Is the Franchise Tag that bad for the player? (1 Viewer)

[SuperJohn96]

I think as normal hard working people who don't make millions of dollars, few of us would certainly scoff at being an NFL player who got hit with the Franchise Tag.

Compared to the average person's earnings, it would be like hitting the lottery.

But I think if I was an NFL player who got hit with the Franchise Tag, that I would probably get my agent to do whatever he could to get me out of it.

Whether I sat for 10 games, or asked for a trade, or publicly said I was offended and I would never play for my team again...I think there is no way I would take the money for the one year deal.

Ok, you are guaranteed that money for one year. So what?

It seems that most tagged players are in their prime and enjoying great success on the field.

Not including the draft, that is the best time to get yourself a nice long term deal with a big signing bonus.

Why would you risk two or three times what you would make in on year on the chance you could have an injury?

Say you take the 1 year deal and play out the tag...

1) You do not perform as well, and you are then offered a lesser contract

2) You perform as well, and get slapped with the tag again (see Pace, Orlando)

3) You suffer a short term injury, and you are then offered a lesser contract

4) You suffer career threatening or ending injury. $0 contract after that.

I do not like it very much when a player signs a contract and asks for it to be re-done. I also don't begrudge the teams when they tag a player...but there is no way I would let it slide without doing everything in my power to avoid it.

 

[bcr8f]

No in most cases they are paid a lot of money and can become FA's at the end of the year. They don't like it because they doin't know if the team wants them to play one more year and then get dealt.

I think not knowing where they will play next year is the biggest issue.

Are they being used like a rental car and then dumped?

 

[LTsharks]

people often forget the other option -

rookie deals are one year longer - you don't hit free agency for another year and the year that is now your "franchise tag year" is just another year on your previous deal, making much less then you would if there was no franchise system.

 

[David Yudkin]

The real issue is Item 4. You get seriously hurt and your career could be done.

The secondary issue is that many times the franchise tag turns out be be less than the player could get on the open market and there's no huge signing bonus.

In Samuel's case, he would have to play for $7.75 million for the year if "forced" to play for New England. For the same year of work, he could maybe get a $20 million signing bonus plus maybe $5 million in salary = $25 million. Which would you rather have?

 

[J-Rock]

The real issue is Item 4. You get seriously hurt and your career could be done.The secondary issue is that many times the franchise tag turns out be be less than the player could get on the open market and there's no huge signing bonus.In Samuel's case, he would have to play for $7.75 million for the year if "forced" to play for New England. For the same year of work, he could maybe get a $20 million signing bonus plus maybe $5 million in salary = $25 million. Which would you rather have?

 

[-OZ-]

The real issue is Item 4. You get seriously hurt and your career could be done.The secondary issue is that many times the franchise tage turns out be be less than the player could get on the open market and there's no huge signing bonus.In Samuel's case, he would have to play for $7.75 million for the year if "forced" to play for New England. For the same year of work, he could maybe get a $20 million signing bonus plus maybe $5 million in salary = $25 million. Which would you rather have?

of course the players want the large bonus and security. Everyone would usually. I prefer the old way (like baseball in the 60's), one year contracts. You play, you get paid. Obviously that won't float now, but it puts the incentive on the player to perform.

 

[*****]

I've sometimes wondered whether the players could negotiate a term in the next CBA which would reduce some of the risk associated with a career ending injury. Perhaps the Franchise tag should come with an own occupation disability insurnance policy that pays 80% of the franchise salary for two or three years after the injury if the player suffers a career ending injury.

Players would certainly still prefer the big up-front bonus money. There is no guarnantee that a player will not simply suck or lose a step--so players will still prefer the big bonus. But it would probably reduce some of the players' chief complaints about the franchise tag re injury.

 

[BoltBacker]

I think the ? in the thread title and the ? in the poll are entirely different.

The answer to the thread title is a positive "YES", it is bad for the player any way you slice it. If it wasn't bad for the player than the team wouldn't be wasting the franchise tag in the first place.

The answer in the poll question is still "YES" because the # of years you have as a highly productive football player is so small. To miss even on years worth of salary is a big deal even if you are risking tomorrows pay check for a smaller one today.

