What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Franchise Tag (1 Viewer)

BlueOnion

Footballguy
I think the Franchise Tag needs to be done away with or tweaked significantly. For instance,

- Franchised players should earn 'a maximum' amount for the year instead of the average of the top-5 (or whatever it currently is).

- Signing a franchise player should only cost a team one 1st round pick, instead of the current two 1st round picks.

 
transition tag is quite similar but leaves the player open to trade, I think. With that, maybe get rid of the franchise tag and keep that.

One first is not enough IMO but two firsts is too much, something in between.

 
One first is not enough IMO but two firsts is too much, something in between.
I am off to a meeting, so this will be my last post in a while.I have yet to see the franchise tag used (in recent years anyway) on a player in which the club wants to keep the player and the player wants to stay, however a contract cannot be reached. More than not, the franchise tag is used on a player a team may not want to keep, but they want to get something for him.

So I don't think the compensation should be high to deter other clubs from signing the player, but instead should be low enough to encourage teams to sign the player to a long term deal.

 
there have been plenty the team truly wanted Blue,

Shaun, Pace umm Walter Jones? Edge? I'm not certain who but confident there's been a bunch

 
Each Club can also designate one UFA or RFA as a Transition Player. Additionally, (in the final year of the CBA) each club may, in lieu of designating a Franchise Player, designate an additional Transition Player during the same designation period as the Franchise Player designation period. Whew! What that means is that a team may elect to tag two players with the Transition tag or one Transition Player and one Franchise Player in the final capped year. Any Club that designates a Transition Player shall receive the Rights of First Refusal. In order to designate an UFA or RFA as a Transition Player, the team must tender the player a one year contract for the average of the ten largest prior year salaries for players at the position at which he played the most games during the prior year, or 120% of his prior year salary, whichever is greater.

http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/

just an FYI regarding the transition tag.

 
I would have it function as it was originally intended. You can Franchise a player and sign them to a deal, but you can't re-franchise someone for the length of that deal. the workaround where they sign a one year deal and then a multi year deal should be eliminated. The Franchise tag was for Brett Favre and Peyton Manning. Not to keep kickers or Gaurds.

In this example the Seahawks should not be able to Franchise Walter Jones, Shaun Alexander and Steve Hutchinson in successive years. You only have one franchise player, which one is it?

 
I think the Franchise Tag needs to be done away with or tweaked significantly. For instance,

- Franchised players should earn 'a maximum' amount for the year instead of the average of the top-5 (or whatever it currently is).

- Signing a franchise player should only cost a team one 1st round pick, instead of the current two 1st round picks.
transition tag is quite similar but leaves the player open to trade, I think. With that, maybe get rid of the franchise tag and keep that.

One first is not enough IMO but two firsts is too much, something in between.
You guys are confusing me.Franchise players earn the average of the top five at their position. That's unfairly low to someone like Tony Gonzalez a few years ago, when he was clearly #1 at his position. So maybe the compensation should be increased a bit.

I don't know what BlueOnion means by "Signing a franchise player should only cost a team on 1st round pick." A team can tag someone for free. It doesn't cost any picks. Once he's tagged, other teams can't sign him at all.

The difference between the franchise tag and the transition tag is that the transition tag gives the average salary for the top ten (not top five) players at his position. (Both tags include a raise of 20% over the player's previous year salary, which is why the franchise and transition amounts are the same for Drew Brees this year.) The other difference is that franchise money is guaranteed, but transition money normally isn't. The team can cut the transition player before the season starts and be off the hook for his salary (although this doesn't apply if the player was franchised the previous year, as in Brees' case). A team can trade a trasitioned or a franchised player; no difference there.

I haven't looked any of this up right now; I'm going from memory. But I'm pretty sure I have it right.

 
I have yet to see the franchise tag used (in recent years anyway) on a player in which the club wants to keep the player and the player wants to stay, however a contract cannot be reached.
Drew Brees, Tony Gonzalez, Shaun Alexander, Orlando Pace, Walter Jones, maybe Jamal Lewis this year . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the Franchise Tag needs to be done away with or tweaked significantly.  For instance,

- Franchised players should earn 'a maximum' amount for the year instead of the average of the top-5 (or whatever it currently is).

- Signing a franchise player should only cost a team one 1st round pick, instead of the current two 1st round picks.
transition tag is quite similar but leaves the player open to trade, I think. With that, maybe get rid of the franchise tag and keep that.

One first is not enough IMO but two firsts is too much, something in between.
You guys are confusing me.Franchise players earn the average of the top five at their position. That's unfairly low to someone like Tony Gonzalez a few years ago, when he was clearly #1 at his position. So maybe the compensation should be increased a bit.

