20MM, but he'll get a 6.5MM roster bonus, so his cash will increase by $1.5MM in 2027 relative to 2026. In 2025, Metcalf's cash value was his SB ($30MM) + 1st year salary ($5MM) = $35MM.
• Pickens: If he plays on the tag, his cash value will be $27.3MM. If he gets a long term deal, it will be his SB + his 1st year salary. Since it's a year later and he did better than Metcalf ever has, his cash value in year 1 of a long term deal will likely be (significantly) higher than Metcalf's was.

If Pickens went full Bell, he'd cost them nothing. But that's pretty stupid, espeically for a guy who hasn't had a big payday yet. I think he can sit out until week 10, sign the tag, then still get an accrued season. In this case, his cash value would be the prorated value of the tag amount for the rest of the season.

 

He's not a bad end of the roster guy.

 

I'm not comparing the full contracts. I'm comparing the cap hit and likely production for 2026.

 

I know.

My post was explaining why that's not a reasonable comparison because doing this doesn't count the cap benefit we got at the beginning of the contract (because signing bonuses get prorated).

Looking at the cap hit of one year in a long term deal in isolation misses the forest for the trees.

FWIW, I also used to make this mistake. But more with the big cap hits we'd see after restructuring guys. Like signing bonuses, restructures save cap space today at the expense of increasing cap hit later. It was silly of me to complain about the inflated cap hit in the later years without also acknowledging the benefits we got from the reduce cap hit when we did the restructure.

Tags don't get the pros or cons of long term deals. They are one year deals where the cash == cap hit. Comparing them to long term deals will lead to poor conclusions.

You're also assuming that GP is going to play under the tag. And it's not clear that's going to be the case.

 

According to this CBS article, 75% (12/16) of players who were tagged between 2023-2025 ended up signing a long term deal instead of playing under the tag.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/franchise-transition-tags-nfl-free-agency-all-you-need-to-know/

This may not be the case with Pickens because the Cowboys seem to want to keep GP on a short leash and don't want to give him the leverage over a team (re: can't really cut early) that a player gets by signing a long term deal.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/48561830/cowboys-say-talk-long-term-deal-george-pickens

Interestingly, the Cowboys (who aren't the Jets, but aren't a model franchise either), haven't extended a player on the tag since 2015. Not super surprising because the tag doesn't get used all that often. But they've had multiple players (Dak, Lawrence, Schultz, and Pollard) play seasons on the tag. So they're probably the outlier on the tag. Most teams use the tag so they get more time to negotiate a long term deal.

I think they got burned tagging Dak only to wait to give him a long term deal.

I am less familiar with the other examples here, but tagging Pollard was probably a good idea because signing RBs to long term deals is pretty risky. They let him go to TEN, where he had two pretty good seasons (played at basically the same level as his tag year, but not as good as his probowl year (the year before they tagged him).

 

I was responding to a report that he was signing on the tag, so it made sense to make that assumptiom in that context.

I understand your point, but I really don't care about the previous benefit for the purposes of this comparison. I'm comparing the value and expense of the two players for 2026 only. If Pickens plays on the tag, the Cowboys get the better player for less money. The same was true of this past season. If folks want to go on about his behavior, even though it was Metcalf who cost his team dearly with his immature stupidity, that's fine. In terms of cap hit and play on the field, the Steelers weakened themselves in 2025 and 2026 with that trade.

 

I've tried to say this more politely. I also tried to point out that I used to make the same mistake you're making.

The comparison you're making is silly. And perhaps disingenuous if you're making the comparison as an argument for why we should have kept Pickens.

I agree we should have kept Pickens (at least to the end of his rookie contract).

But this comparison doesn't tell anyone anything meaningful about the relative value of either player.

We've already talked about how there's still a good chance that Pickens doesn't play under the tag (although playing for Dallas seems to make it more likely that he'll play out the tag than if he was playing for another team).

But it's not just GP's cap number than can change.

It's actually much easier to change DK's number. Doesn't even require any negotiation from the team.

Maybe the best way to show you that your argument is silly is by pointing out that Metcalf is probably the best candidate for a contract restructure on the Steelers?

• Will your tune change if we drop Metcalf's salary this year to $2MM and convert the remainder to a signing bonus and allocate it across 5 years (by adding a void year to the contract)?
• I don't think it will. Or at least I think it shouldn't. Because whether or not we should have kept GP or traded for DK (keeping both for last season is what I wanted) isn't related to their cap hits this season at all. Because it's so easy for either of these numbers to change.
• Restructuring could pretty easily reduce DK's cap hit to under ~$13MM ($2MM salary + $6MM from prorated SB + $23MM/5 of the restructure = $12.6MM).
• But his cap hit in each of the following years of his contract (plus one dummy year) goes up by $23/5MM.