I'm normally on the side of management in sports leagues but the NFLPA really needs to stand up against the franchise tag in the next labor agreemant. It's incredibly unfair to the players that have honored their contract to have to suddenly play for a contract they can't negotiate if they want to play in the league. For all those people that say "Well if that SOB can't live on several million $ a year well BOO F'n HOO!".... a lot of people around the world could say the same thing about us and could live for a decade or more on what we make in a year. We still want to make the most $ we can.

 

[TME]

Any game could be your last. Facing that, would you rather know that you are getting $7 million or $20 million? If your career ends that year, you just lost $13 million. It's a huge deal.

I think the NFL needs to lighten the draft pick compensation requirements to prevent tags from being the permanent lock downs that they have become for ownership's "favorite/but least favorite" players.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, they should dump the franchise tag altogether. You don't see stars in any other sport FORCED to play BEYOND their contract . . . AND for less money

 

[bcr8f]

I've sometimes wondered whether the players could negotiate a term in the next CBA which would reduce some of the risk associated with a career ending injury. Perhaps the Franchise tag should come with an own occupation disability insurnance policy that pays 80% of the franchise salary for two or three years after the injury if the player suffers a career ending injury.Players would certainly still prefer the big up-front bonus money. There is no guarnantee that a player will not simply suck or lose a step--so players will still prefer the big bonus. But it would probably reduce some of the players' chief complaints about the franchise tag re injury.

Good point. Some players buy their own insurance but the league would get lower rates. They should extend disabilty to older players as well.

 

[Skino]

I do disagree with the franchise tag a bit, but I don't think it's that terrible on the player. You are guaranteed at LEAST the average of the top five players contracts at your position. Yes signing a new deal does have the benefit of more guaranteed money with a little more assurance if you get hurt. But the problem with those big money contracts is that it has a tendency to hurt teams and therefore hurt the game. Say Samuel gets his big deal and does go down the next year. He's strapping the team with $20 million against their cap (hit over several years).

As a player, no I don't want to be franchised because of the risk, but if I do stay healthy and play well I get a big paycheck this year and garner equal if not better interest/money next year. But signing that big money somewhere else hurts that teams prospects of being good for an extended period of because of how much of the cap goes to me.

 

[mozzy84]

I think the ? in the thread title and the ? in the poll are entirely different.

change mine to a no or the I would at least whine and try to get traded option.

 

[stevegamer]

The franchise tag isn't horrible for the player, since the first year salary is very likely better than the open market salary.

If you're a guy who gets tagged 2 or 3 years in a row, you're probably ahead by that point. Thos big salaries are nice, and you still get a signing bonus after that when you hit a big deal.

 

[BoltBacker]

Say Samuel gets his big deal and does go down the next year. He's strapping the team with $20 million against their cap (hit over several years).

But I think that's exactly why so many of us think it's unfair for the top players.If Samuel gets his big deal and blows out his knee next year it turns out to be a bad deal for the Patriots BUT it's a deal that they negotiated and agreed to. If they didn't think the risk involved in the deal was worth the reward then they could have just let him walk(like they have with so many other players have before).If Samuel is franchised and blows out a knee next year well he's just screwed playing for a deal that he didn't even have the opportunity to negotiate. He didn't have a choice other than whether he was willing to play for that $ or not play for that $.As to the whole point with regard to averaging the top 5 salary I'll just say that if the team thought they could re-sign the player for less $ then they wouldn't bother using the franchise tag at all. The team is only using the tag because they know his services would cost them more on the open market and/or it limits their exposure to an injury just as you described earlier. Bad deal for the top players in the league.... but it probably helps the middle tier guys make more $ due to the fact a couple of guys aren't using up the entire salary cap NBA-style.

 

[Snotbubbles]

The franchise tag isn't horrible for the player, since the first year salary is very likely better than the open market salary. If you're a guy who gets tagged 2 or 3 years in a row, you're probably ahead by that point. Thos big salaries are nice, and you still get a signing bonus after that when you hit a big deal.

