What would it take to make the franchise tag go away?

[whatdrought]

An interesting thought I had today, and a nice distraction from the worst time of the offseason, was wondering what kind of barter it would take on the behalf of the NFLPA to make the Franchise tag (at least how we know it) go away? I would be surprised if that wasn’t a big topic of consideration in the next CBA, but it’s hard to imagine the owners letting it go without something big in return...

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

i think at very least it needs to be radically changed. Make it a one and done, or make the compensation for a team to sign a franchise tagged player less (1 first, instead of 2) to make teams think twice about using it for big time players. 

[EmotionallyUnstable]

If I were a player, I'd be furious to be tagged. That being said, it's in the contract that you agree to play under. 

 

In a profession with frequent union negotiation, I will say this. If one party wants to change something that is to the benefit of the opposing group, it would likely only happen as a result of some concession elsewhere. So I think the question is, what would the NFLPA be willing to part with in order to reduce a team's ability to us the franchise tag year after year?

 

Otherwise, it won't change. I don't know the negotiations well enough to know what they have that they could no longer deem necessary or may find less important that they'd be willing to separate with to get that done.

[Rc2catch]

I would like to see changes as well, no matter what I think it should be a one time thing for each players career. 

[MAJBobby]

Money. All the owners care about is their % of the pie. 

 

That is ALSO really all the NFLPA should care about BUT they don’t. They also worry about Weed, Commissioner Discipline, Practice Days and a lot of other NOISE. 

[Doc Brown]

I think it's gone after the next CBA.  It only impacts maybe 3% or less of the current NFL players so that would be something the NFL owners would be willing to give up to get something that's more of a priority for them.

[MAJBobby]

Just now, Doc Brown said:

I think it's gone after the next CBA.  It only impacts maybe 3% or less of the current NFL players so that would be something the NFL owners would be willing to give up to get something that's more of a priority for them.

 

Which is more % of the revenue split. 

[Doc Brown]

Just now, MAJBobby said:

 

Which is more % of the revenue split. 

Or if you look to the future all the revenue from in stadium gambling.  Something like that.

[formerlyofCtown]

I dont believe it will.  I do believe the exclusive will disappear and the compensation for signing away a franchised player will be reduced.  Two first is rediculous.

[BADOLBILZ]

 

The franchise tag protects small markets.    It exists primarily to force franchise QB's to the negotiating table.

 

Without it top young QB prospects can enter the NFL with one foot out of the door in that market just like young NBA stars.

 

The tag is used on other positions because QB's generally know that they aren't going anywhere without a 2 year career disruption.........but it needs to exist to prevent an NBA-like situation where the balance of power swings with top 10 QB's moving around every offseason.

[The Frankish Reich]

5 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

The franchise tag protects small markets.    It exists primarily to force franchise QB's to the negotiating table.

 

Without it top young QB prospects can enter the NFL with one foot out of the door in that market just like young NBA stars.

 

The tag is used on other positions because QB's generally know that they aren't going anywhere without a 2 year career disruption.........but it needs to exist to prevent an NBA-like situation where the balance of power swings with top 10 QB's moving around every offseason.

And why would this be such a bad thing? I know fans - particularly fans of a certain age - love the idea of a great player spending his entire career with one team. But is the NBA any worse off because Kevin Durant decided to take his talents to the Golden State? Because LeBron went from Cleveland to Miami to Cleveland to LA? Not that I can see.

[whatdrought]

9 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

The franchise tag protects small markets.    It exists primarily to force franchise QB's to the negotiating table.

 

Without it top young QB prospects can enter the NFL with one foot out of the door in that market just like young NBA stars.

 

The tag is used on other positions because QB's generally know that they aren't going anywhere without a 2 year career disruption.........but it needs to exist to prevent an NBA-like situation where the balance of power swings with top 10 QB's moving around every offseason.

 

I don’t know that the “small market” narrative holds any weight anymore. I think players play where they feel they have the best chance of being a star. New England and Indianapolis weren’t huge Mecca’s of football stardom before producing two of the best QB’s ever. 

 

More to rhe point, regardless of that protection, it’s still hardly fair to say that a player doesn’t ultimately have the right to play where he wants when his agreed upon contract expires. And the current franchise tag leads to bad faith negotiations where the team holds all the power (ala Redskins). Imagine if Cousins had gotten a career ending injury while playing on the tag. 

 

The tag, in effect, restricts a players freedom to excercise his rights to market his goods on the free market. I understand that under the current rules, it’s a part of the process, but I would be hard pressed to approve of a CBA that doesn’t change what that looks like. 

[Doc Brown]

One thought I had with all these QB's handcuffing their teams with huge contracts is that you should be able to sign one player that doesn't count against the cap each year.  You can give your franchise QB (or another position if your QB sucks) as much money as you want and still field a competitive roster.  No need for the franchise tag.