I don't know what BlueOnion means by "Signing a franchise player should only cost a team on 1st round pick." A team can tag someone for free. It doesn't cost any picks. Once he's tagged, other teams can't sign him at all.

The difference between the franchise tag and the transition tag is that the transition tag gives the average salary for the top ten (not top five) players at his position. (Both tags include a raise of 20% over the player's previous year salary, which is why the franchise and transition amounts are the same for Drew Brees this year.) The other difference is that franchise money is guaranteed, but transition money normally isn't. The team can cut the transition player before the season starts and be off the hook for his salary (although this doesn't apply if the player was franchised the previous year, as in Brees' case). A team can trade a trasitioned or a franchised player; no difference there.

I haven't looked any of this up right now; I'm going from memory. But I'm pretty sure I have it right.
I think he means trading for a franchise playerIn regards to transition tag, there's "the right of first refusal" which while I don't completely understand it I think it means another team may make a higher offer and the original team is either forced to let him walk or pay the huge ransom.

I'm pretty sure the salary is either the average amount OR a 20% raise, whichever is higher.

As for Tony G, yes he missed out. Since he's no longer the top TE, that was probably his chance to "break the bank" but he's so good he still commands a ton of $ so I don't feel so bad for him. It's a very good point though about the average affecting the best players.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Franchise players earn the average of the top five at their position. That's unfairly low to someone like Tony Gonzalez a few years ago, when he was clearly #1 at his position. So maybe the compensation should be increased a bit.
On the first part, this is one of big points I was driving at. It seems the current formula for calculating a franchised player's salary puts the said player at 'fair market' value, though I could be wrong.John Abraham comes to mind and his take home pay last year was about 8.5 million. I think he could have had more take home pay last year if he were a free agent.

I don't know what BlueOnion means by "Signing a franchise player should only cost a team on 1st round pick." A team can tag someone for free. It doesn't cost any picks. Once he's tagged, other teams can't sign him at all.
I don't think the bolded is true. Abraham was just tagged a franchise player, but others teams can still sign him if they want. However, they would have to forfeit two #1 picks to the Jets. I am saying this should be lowered to 1 first round pick. It creates incentives for the teams to sign the players to a long term deal, but doesn't completely discourage other clubs from signing the player.
 
I have yet to see the franchise tag used (in recent years anyway) on a player in which the club wants to keep the player and the player wants to stay, however a contract cannot be reached.
Drew Brees, Tony Gonzalez, Shaun Alexander, Orlando Pace, Walter Jones, maybe Jamal Lewis this year . . .
This is a good list.
 
I don't know what BlueOnion means by "Signing a franchise player should only cost a team on 1st round pick." A team can tag someone for free. It doesn't cost any picks. Once he's tagged, other teams can't sign him at all.
I don't think the bolded is true. Abraham was just tagged a franchise player, but others teams can still sign him if they want. However, they would have to forfeit two #1 picks to the Jets. I am saying this should be lowered to 1 first round pick. It creates incentives for the teams to sign the players to a long term deal, but doesn't completely discourage other clubs from signing the player.
Ah, this is an interesting issue. Here's the relevant section of the CBA. I haven't perused the entire CBA, but based on a quick skim of Ariticle XX, Sections 1 and 2, it looks to me like a team can tender either (a) the average of the top five salaries at the position last year, or (b) the average of the top five salaries at the position this year (as of the end of the RFA period). In the former case, other teams may sign him away and give up two first-rounders as compensation. In the latter case, other teams may not sign him away. If I'm reading that correctly. (In Brees' case, (a) and (b) would be the same amount since both are subject to the 120% provision; so if the Chargers had franchised Brees, it would have been under (b).) I could be reading it wrong, though.I think I agree with you about reducing the compensation from two first-rounders to one. That gives the player more bargaining power in his negotiations with other teams, which IMO is fair. I kind of don't like the whole idea of franchise tags or transition tags in the first place. If a team doesn't want a player to be an unrestricted free agent, it should extend his contract before it expires. If it doesn't, he should be free to negotiate on the open market. JMHO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know what BlueOnion means by "Signing a franchise player should only cost a team on 1st round pick." A team can tag someone for free. It doesn't cost any picks. Once he's tagged, other teams can't sign him at all.
I don't think the bolded is true. Abraham was just tagged a franchise player, but others teams can still sign him if they want. However, they would have to forfeit two #1 picks to the Jets. I am saying this should be lowered to 1 first round pick. It creates incentives for the teams to sign the players to a long term deal, but doesn't completely discourage other clubs from signing the player.
Ah, this is an interesting issue. Here's the relevant section of the CBA. I haven't perused the entire CBA, but based on a quick skim of Ariticle XX, Sections 1 and 2, it looks to me like a team can tender either (a) the average of the top five salaries at the position last year, or (b) the average of the top five salaries at the position this year (as of the end of the RFA period). In the former case, other teams may sign him away and give up two first-rounders as compensation. In the latter case, other teams may not sign him away. If I'm reading that correctly. (In Brees' case, (a) and (b) would be the same amount since both are subject to the 120% provision; so if the Chargers had franchised Brees, it would have been under (b).) I could be reading it wrong, though.I think I agree with you about reducing the compensation from two first-rounders to one. That gives the player more bargaining power in his negotiations with other teams, which IMO is fair. I kind of don't like the whole idea of franchise tags or transition tags in the first place. If a team doesn't want a player to be an unrestricted free agent, it should extend his contract before it expires. If it doesn't, he should be free to negotiate on the open market. JMHO.
Nice MT! I think we are getting closer. I read the link and it appears the team can only tender one type of 'franchise tag', but must tender it before free agency opens. Depending on when the [franchise] player signs the tender will dictate which of the two scenarios above you pointed out go into affect.You are the lawyer (right?), so I am depending on you to pull through for us.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read the link and it appears the team can only tender one type of 'franchise tag', but must tender it before free agency opens. Depending on when the [franchise] player signs the tender will dictate which of the two scenarios above you pointed out go into affect.
Maybe, but that's not how I'm reading it. In particular: "[A]ny Club that designates a Franchise Player shall on the date the designation is made notify the player and the NFLPA which one of the following two potential required tenders the Club has selected: [option (a) or option (b)]." Section 2(c).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there's a rule that the team is permitted two tags the year the CBA ends. I might be wrong but I think there's something along those lines.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I understand the purpose of the franchise tag, it is to protect a team from losing a player they consider to be indispensable. And the price to sign a such a player away should be higher than most teams would be willing to pay. But at the same time, if a team thinks so highly of a player to franchise him, the team should pay the player an equitable salary.