Wrong. Why do you think when you hit the lottery it's better to take the lump sum cash payment then the annuity. Because, #1) you can invest the money (international funds last year returned at 20+%) to make the actual total value of the winning more than what you would have gotten in an annuity and #2) the value of a dollar gets less and less every year. So that 10 million dollar house in 2007 might cost you 15 million in 2010. And that all assumes that you will see that big payday in 2010.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Another factor you have to look at it the number of big paydays a player can get.

Using Walter Jones as an example when he was 28-29 he became eligible for FA. But since he got tagged 2 years had to wait until he was 30-31 until he got his big payday. If he would have signed for his big payday at 29 he would have the opportunity to sign another big payday in 2008 or 2009. Now he loses that opportunity until probably sometime around 2011-2012 when he's 37-38 if he's still playing he's probably not gonna see the same type of offers then as opposed to next year.

 

[GroveDiesel]

IMO, the easiest fix is just to change the franchise tag from a one year guaranteed contract to a 3 year guaranteed contract and escalate the guaranteed salary each season. So if you franchise a guy it would be for a 3 year period with a guaranteed salary averaging the top 5 at the position the first year, the top 3 at the position the 2nd year and a 10% increase from that the 3rd year.

That way teams are still able to hold onto their star players and the players still get a nice guaranteed contract that isn't just a one year deal.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

I think the players being tagged this year are more upset than in other years because there was SUCH A HUGE BUMP in the Salary Cap, and they saw all these players (who they felt were worse than them) making more money than they'll get this year.

The fact of the matter: NO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA 'Franchise Tagged' players has ever held out of a single NFL game the year they were tagged.

Briggs and Samuel are doing nothing more than negotiating through the media. They get a free pass to take Training Camp off - just ask Walter Jones and Orlando Pace.

 

[Snotbubbles]

The fact of the matter: NO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA 'Franchise Tagged' players has ever held out of a single NFL game the year they were tagged.Briggs and Samuel are doing nothing more than negotiating through the media. They get a free pass to take Training Camp off - just ask Walter Jones and Orlando Pace.

No one is really questioning that the players will hold out, only the fairness. But tagged players have forced trades (see Wilbur Marshall), negotiated with the team concerning the future use of the tag (see Shaun Alexander) or even had the tag removed altogether (see Jeremiah Trotter).EDIT: Oh and by the way, Sean Gilbert held out the 1997 season after being tagged by the Washington Redskins.

 

[massraider]

The fact of the matter: NO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA 'Franchise Tagged' players has ever held out of a single NFL game the year they were tagged.

Briggs and Samuel are doing nothing more than negotiating through the media. They get a free pass to take Training Camp off - just ask Walter Jones and Orlando Pace.

No one is really questioning that the players will hold out, only the fairness. But tagged players have forced trades (see Wilbur Marshall), negotiated with the team concerning the future use of the tag (see Shaun Alexander) or even had the tag removed altogether (see Jeremiah Trotter).

EDIT: Oh and by the way, Sean Gilbert held out the 1997 season after being tagged by the Washington Redskins.

Well, yeah, he meant aside from Sean Gilbert.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Well I concede the point that I don't believe that either Briggs or Samuel will hold out. When Gilbert did it he was tagged for something like 2.9 million (I think) so it was nowhere near the neighborhood of what these 2 will get. The financials make it much harder for these guys to hold out.

 

[BroadwayG]

Yes, it's that bad. Yes, I'd play.

It's all about the signing bonus, baby.

 

[dparker713]

Its hardly that bad. The tag doesn't prevent a team from signing you to a long term deal. It removes some of the leverage of the player, but its hardly screwing the guy over. The contract for the year is guarenteed, and most guys get at or near market value in their longer term deals. It might cost them a million or two (out of 50), but you guys act like they're getting completely hosed. They're not. They only get screwed when they decide that the tag is an insult and refuse to negotiate with the team any longer.

Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for the players in this case. All sports have RESTRICTED free agency. This is one of hte restrictions of the system that has created an insane amount of revenue for the players and owners. All of a sudden, the system is supposed to be changed because some guy feel dissed by the franchise tag? Its a business and these guys need to grow up.

 

[massraider]

Its a business and these guys need to grow up.

You could say the same about fans that get in a huff everytime a franchise player isn't happy with being forced to accept 7 mill instead of 22 mill.Now, feeling sorry for a player? Of course not. But man, people are sure cavalier when it comes to dismissing a potential $15 million difference, when it's not their money.