I don't have the math exactly correct for a max restructure because I didn't look up what his minimum salary would be (@hackjam is better at doing this than I am...but I think I'm at least directionally correct here).

But you can see from this estimate that it would be very easy for the Steelers to have Metcalf play at about half of the value of the tag Dallas put on GP.

Hopefully this shows you that the Steelers can easily (no negotiation required) throttle DK's cap hit this year to any number between ~$12.6MM and $31MM.

This is exactly why looking at any one year in isolation is silly. This is doubly true if we're using single year numbers before the season starts. Because those numbers could still change dramatically for both players by the time we get our first kickoff of 2026.

But no matter what his cap hit is this year, it doesn't change whether or not it was a good idea to sign DK (I think it was) or whether it was a good idea to trade Pickens (I think it wasn't).

 

You lost your credibiity when you started using a hypothetical restructure to try to justify your failed argument.

Pickens was a better player than Metcalf at a lower cap number last year. As things stand right now, he is on track to be a better player on a lower cap number for 2026. The rest is you throwing a lot of what might be instead of what is to try to justify your failed argument.

That was a whole lot of talk to basically say you agree with me that they should have kept Pickens, perhaps along with Metcalf. Funny how folks think I'm the one who argues just to argue. I love irony.

 

I think Pickens is just a better player than Metcalf period.

That has nothing to do with their cap numbers this year.

 

This sentence doesn't make much sense. What do you think my argument is?

 

@HeinzMustard could I have some of your popcorn

 

Pickens is a better player than Metcalf. This is inarguable among the sane.

 

Damned if I know at this point. You keep posting as if you disagree with me, but you don't.

 

It's your argument that I disagree with. Not your conclusion. Because your argument doesn't support your conclusion.

My argument is that you are basing Metcalf's value of of a one year cap number in a multi year contract. This number in isolation is pretty meaningless because it can change so much based on the whims of the team.

You can't really compare that to the cap hit of a franchise tag because that's a one year deal where all the value of the whole contract hits the cap in one year. Unless Pickens does sign a long term deal.

Because the cap hit from a single year in a long term contract has very little correlation to the value a player brings to a team.

You have to look at the total cap hit over the length of a long term deal. Because it's very easy for teams to adjust the cap hit in a given year. Doing so changes how the total cap hit of a deal gets spread over time.

I won't be surprised at all if we do a restructure on Metcalf and reduce his cap hit. I think he's the player we could get the most cap space from. If we need or want more cap space (as a buffer, to afford a contract more than the tag value on Rodgers, to sign someone who becomes available after cuts, to be in compliance as we get closer to the beginning of the season), he's probably the first guy they go to. Especially if it's an appreciable amount we need. Personally, I hope we don't restructure him because I think that's not a great move for a team that isn't really going to be competitive for a SB because we don't have a QB.

 

I was joking because I think you are going pretty far out of your way to drag out an argument about a small detail even though we agree about the relevant point. You can argue that his cap number will change all you like, but right now, it hasn't. Even if it does, it was still stupid to replace Pickens with Metcalf rather than either keeping both or just sticking with Pickens. Of course, because this was just a tangent on another thread, I didn't even get into the draft picks.

 

Just on the subject of FA moves.... this morning, Chris Canty actually said out loud, the Bears greatly improved their MLB by bringing in Devin Bush. How bad was their MLB if that is improvement? And, even if it's truly and greatly improved, it's still bad of it's Devin Bush.


They were having a small debate about Packers/Bears and who they thought would win that division, barring injuries. Canty brought that up as a reason for his Bears vote.

 

I got money on the Bears, and Patriots taking a big step back. Lots of My family members are upset when I say it. Bears fan half of my family are.
C. Williams highlights are better than his actual play. I wonder how many people know he was like 34th in completion %,and he had the worst completion % a Qb with guys wide-open (they say 5yard, or more open).

 

I'd replace Bears with Broncos. I can see both Patriots and Broncos being worse this year than last. Bears have the HC Steelers should have acquired. Ben Johnson is the best coach they've had since Ditka.

 

Cory Trice=Senquez Golson

 

A young first time HC like Johnson wasn't coming to Pittsburgh with no franchise QB.

 

A young first time HC would go just about anywhere if offered the job

 

Satire on AC/DC....

'cause I'm S.T.D... I'm dynamite
S.T.D... and I'll win the fight
S.T.D... I'm a power load
S.T.D... watch me explode!

@S.T.D