I think the salary should be at least equal to the highest salary at the position, not the average of the top 5.

I don't think that a single 1st round pick is enough. At least not in all cases. If P. Manning was franchised, a team would gladly give a single 1st round pick to acquire him and Indy would not get anywhere near fair return. But at the same time, a single 1st round pick to sign Vinatieri is too much. There's no way any team would give a first.

I think somehow the draft pick compensation should be tied to either the salary that the new team signed him to or the franchise salary.

And even this would be unfair. For instance, if the Texans wanted to sign a franchise player, it would cost them considerably more than it would cost the Steelers since their 1st is much more valuable than the Steelers. In this regard, it actually benefits the already good teams.

I also think that the way they group players needs to be changed. Why are punters grouped with kickers? Why are centers and guards grouped with left tackles? If N.O. wants to franchise Bentley (or the Seahawks Hutchinson), they'll have to pay the equivalent of the top 5 LTs in the league.

 
I don't think that a single 1st round pick is enough. At least not in all cases. If P. Manning was franchised, a team would gladly give a single 1st round pick to acquire him and Indy would not get anywhere near fair return. But at the same time, a single 1st round pick to sign Vinatieri is too much. There's no way any team would give a first.
I also think the franchise tag was a CBA addition just to assist in the transition to a world of Free Agency. Maybe we have reached that point in the NFL.
 
If I understand the purpose of the franchise tag, it is to protect a team from losing a player they consider to be indispensable. ...
That's only half of the purpose. It was designed to be beneficial to both teams and players. It was supposed to allow a team to keep from losing the key part of their team, while at the same time providing the player with adequate compensation. The problem is that it doesn't do the latter. The risk of getting injured in that 1 year and then losing all bargaining power makes it a losing proposition from the player's side.Lowering the compensation would help, but it would also harm the part about protecting the team, if that was all that you did. I think if you go that route, you need to pair with it a little more flexibility for the team in terms of what they have to do to match a contract. The kind of move the Bears did to get Tait shouldn't work, for example. The Bears offered Tait a huge year 1 roster bonus that KC could not afford... not that KC couldn't necessarily match the total value of the contract, but not the way the bonuses were structured.So maybe they redo the part about matching the contract to be they have to match the guarranteed and total salary parts, and have to be within some % of each year's base salary.Another thing they could do is to just make the franchise tag be multiple years. If you say the guy is a franchise player, then he gets a minimum of a 3 year contract at an average of the top 5 players at his position each season... with the contract divided into realistic guaranteed and salary amounts. I also like having the tag remain on the player for that set number of years, no matter what happens to him contractually.
 
I'd prevent a team from franchising the same player in consecutive years (a la Alexander's contract this year, which prevented the Seahawks from re-franchising him). If a guy has one good year and becomes a FA, you can tag him for the next year. If he puts up numbers again, I think it is unfair to allow him to be tagged a second time - he should be entitled to test the market if his club is unwilling to make a long-term commitment.