 

[brewer]

I think the biggest potential problem for a tagged player is that they could have a poor year. They certainly are making enough money that they could take out an insurance policy against injury. The problem comes when they have a really bad year however as they will likely never recieve the money that they could have otherwise.

It's all about risk vs. reward right? If you don't want to be tagged, you may have to accept a lesser contract than you would like.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Now, feeling sorry for a player? Of course not. But man, people are sure cavalier when it comes to dismissing a potential $15 million difference, when it's not their money.

This is exactly my sentiment. I don't feel sorry for a player being "force" to play for 7+ million a year. But when the same or similar caliber players are getting 20+ million guarenteed, who am I to say that person should "stop whining and play."

The contract for the year is guarenteed, and most guys get at or near market value in their longer term deals.

I'm not following you here, unless you think 7.5 million is at or near 20+ million in terms of value. And as I stated before, every year that these guys wait to sign their big deal is another year that they lose a chance to sign a second big deal.

 

[DrJ]

The fact of the matter: NO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA 'Franchise Tagged' players has ever held out of a single NFL game the year they were tagged.

Galloway did...

 

[massraider]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here:

With the franchise tag, a player can potentially make much more money than if he'd never been tagged.

It's a pretty standard thing, that the 2nd contract is the one the players can count on. It's the big one, when he sets himself up, and isn't considered on the 'downside' of his career.

Well, if a player can remain healthy, and well-regarded during his tagged year, it's like getting an extra year on that 2nd contract.

Charles Woodson and Walter Jones both got their "2nd deal" after playing as a tagged player. Jones did it twice, IIRC. Woodson got 10 mill for that one season, and then he signed the big deal with GB. There's no way he'd get 10 mill at the end of that 2nd contract, so sandwiched between his rookie deal, and his 2nd big deal, he got a 10 mill payday.

Jones, well that guy just played his cards right. Between his significant rookie deal, two franchise years, and his long term deal that he finall signed, I'm not sure if many players at their respective positions have ever done as well, relatively speaking.

If you are willing to gamble a bit, it's a pretty big potential payoff.

 

[dparker713]

The contract for the year is guarenteed, and most guys get at or near market value in their longer term deals.

I'm not following you here, unless you think 7.5 million is at or near 20+ million in terms of value. And as I stated before, every year that these guys wait to sign their big deal is another year that they lose a chance to sign a second big deal.

Many franchise players sign the tender just before they sign a long term deal. At that point they general get a deal at or near market value. Not the next year, that same year.

 

[H.K.]

For all those people that say "Well if that SOB can't live on several million $ a year well BOO F'n HOO!".... a lot of people around the world could say the same thing about us and could live for a decade or more on what we make in a year. We still want to make the most $ we can.

Being tagged prevents workers from getting paid market conditions. I wonder how all the people griping about how much NFL players make would feel if their equivalent co-worker accepted a new job at twice their salary, with a company car and $50K signing bonus...yet they personally could not seek higher paying employment elswhere because they got tagged by their company? NFL players have short careers, they have to cash in every possible chance they get. Spare me the life after football junk, too. Most of those guys are going to be paying tons of medical bills and living in pain, which will be expensive and in some cases, hurt their employment potential, too. The window is too small, they need to be paid when they earn it.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Charles Woodson and Walter Jones both got their "2nd deal" after playing as a tagged player. Jones did it twice, IIRC. Woodson got 10 mill for that one season, and then he signed the big deal with GB. There's no way he'd get 10 mill at the end of that 2nd contract, so sandwiched between his rookie deal, and his 2nd big deal, he got a 10 mill payday.

You don't think Walter Jones could have had 3 big contracts (his rookie, the first FA (at 29) and another one at (34)) Instead he'll only see his rookie, the 2 tagged years and his first FA (at 31).

With the franchise tag, a player can potentially make much more money than if he'd never been tagged.

