Joel Corry | CBS Sports

What's the most common question or a couple of the common questions that you get this time of the year about the offseason and free agency and contracts? Well, one is about how franchise tags work and that was the article today on how they're calculated, what's the timing of the franchise tag, what's the different types of franchise tags, and what other ramifications there are putting a franchise tag on a player. Well, why do teams use the franchise tag?

What are the benefits? Originally, when you started free agency in, I think, 1993-94, the intent was to keep your marquee players from leaving, mainly a quarterback. John Elway was the guy who came up in discussion of who they had in mind for the franchise tag.

It's either evolved or devolved into teams restricting their best free agent from hitting the open market. Players don't like the franchise tag. Generally, maybe Kirk Cousins is the only one who does because it worked out for him where he got a fully guaranteed contract. But generally, it's a high-priced one-year prove-it deal where after you've had your contract expire, you have to go out and do it again if you don't sign a long-term deal to hopefully then hit the open market and not get franchised a second time. You are an agent, so from an agent's perspective, are there benefits to having your player get franchised? Not necessarily, just because I think it's a very powerful management tool which can work to depress salaries. Because if you didn't have a franchise tag at all, then you would have seen a tight end like Dalton Schultz get paid more than David N'Joker who's making almost $14 million a year as opposed to making slightly less than $11 on the franchise tag.

Then he suffers a, I think it was a PCL injury which kind of slowed him for part of the season, rebounded and played well down the stretch, but things could have gone sideways for him and now he's had to prove it again in order to get paid. So I'm not a big fan from the player perspective as a franchise tag. From a team perspective, I want more than one because I wouldn't want to have anyone who could leave and free agency leave.

I don't want the ability to keep them or restrict them from the open market in some way, shape or form. We're excited to have Joel Corey back on the show again for CBS Sports. It's After Hours with Amy Lawrence here on CBS Sports Radio. A lot of what we hear about the franchise tag has to do with, as you say, place holding. And if you can't get a deal done or you haven't been able to come to a deal, it seems as though the Ravens are headed that direction with Lamar Jackson. He doesn't have an agent and it appears as though he's holding out for that guaranteed money.

If you're a part of that front office, if you're part of that group that's trying to get this deal done, Joel, what do you think is the best course of action? Steve Basci the owner was very critical of Deshaun Watson getting a fully guaranteed contract last March. Lamar has been adamant about a fully guaranteed contract.

Somebody has to cave to get this deal done. The Lamar missing games at the end of the regular season for a second straight year does not help in his quest to get a fully guaranteed contract. The Ravens probably are less inclined to do it this year as opposed to last year. Now, Lamar has made a lot of money in terms of being patient, not having an agent. If he had an agent, he probably gets it done after his third year, probably shortly after Josh Allen. Maybe he's on the same six-year deal extension as Josh Allen is, maybe he's at $43.5 million.

By waiting, the market changed dramatically, so it's benefited him. What I would do in situations if I represented Lamar, I would go in the position that I want the fully guaranteed contract, but right before the March 7th deadline to place the designation on any player, I would start trying to extract major concessions for things structurally I would want from the Ravens. The reason I would be looking to do that is I don't think anyone's going to help Lamar get a fully guaranteed contract. If you look at the quarterbacks who are going to get paid this offseason, Jalen Hurts, the Eagles aren't going to give him one.

The Bengals are going to pay Joe Burrow, but this is a team that has been in the dark ages structurally with their contracts. The only guaranteed money in vetting contracts is signing bonus. They're not going to go from 0 to 100 to not even doing conventional guarantees to skipping that step to a fully guaranteed contract.

They'll have to do conventional guarantees to get Burrow done. I don't think Justin Herbert, if they do him this summer, gets one. They didn't even give his signing bonus a lump sum. They deferred some of it, so I don't see a team which is deferring signing bonus going to go from that to a fully guaranteed contract. I don't think anyone's going to help support Lamar's case, and in knowing that going in, that's why I'd be willing to trade the fully guaranteed contract for things that I find meaningful that I would want in a contract to make it very player-friendly. I understand why Lamar would not want an agent so you don't have to share any of the money.

I get it. No percentage goes to someone else, but what are the dangers for a player of not having a rep who can deal with a contract situation? Well, at least on that team, we do have recent history that they are able to get a deal done with someone who doesn't have an agent. That was Roquan Smith. I know things kind of went sideways with the Bears, and then once he's traded, he gets a deal done with the Ravens right before the playoffs start.

So I tend to think the Bears were the issue, not Roquan. But if you don't have a buffer between what's getting talked about in the negotiations, then there could be some very hard feelings, particularly if the team is saying something that a player doesn't want to hear. That's one of the biggest problems. And then just having someone else who can be a sounding board.

I don't know who's helping Lamar. Maybe he's got some advisors who are experienced, and they're the ones that he's leaning on besides his mom, and if that's the case, then he's fine. I'm assuming he's also leaning on the Players Association as well for some advice and counsel. But having that buffer in between means there won't be nearly the type of hard feelings that could be in a very contentious negotiation. As an emotional girl, I know that I would not be good in that situation because it would be hard for me to hear what my employer, what the team was saying.