 
I'd prevent a team from franchising the same player in consecutive years (a la Alexander's contract this year, which prevented the Seahawks from re-franchising him). If a guy has one good year and becomes a FA, you can tag him for the next year. If he puts up numbers again, I think it is unfair to allow him to be tagged a second time - he should be entitled to test the market if his club is unwilling to make a long-term commitment.
He gets a 20% raise every year, which is huge. Realistically, that prevents teams from tagging the same guy several times in a row.
 
I'd prevent a team from franchising the same player in consecutive years (a la Alexander's contract this year, which prevented the Seahawks from re-franchising him). If a guy has one good year and becomes a FA, you can tag him for the next year. If he puts up numbers again, I think it is unfair to allow him to be tagged a second time - he should be entitled to test the market if his club is unwilling to make a long-term commitment.
He gets a 20% raise every year, which is huge. Realistically, that prevents teams from tagging the same guy several times in a row.
I think it might prevent them from tagging someone 4 or 5 times, but not 2 or 3. Walter Jones got tagged 3 times from 2002 to 2004. His 2004 salary was $7.1 mil. The franchise tag for this year for linemen is $6.9m , so that 20% applied to him twice kept ahead of the regular inflation in prices at the position, but not by a huge amount.
 
I'd prevent a team from franchising the same player in consecutive years (a la Alexander's contract this year, which prevented the Seahawks from re-franchising him). If a guy has one good year and becomes a FA, you can tag him for the next year. If he puts up numbers again, I think it is unfair to allow him to be tagged a second time - he should be entitled to test the market if his club is unwilling to make a long-term commitment.
:thumbup:
 
there have been plenty the team truly wanted Blue,

Shaun, Pace umm Walter Jones? Edge? I'm not certain who but confident there's been a bunch
I was thinking about this. If the franchise tag went away, would anything prevent these players from signing the same 1-year deals they signed under the franchise tag rule? If, as I stated above, assumed the team wanted to keep the players and the players still wanted to play for that one franchise?
 
I'd prevent a team from franchising the same player in consecutive years (a la Alexander's contract this year, which prevented the Seahawks from re-franchising him).  If a guy has one good year and becomes a FA, you can tag him for the next year.  If he puts up numbers again, I think it is unfair to allow him to be tagged a second time - he should be entitled to test the market if his club is unwilling to make a long-term commitment.
He gets a 20% raise every year, which is huge. Realistically, that prevents teams from tagging the same guy several times in a row.
Donovan Darius has been tagged three years in a row by the Jags in addition to Walter Jones mentioned above. I am not sure Darius could have gotten that much guaranteed money had he gone elsewhere the first year, so for him it may have worked out financially. Franchise tag salary is GUARANTEED once the tender is signed. regardless of injury during the season.What did Walter Jones sign for? On top of that he got at least 12 million dollars in guaranteed money the first two years - since he stayed healthy he has eaten his cake and kept it too.

Are the injuries to Franchise tagged players (that only signed the tender) really that frequent? I can only think of Julian Peterson in recent years. Obviously the risk is high, but so is the reward for the player.

 
there have been plenty the team truly wanted Blue,

Shaun, Pace umm Walter Jones? Edge? I'm not certain who but confident there's been a bunch
I was thinking about this. If the franchise tag went away, would anything prevent these players from signing the same 1-year deals they signed under the franchise tag rule? If, as I stated above, assumed the team wanted to keep the players and the players still wanted to play for that one franchise?
The money wouldn;t be guaranteed - it would have to be structured as a SB plus a salary
 
there have been plenty the team truly wanted Blue,

Shaun, Pace umm Walter Jones? Edge? I'm not certain who but confident there's been a bunch
I was thinking about this. If the franchise tag went away, would anything prevent these players from signing the same 1-year deals they signed under the franchise tag rule? If, as I stated above, assumed the team wanted to keep the players and the players still wanted to play for that one franchise?
The money wouldn;t be guaranteed - it would have to be structured as a SB plus a salary
But the club could elect to guaratee it couldn't they?
 
...

Are the injuries to Franchise tagged players (that only signed the tender) really that frequent? I can only think of Julian Peterson in recent years. Obviously the risk is high, but so is the reward for the player.
How is the reward high? In most cases the player is only getting about what he would have gotten had he been allowed to be a free agent. So there is no extra reward there, just the added risk.
 
Franchise tag salary is GUARANTEED once the tender is signed. regardless of injury during the season.
I think every veteran(x amount of years experience, 4? 5?) has the same luxury of 1 year's salary guaranteed if he's hurt. The current season that he got hurt in, to clarify.
 
Trying to think out of the box here. How about this. Instead of franchised players getting the average salary of the top 5 players at his postion, just make it the average of the [all] top 5 salaries regardless of position.

A franchise player should be considered a franchise player regardless of position, right?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top