If you set the bonuses correctly, every 4-5 years you could renegotiate a big deal. Adalius Thomas just signed a 5year $35million (with $20 guarenteed). Lance Briggs is 26. If he would have signed that this year he would be 31 (or 30 depending on how it is structured) when it expired. Probably young enough to get another 4-5 year deal (assuming he is still effective (Joey Porter's current age)). Instead, a tag this year will make him 32 before his big contract expires (assuming he doesn't get tagged a second time). Which may be too old to give another long-term deal to. Assante Samuel is 25. Every year he has to wait for the big payday, it diminishes he chances of getting a second big payday.

 

[massraider]

Charles Woodson and Walter Jones both got their "2nd deal" after playing as a tagged player. Jones did it twice, IIRC. Woodson got 10 mill for that one season, and then he signed the big deal with GB. There's no way he'd get 10 mill at the end of that 2nd contract, so sandwiched between his rookie deal, and his 2nd big deal, he got a 10 mill payday.

You don't think Walter Jones could have had 3 big contracts (his rookie, the first FA (at 29) and another one at (34)) Instead he'll only see his rookie, the 2 tagged years and his first FA (at 31).

With the franchise tag, a player can potentially make much more money than if he'd never been tagged.

If you set the bonuses correctly, every 4-5 years you could renegotiate a big deal. Adalius Thomas just signed a 5year $35million (with $20 guarenteed). Lance Briggs is 26. If he would have signed that this year he would be 31 (or 30 depending on how it is structured) when it expired. Probably young enough to get another 4-5 year deal (assuming he is still effective (Joey Porter's current age)). Instead, a tag this year will make him 32 before his big contract expires (assuming he doesn't get tagged a second time). Which may be too old to give another long-term deal to. Assante Samuel is 25. Every year he has to wait for the big payday, it diminishes he chances of getting a second big payday.

The 2nd big payday is rare, man. First, those 2nd deals (or, 3rd contract)? They aren't for 4 years, they're longer than that.There are always exceptions, but these guys aren't counting on a mega deal after they are 30.

 

[BoltBacker]

The 2nd big payday is rare, man. First, those 2nd deals (or, 3rd contract)? They aren't for 4 years, they're longer than that.There are always exceptions, but these guys aren't counting on a mega deal after they are 30.

The deals may be longer than 4 years but several of those years at the end of the contract are never going to be seen. Teams often tack on years at the end of a deal so a player/agent can save face in negotiations even thogh they know there's no way they are going to honor the end of that contract and will ask the player to renegotiate those later years or simply be forced to release the player.

 

[massraider]

The 2nd big payday is rare, man. First, those 2nd deals (or, 3rd contract)? They aren't for 4 years, they're longer than that.There are always exceptions, but these guys aren't counting on a mega deal after they are 30.

The deals may be longer than 4 years but several of those years at the end of the contract are never going to be seen. Teams often tack on years at the end of a deal so a player/agent can save face in negotiations even thogh they know there's no way they are going to honor the end of that contract and will ask the player to renegotiate those later years or simply be forced to release the player.

Right.And if they are just outright released, chances are they aren't going to command another mega deal. If they were worthy of anthoer mega deal, they never woulda been cut.Which means they only got one 'big' deal. Like I just said.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Right.And if they are just outright released, chances are they aren't going to command another mega deal. If they were worthy of anthoer mega deal, they never woulda been cut.Which means they only got one 'big' deal.

Like Joey Porter?

 

[massraider]

Right.And if they are just outright released, chances are they aren't going to command another mega deal. If they were worthy of anthoer mega deal, they never woulda been cut.Which means they only got one 'big' deal.

Like Joey Porter?

Joey Porter got one, it must be true of all players!There's exceptions to most rules, including this one.I submit that most players only get one big contract, the second one. If you disagree, say so.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

Wilbur Marshall was never franchise tagged. He was a Plan B free agency player. The Redskins signed him, and the Bears had a week to match, or let the Skins have him in return for two first rounders.