I agree with you about the buffer. There is talk that if the Ravens don't get a deal done with him, even if they would throw the franchise tag on him, that they might then look to trade him. Is that still an attractive move to make if someone's under a franchise tag?

Well, there are two different franchise tags, exclusive and non-exclusive. If you have the non-exclusive, then you can shop yourself to other teams, and if you sign an offer sheet that isn't matched by your own team, then your former team will get two first-round picks as compensation. There hasn't been a franchise player move for full compensation since Joey Galloway in 2000 when he went from the Seahawks to the Cowboys. Now, the problem with two first-round picks in a vacuum sounds like a lot, but that's inadequate compensation to me for Lamar Jackson.

The reason I say that is we had two quarterback trades last year, Deshaun Watson and Russell Wilson. They went for, when you start looking at all the compensation, it was at least three first-round picks. So Lamar should be worth at least the same that those guys went to.

You also have nine quarterbacks, such as Jamal Adams, Jalen Ramsey, and Larry Matussel, who've been traded for more than two first-round picks. The thing is, the pricing for the non-exclusive tag is going to be $32.416 million. If you go exclusive, different calculation, it's a closed negotiation where he can't shop himself to anybody, but that right now projects to a little over $45 million.

It's the average of the top five salaries at the end of the restricted free agent signing period on April 21st. You could get more compensation in a trade that way because you would have to grant him permission to find a suitor, and then you're not capped at the two first-round picks on the unmatched offer sheet. Then you can get the compensation, which is more in line with the Russell Wilson and Deshaun Watson trades, if they choose to go that route and try to trade Lamar Jackson. One thing they won't do is not put any type of tag on and let him hit the open market, and then in 2025, they'd be capped at a compensatory third-round pick, which would be at the back of the third round. So there is not a chance that Lamar Jackson will be an unrestricted free agent. He will be getting a franchise tag. It's just a question whether it's exclusive or not exclusive.

Gotcha. Depending on which tag they use, Joel, would that be an indication of how they're feeling about the negotiations and whether or not they might think they have to move him? Oh, yes, because if they stick the non-exclusive tag on them, they're inviting someone to come in for an offer sheet and make the offer sheet in a manner which they won't want to match. You can't put poison pills on offer sheets, but if they don't want to get a fully guaranteed contract, the way to deter them would be, you know what, let's fully guarantee this thing.

Maybe it's not five years, maybe it's four, maybe it's three. But if they don't want to do the fully guaranteed contract on their own, then you say someone like Atlanta, who was in the sweepstakes for Deshaun Watson last year, had a ton of cap room, had a rookie quarterback after start towards the end of the year. Let's say they put an offer sheet that's fully guaranteed. Maybe they're able to go, eh, we'll take the two first-round picks. That means they're tired of negotiations, don't like the direction, ready to move on, and they're cutting their losses. I would go exclusive tag at a higher price point just because if I'm going to trade them, I'm able to get what would be his true acquisition cost through a trade in terms of draft capital.

But it will be interesting in telling to see which tag they use, exclusive or non-exclusive. It doesn't seem to be any type of a disconnect between the Giants and Daniel Jones, the way that there has been or the way that it's been reported, it's starting to feel like with the Ravens. So why would the Giants franchise tag Daniel Jones instead of just give him a contract? Well, you have until March 7th, so there's still plenty of time, and the best offer that Daniel Jones is going to get is probably going to come March 6th or before that 4 p.m. Eastern deadline. Now, the interesting thing to me was Daniel Jones switched agents.

That came out, I think, yesterday or the day before, and then there was a report that he's looking for $45 million per year. I'm not paying Daniel Jones $45 million per year. Let's not forget that they turned down the fifth-year option on him, and if I'm the Giants, I'm thinking you've been good for 15 minutes.

Before the new regime took over Brian Deval, you were headed towards potentially being a backup of things that didn't go well. Yes, you played well down the stretch. You established yourself as one of the best dual-threat quarterbacks in the NFL.

We know you don't have receivers. We think that we have a lot of upside, but if you're doing $45 million per year and you don't have a lot of flexibility on that, we'll just have you playing the tag, and if you do it again, then maybe you get your $45 million per year or more. They've got to get somebody done, say, Kwon Barkley or Daniel Jones, because they don't want to have both those guys hit the open market. One gets tagged, and hopefully they get one done on a long-term deal. Joel Corey is a former agent, now studies contracts, and is a salary-kept expert for CBS Sports.

It's After Hours with Amy Lawrence here on CBS Sports Radio. Looking at the average annual value for quarterbacks, Joel, Aaron Rodgers, of course, who is the only one in the league for now, who averages more than $50 million per year, but Russell Wilson not far behind him. Tyler Murray with his new deal is $46 million. We know about Deshaun Watson and that fully-guaranteed deal with the Browns, but you mentioned both Joe Burrow as well as Jalen Hurts for the Eagles now, who's coming off his best career game in the Super Bowl.

