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.