Joey Galloway wasn't 'franchise tagged' when he held out. He was simply holding out from Seattle because he wanted more money, and he had yearS left on his deal. Get your facts straight. Do a google search and you'll see you are wrong. http://www.wethefans.com/jjgallow.html

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

Walter Jones was tagged three time too btw:

Len Pasquarelli, of ESPN.com, reports Seattle Seahawks OT Walter Jones believes the system of naming a franchise player stinks. Jones was designated the Seahawks franchise player three consecutive years. "The system [stinks]. Maybe when it was invented, it was good, I don't know. Teams tell you how much you should be flattered that they think enough of you to make you their franchise guy. It's like their attitude is that they're doing you a favor. You know, like, 'How could you not be thrilled to get a guarantee that averages what the top five players at your position are making?' But it's not a thriller. No way. It's a killer watching all the deals get signed with huge bonuses and you're not getting the big money upfront. [it's a] lousy system."

Face it... Gene Upshaw is more about keeping his cushy job than fighting for what's right for today's star players, or fighting for what is correct in principle for yesteryear's (disabled) star players.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Joey Porter got one, it must be true of all players!There's exceptions to most rules, including this one.I submit that most players only get one big contract, the second one. If you disagree, say so.

I disagree with:

If they were worthy of anthoer mega deal, they never woulda been cut.

If a player gets franchised at 25 or 26 (like Briggs and Samuel) there's a pretty good chance that they would have had the ability to get two big contracts.

 

[-OZ-]

For all those people that say "Well if that SOB can't live on several million $ a year well BOO F'n HOO!".... a lot of people around the world could say the same thing about us and could live for a decade or more on what we make in a year. We still want to make the most $ we can.

Being tagged prevents workers from getting paid market conditions. I wonder how all the people griping about how much NFL players make would feel if their equivalent co-worker accepted a new job at twice their salary, with a company car and $50K signing bonus...yet they personally could not seek higher paying employment elswhere because they got tagged by their company? NFL players have short careers, they have to cash in every possible chance they get. Spare me the life after football junk, too. Most of those guys are going to be paying tons of medical bills and living in pain, which will be expensive and in some cases, hurt their employment potential, too. The window is too small, they need to be paid when they earn it.

I'm a strong supporter of the free market when it comes to employment and other deals, and I agree with you. The medical bills shouldn't be an issue, as the NFL should have a long term insurance plan (I thought they did, if not, that's what the NFLPA needs to pursue). The tag works against the market and the market makes a ton of money for everyone. I'm not about to get upset about the injustice of the tag, but I'd think the NFLPA should fight it next go-around.FWIW, I have seen co-workers leave and double their salary. I'm ok with it. (not to get into my situation, I'm just responding to that part of your post)

 

[H.K.]

I'm a strong supporter of the free market when it comes to employment and other deals, and I agree with you. The medical bills shouldn't be an issue, as the NFL should have a long term insurance plan (I thought they did, if not, that's what the NFLPA needs to pursue). The tag works against the market and the market makes a ton of money for everyone. I'm not about to get upset about the injustice of the tag, but I'd think the NFLPA should fight it next go-around.FWIW, I have seen co-workers leave and double their salary. I'm ok with it. (not to get into my situation, I'm just responding to that part of your post)

1) NFL pensions and benefits stink, former players have been complaining about them for years. 2) I hope the NFLPA does fight the tag, didn't baseball use arbitration to determine pay? Maybe they go that route.3) Its not just that your co-worker left to double his salary, its that you wanted to do the same thing but your company "tagged" you so you had to stay and work for a 10% raise the next year. I don't know about you, but I'd feel shortchanged in that situation.

 

[-OZ-]

I'm a strong supporter of the free market when it comes to employment and other deals, and I agree with you. The medical bills shouldn't be an issue, as the NFL should have a long term insurance plan (I thought they did, if not, that's what the NFLPA needs to pursue). The tag works against the market and the market makes a ton of money for everyone. I'm not about to get upset about the injustice of the tag, but I'd think the NFLPA should fight it next go-around.FWIW, I have seen co-workers leave and double their salary. I'm ok with it. (not to get into my situation, I'm just responding to that part of your post)

1) NFL pensions and benefits stink, former players have been complaining about them for years. 2) I hope the NFLPA does fight the tag, didn't baseball use arbitration to determine pay? Maybe they go that route.3) Its not just that your co-worker left to double his salary, its that you wanted to do the same thing but your company "tagged" you so you had to stay and work for a 10% raise the next year. I don't know about you, but I'd feel shortchanged in that situation.