What type of AAV are we talking about for those two guys? When Joe Burrow signs his deal, it's going to make him the highest-paid player in the league. There's already a track record for Cincinnati doing that. Once upon a time, they did have a quarterback. They took the first overall pick in Carson Palmer. Towards the end of the 2005 regular season, they made him the highest-paid player in the league.

So, the agent knows this. Brian Irauk, who is a very sharp agent, someone who drives a hard bargain. Any deal Joe Burrow does will reset the market from an average standpoint.

Now, Hurts is a little bit more interesting. This time last year, there were question marks about him, and people were wondering whether he could be the long-term answer. Jeffery Woehr, the owner, unequivocally said that he was after the year he had. Now, they made Carson Wentz, who he ended up replacing, the fourth highest-paid player in the league.

So, to me, that's a floor. But what I'm really looking at is $50 million per year for him is what I would want if I represented him. And I'm looking at another quarterback taking the same year as Carson Wentz in Jared Goff. MVP candidate in his third year in 2018. Rams get to the Super Bowl. He suffers a late-season slump. Doesn't play well in the Super Bowl. Nonetheless, before the regular season starts, signs a contract tying him to the second highest-paid player in the league with Aaron Rodgers.

Now, Hurts, better third year than Goff. Second highest-paid player right now is Russell Wilson. So, to me, I would try to use that as ammunition to get $50 million per year.

It is crazy. A Patrick Mahomes at $45 million a year or a Josh Allen at $43 million a year can now be considered, and I'm using my air quotations, but cheaper, Joel. There's a lot of interesting takes about the Mahomes deal. One, I hear a lot of media people advocating that Burroughs should do a Mahomes-type deal.

One thing you've got to keep in mind about that is he really moved the bar from an average standpoint. Contract's way too long for my liking, but at the time, Russell Wilson was highest-paid player at $35 million. He's at $45 million. That's 28.6% more.

So, if I'm Joe Burrough, you want me to even consider that? I have to be 28, 30% more than Aaron Rodgers. That's putting me at $65 million per year. Two, I don't like the way the cash flow was in the Mahomes deal. It's very back-loaded that he didn't get much more cash over the first couple of years than if he'd done nothing or played on the franchise tax. I guarantee you that you may never hear Patrick Mahomes say this publicly, but as more and more quarterbacks go past him, there are already four, there could be as many as eight by the time the regular season starts. He's not going to be happy about that since he's the best player in the league, and he signed a 10-year extension with two years left on his rookie contract. So, at some point, the Chiefs are going to have to look at that contract as it becomes much greater for them in terms of the bargain they're getting. You can't have an unhappy Patrick Mahomes. When there's a $60 million per year quarterback, I'm not sure what year that happens. It is coming, and he's at 45. If he's still the best player in the league and one of the top three quarterbacks in the league, and he's at 45, and guys who aren't him are at 60, you've got a problem.

Yeah, no doubt. And he certainly has all the bargaining power in the world with the two MVPs, two Super Bowl MVPs, and of course, helping the Chiefs win their second ring in four years. Before I let you go, Joel, when we talk about quarterback salaries, there's often this pushback from people. You can't afford to pay your quarterback such a sizable average annual sum when you've got other players decide it turns out to be a knock or a negative for the rest of your roster. It reduces your depth or maybe the other top-flight players that you can go after.

How accurate is that? We saw this year we had the quarterback on the winning team take up 17% of the team's adjusted cap. That's right there proof it can be done. It's not the quarterback's job or the player's job to manage the salary cap for the team. That's the team's job. The thing is that people were spoiled by what Tom Brady was doing in New England. After the deal he signed in 2010, he started taking hometown discounts, which allowed the Patriots to have more depth and more talent than they would on the team otherwise. That's an anomaly.

Nobody else is doing that. The Mahomes deal was trying to have the best of both worlds, stretch it out so far where they could keep kicking the can down the road, have it backloaded. Also from a cash standpoint, they were going to also have the ability to amass more talent early on. But as I said earlier, he's going to be unhappy at some point if he's human like everyone else in terms of looking at, okay, I'm better than these guys.

They're making so much more than me. That's going to have to be addressed. Maybe it's 2025, maybe it's 2026, but they're going to have to do something to adjust the salary. If he is the guy we think he is, he's on a trajectory to be the greatest player, or at least quarterback to play the game. Brady played for 97 years and had seven Super Bowl rings.

But from an individual standpoint, talent wise, no one's had a better start to their career as a quarterback than Patrick Mahomes. Do you ever miss being at the negotiating table? Negotiating table? Yes. Some of the other aspects of being an agent?

No. Well, we're glad to have your knowledge with CBS. I'm always blown away whenever I talk to you, just the amount of knowledge that is necessary to have these types of discussions intelligently. You could not only hear it from Joel, but you can see it too if you read his columns. He's got a new one up, everything you need to know about franchise and transition tags, and then some of the frequently asked questions that he gets as we head into the silly season for the NFL.

On Twitter at Corey, C-O-R-R-Y, Joel, J-O-E-L, just in case people don't know. It's always good to catch up with you, Joel. Thank you so much for a couple of minutes. Sure. Thanks for having me.