[MJS]

27 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

The franchise tag protects small markets.    It exists primarily to force franchise QB's to the negotiating table.

 

Without it top young QB prospects can enter the NFL with one foot out of the door in that market just like young NBA stars.

 

The tag is used on other positions because QB's generally know that they aren't going anywhere without a 2 year career disruption.........but it needs to exist to prevent an NBA-like situation where the balance of power swings with top 10 QB's moving around every offseason.

That's not how the franchise tag is used. It isn't used on franchise QB's, it isn't used on elite players.

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

One thought I had with all these QB's handcuffing their teams with huge contracts is that you should be able to sign one player that doesn't count against the cap each year.  You can give your franchise QB (or another position if your QB sucks) as much money as you want and still field a competitive roster.  No need for the franchise tag.

That's an interesting thought. You'd see QB salaries sky rocket, though. The only thing keeping them down is the cap, and even that isn't doing it.

 

Eventually it would equalize though, and you'd have other positions getting mega deals.

[BADOLBILZ]

1 minute ago, MJS said:

That's not how the franchise tag is used. It isn't used on franchise QB's, it isn't used on elite players.

 

I repeat......I know it's not how it's being used..........but that's because it's a very effective deterrent for QB's even thinking about changing teams.....so teams don't need to apply it to their QB's.   Instead those QB's get used to the idea of buying in and making it work where they are.    

[Thurman#1]

9 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

One thought I had with all these QB's handcuffing their teams with huge contracts is that you should be able to sign one player that doesn't count against the cap each year.  You can give your franchise QB (or another position if your QB sucks) as much money as you want and still field a competitive roster.  No need for the franchise tag.

 

 

That would immediately create two tiers of teams, the rich ones who can always buy a franchise QB, and the others. Dallas makes a ton more revenue than Buffalo, for instance. Let them have a QB outside the system and when their QB got old, another poorer team's QB would be absolutely thrilled to move there and be paid five times more.

 

No way does that make sense beyond the five or six teams with the highest revenue.

[Augie]

I don’t want anything that resembles the NBA. 

 

BTW - I hear they are in the palyoffs now. Wake me up for the Finals. I used to LOVE the NBA, but not any more. 

[Thurman#1]

3 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I repeat......I know it's not how it's being used..........but that's because it's a very effective deterrent for QB's even thinking about changing teams.....so teams don't need to apply it to their QB's.   Instead those QB's get used to the idea of buying in and making it work where they are.    

 

 

That is one, count it - one, reason for the existence of thebtag. Not the only one

[Just Joshin']

With only a handful of players impacted each year, will all the other players want to make a concession that will impact them?  I think not.

 

However the negotiations over MJ testing will be interesting.  What will the players give up to smoke with no testing?  I am guessing a lot.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Just Joshin'

[BADOLBILZ]

22 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I don’t know that the “small market” narrative holds any weight anymore. I think players play where they feel they have the best chance of being a star. New England and Indianapolis weren’t huge Mecca’s of football stardom before producing two of the best QB’s ever. 

 

More to rhe point, regardless of that protection, it’s still hardly fair to say that a player doesn’t ultimately have the right to play where he wants when his agreed upon contract expires. And the current franchise tag leads to bad faith negotiations where the team holds all the power (ala Redskins). Imagine if Cousins had gotten a career ending injury while playing on the tag. 

 

The tag, in effect, restricts a players freedom to excercise his rights to market his goods on the free market. I understand that under the current rules, it’s a part of the process, but I would be hard pressed to approve of a CBA that doesn’t change what that looks like. 

 

 

1)  Ok I'm doing it........I'm imagining a player not playing and not getting paid.................which is generally how the NFL works for most of the other 1500 players when they get hurt and don't play...........except of course, for the $50M plus that Cousins pocketed in guaranteed scratch on the tag.   The tag restricts a player to basically being the highest paid player on their team that season.    That's not tragic.

 

2) The draft "also restricts a players freedom to exercise his rights to market his goods on the free market."    At what point should the fans care about that?   Let the NFLPA and ownership negotiate it.   If they want to abolish the draft and franchise tags and restricted free agency then so be it.     Let them find out what NFL stadiums and TV ratings look like with less competitive football.   It may fly with the laid back NBA and MLB products but I just don't see it working in football.........but again, let it sort itself out.    It's not really a free market it's a collectively bargained market.

[Doc Brown]

14 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

That would immediately create two tiers of teams, the rich ones who can always buy a franchise QB, and the others. Dallas makes a ton more revenue than Buffalo, for instance. Let them have a QB outside the system and when their QB got old, another poorer team's QB would be absolutely thrilled to move there and be paid five times more.

 

No way does that make sense beyond the five or six teams with the highest revenue.

There'd have to be a maximum salary one can earn based off the salary cap each year in that scenario.