1) I know the former players have had issues, somehow I thought this had been improved for current players. 2) perhaps3) good point.

 

[nerangers]

saw this on KFFL...a players view of the franchise tag:

Seahawks | W. Jones believes franchise system stinks

Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:50:52 -0700

Len Pasquarelli, of ESPN.com, reports Seattle Seahawks OT Walter Jones believes the system of naming a franchise player stinks. Jones was designated the Seahawks franchise player three consecutive years. "The system [stinks]. Maybe when it was invented, it was good, I don't know. Teams tell you how much you should be flattered that they think enough of you to make you their franchise guy. It's like their attitude is that they're doing you a favor. You know, like, 'How could you not be thrilled to get a guarantee that averages what the top five players at your position are making?' But it's not a thriller. No way. It's a killer watching all the deals get signed with huge bonuses and you're not getting the big money upfront. [it's a] lousy system."

 

[phillyfan72]

Say Samuel gets his big deal and does go down the next year. He's strapping the team with $20 million against their cap (hit over several years).

But I think that's exactly why so many of us think it's unfair for the top players.If Samuel gets his big deal and blows out his knee next year it turns out to be a bad deal for the Patriots BUT it's a deal that they negotiated and agreed to. If they didn't think the risk involved in the deal was worth the reward then they could have just let him walk(like they have with so many other players have before).

If Samuel is franchised and blows out a knee next year well he's just screwed playing for a deal that he didn't even have the opportunity to negotiate. He didn't have a choice other than whether he was willing to play for that $ or not play for that $.

As to the whole point with regard to averaging the top 5 salary I'll just say that if the team thought they could re-sign the player for less $ then they wouldn't bother using the franchise tag at all. The team is only using the tag because they know his services would cost them more on the open market and/or it limits their exposure to an injury just as you described earlier. Bad deal for the top players in the league.... but it probably helps the middle tier guys make more $ due to the fact a couple of guys aren't using up the entire salary cap NBA-style.

The bold part is true, but every contract is a negotiation and both sides assume some risk. If the players don't like it, they never should have agreed to it when they bargained it into the CBA. They agreed to it, the teams are just using what is in the CBA to their advantage.There are a lot worse things that could happen than making the average of the top 5 players at your position for a year and then going through the cycle again next year.

 

[phillyfan72]

saw this on KFFL...a players view of the franchise tag:Seahawks | W. Jones believes franchise system stinksFri, 6 Apr 2007 17:50:52 -0700Len Pasquarelli, of ESPN.com, reports Seattle Seahawks OT Walter Jones believes the system of naming a franchise player stinks. Jones was designated the Seahawks franchise player three consecutive years. "The system [stinks]. Maybe when it was invented, it was good, I don't know. Teams tell you how much you should be flattered that they think enough of you to make you their franchise guy. It's like their attitude is that they're doing you a favor. You know, like, 'How could you not be thrilled to get a guarantee that averages what the top five players at your position are making?' But it's not a thriller. No way. It's a killer watching all the deals get signed with huge bonuses and you're not getting the big money upfront. [it's a] lousy system."

Walter Jones was franchised three staright years and made the avg. of the top 5 players at his position, and then got a huge contract. So, he was paid very well for 3 straight years and then got paid big. I don't see a problem with this. It makes the player continue to play at a high level and not coast after he got a big, fat contract.On another subject, Len Pasquarelli is a jack### and I don't believe anything he says. He's in bed with many of these athletes and just pimps them to stay in the "inner circle". Todd Pinkston anyone?

 

[ravnzfan]

Walter Jones was tagged three time too btw:

Len Pasquarelli, of ESPN.com, reports Seattle Seahawks OT Walter Jones believes the system of naming a franchise player stinks. Jones was designated the Seahawks franchise player three consecutive years. "The system [stinks]. Maybe when it was invented, it was good, I don't know. Teams tell you how much you should be flattered that they think enough of you to make you their franchise guy. It's like their attitude is that they're doing you a favor. You know, like, 'How could you not be thrilled to get a guarantee that averages what the top five players at your position are making?' But it's not a thriller. No way. It's a killer watching all the deals get signed with huge bonuses and you're not getting the big money upfront. [it's a] lousy system."

Face it... Gene Upshaw is more about keeping his cushy job than fighting for what's right for today's star players, or fighting for what is correct in principle for yesteryear's (disabled) star players.

I'd be pissed too, if I were Walter Jones...not so much at the system (tagging a player), but at the abuse of the system by SeattleI understand both sides on this, as it relates to the player and the team...

once FA was instituted (good for the players), the owners feared a mass exodus of players whose contracts ran out, w/no recourse...the right to designate 1 player as 'franchise players" meant they could hold onto that player under a 1 year contract for the average of the 5 highest paid at the position

this clause was intented to allow a team time to negotiate and resign a player, while still holding onto his rights for 1 year after the original contract had expired...an example of it's "intented use" came here in Baltimore several years ago, when Chris McAllister played out his rookie deal and the Ravens tagged him the following season....McAllister played for something like $6.3M---the year after, a deal had not been worked out by the deadline, so the Ravens tagged him again, for a 2nd time, for the 20% increase to $7.4M

before that next season started, a contract was worked out for sdomething like 5yrs/$41M, w/somewhere ~$17M guaranteed...team happy---player happy...they way it was intended

if the "intent" was to allow ownership to retain a player for 3 years after the original contract for 20% increase/yr, then that should have been written into the CBA as such---of course, it never would have flown, because it is flat out wrong

...so Mr Jones has every right to be pissed---while I understand the intent of the tag, and aggree w/it's "intended" use for the owners, I flat out disaggree w/how Seattle is using it against 1 of the 2 best players at his position

Jones on the open market would likely set the new high bar for OLT's, meaning every year he is forced to play under the tag costs him real money, in several ways...

---his yearly salary for the last 3 years is most likely lower than he could have signed for, on avg, for this period

---the time value of the money not collected as the signing bonus in any of the last 3 years, vs a salary, which is paid later in the year as bi-weekly paychecks (wouldn't you rather collect the bulk of your pay, if possible, in March, rather than every 2 weeks over the course of the year? Jones would too)

---the associated risk of playing only under a 1 yr deal...many have said he could get insurance against injury, which he could---at HIS expense X 3 years running now, and no end in sight

Seattle should negotiate a long term deal w/Jones or offer the let him seek a trade partner...this is

 

[David Yudkin]

This year, there are apparently 6 players that have been franchised year and they all have been given the non-exclusive franchise designation. Those players are:

Lance Briggs, LB, CHI

Justin Smith, DE, CIN

Cory Redding, DT, DET

Asante Samuel, DB, NE

Charles Grant, DE, NO

Josh Brown, PK, SEA

That means that any of these players is free to negotiate with other teams and if an offer sheet is signed their original team can either match it or inherit two first round draft picks. I'm not sure what the rules are as to where the #1 picks can come from and if they can be spread out over additional seasons or if they need to be two #1 picks from the same season.

What's interesting, as I remember it, when the whole CBA was getting constructed and rolled out in 1993, players seemed to embrace the concept of the franchise tag as they liked being one of the highest paid players in the game. (Remember, this was before the bonanza of huge signing bonuses.) IIRC, Al Davis actually pushed to have teams have the ability to franchise up to 5 players a year and other owners were appalled and they settled on only one franchise designee per year beacuse most owners felt that they were getting the short end of the stick.

At this point, I'm not sure either side really embraces the provision as much as they once did. Teams rarely franchise QBs because the single season cost would be extremely high (and rarely would they let a QB get into that situation). The one execption was Drew Brees but I can't remember other QBs. For some teams, shelling out that much guaranteed money for a player that in all likelihood will be leaving may not be the best plan. And certainly the franchised player typically complain about how unfair and restrictive it is. One would think that this will be something addressed and revisited in the next CBA.

 

[faulkfan]

Maybe the franchise tag policy needs revised to include not only the average salary of the four highest paid players atthat position, but also a signing bonus average to the four highest signing bonuses for that position. Include that with a career ending injury insurance policy at like 80% of the salary for an additional two years (as was mentioned earlier) and the player is at least got some security and longer term protection.

It does seem a bit unfair that the team can lock up a guy in his prime with noe long term protection if he gets injured.