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

[whatdrought]

14 minutes ago, hjnick said:

Teams need to have a way to get compensation or try to keep a player even though they are having contract dispute problems.  I think the franchise tag is needed.

 

I think there should be a 1 player exception to the salary cap (like the Bird rule), that you could pay that person up to a certain % of the salary cap, but they do not count against the cap.  That way it gives a way to pay QBs or other franchise players and it doesn't bust the bank.  it will also help increase the pay for other positions.  AND if you pay them above that % (like you pay them 30MIL, but the exception is up to 27MIL, then 'the over' does go against the cap.

 

Except that it's not contract dispute problems. It's contract renewal problems. I don't have any problem with teams playing hardball with guys that hold out under contract. You sign it, you keep your word. You can ask for a raise, or a trade, and if they say no, they say no. The flip side of that is that the way the franchise tag exists now is part of the process that player agree to so I have limited sympathy for them when dealing with it now. I just don't like the heart of the issue which is that when the good faith contract expires, the team has a way of compelling the person to stay against their will. It's a massive bargaining chip for the team which leads to a lot of teams not even trying to work on deals for franchised players (which seems against the nature of the tag in the first place)

 

5 minutes ago, hjnick said:

Do you get compensation if the player is signed away?  IF you get compensation, then I think that's a good way to go.

 

Right now a franchised player (correct me if I am wrong) can be signed away for two first round draft picks. That's a ridiculous price to pay, and I think the team gets a chance to match anyway. There's maybe 5 players worth that bounty in the NFL so teams are confident in their ability to franchise with limited risk of losing the player. Nobody is going to fork over two first for Jadaveon Clowney. If it was one first and a removal of the right to match (make it so the player can chose which offer he prefers) then I think teams will think twice about putting the tag on low A to B level stars. 

 

I think it really comes down to this for me. The teams rights to a player should expire when the agreed upon contract expires. The franchise tag seems to give an additional right to the team over that player that doesn't seem fair to me. The above solution would still give the team some reward (a first round pick) but would increase the players freedom. Also, this would make teams work harder to meet their players at the negotiation table as it would remove the safety net of the tag. 

 

 

My 2.0 pennies. 

[hjnick]

9 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Except that it's not contract dispute problems. It's contract renewal problems. I don't have any problem with teams playing hardball with guys that hold out under contract. You sign it, you keep your word. You can ask for a raise, or a trade, and if they say no, they say no. The flip side of that is that the way the franchise tag exists now is part of the process that player agree to so I have limited sympathy for them when dealing with it now. I just don't like the heart of the issue which is that when the good faith contract expires, the team has a way of compelling the person to stay against their will. It's a massive bargaining chip for the team which leads to a lot of teams not even trying to work on deals for franchised players (which seems against the nature of the tag in the first place)

 

 

Right now a franchised player (correct me if I am wrong) can be signed away for two first round draft picks. That's a ridiculous price to pay, and I think the team gets a chance to match anyway. There's maybe 5 players worth that bounty in the NFL so teams are confident in their ability to franchise with limited risk of losing the player. Nobody is going to fork over two first for Jadaveon Clowney. If it was one first and a removal of the right to match (make it so the player can chose which offer he prefers) then I think teams will think twice about putting the tag on low A to B level stars. 

 

I think it really comes down to this for me. The teams rights to a player should expire when the agreed upon contract expires. The franchise tag seems to give an additional right to the team over that player that doesn't seem fair to me. The above solution would still give the team some reward (a first round pick) but would increase the players freedom. Also, this would make teams work harder to meet their players at the negotiation table as it would remove the safety net of the tag. 

 

 

My 2.0 pennies. 

I was trying to talk more about what we would like for the rules to be as opposed to what the current rules are.

 

I think teams need to be able to 'franchise' a player to be able to get some kind of compensation for them.  After that, I'm open to talk about what that franchise tag should look like.  Are players able to go out an negotiate with other teams and try to get a new contract?  Sure.  Do teams get a chance to match the offer?

What should teams get as compensation?  Maybe you make it based off of how much monetary compensation the franchise tag is placed on the player.

 

Maybe a 1st round pick is equivalent to the team agreed to pay the player an average of the top 10 players at that position.

Maybe a 1st and 3rd for avg of top 5

Maybe a 1st and 2nd for avg of top 3

Maybe 2 firsts for matching the top pay at that position.

 

And if they try to franchise the player again, they have to move up to the next level of compensation or if at the top, get an extra 10% on top?  OR have it that a player can only be franchised once, then they become a free agent next year BUT the player has to actually play... (they cannot sit our or the year doesn't accrue). 

---

I also like the idea of a one player exception, to a certain % of the cap, to help blunt the explosion of QB pay.  There could also be a lot of rules around that.  Maybe that exception can only go towards players that were drafted by the team...

[ColoradoBills]

17 hours ago, whatdrought said:

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. 

 

Good thread subject whatdrought.  I think you answered your own question IF there is a change to the rules next CBA.

 

Exclusive Tag:  Should be a 1 and done if used. 

Non-Exclusive Tag:  1 1st round pick.  2 is too much.  Has a team ever exercised this and given 2 1st's?  I can't think of one who has.

    Maybe there could be "kicker" draft pick added which is determined by the round the player was initially drafted.

    Something like an extra third round pick for a day 1 player, fourth for a day 2 player and a 5th for a day 3 player.

    Either way it should be a 1 and done too.

Transition Tag:  Should be just dropped.  It's hardly ever used.

 

In the last 15 years only 2 players have been outright traded for 2 1st round picks.

Mack and Cutler and neither was tagged.

 

FWIW

[PetermansRedemption]

I first read this as “what would it take for this franchise to go away”

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

In the last 15 years only 2 players have been outright traded for 2 1st round picks.

Mack and Cutler and neither was tagged.

 

 

Sensing a common thread in this........ 

[Freddie's Dead]

The biggest problem with the franchise tag is the perception that the Squeelers and Racist Term for Native Americans used it in bad faith to lock up both Bell and Cousins to below market contracts with no guarantees.  The next CBA will either highly modify or eliminate the franchise tag altogether.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Freddie's Dead

[GunnerBill]

On 4/17/2019 at 2:52 AM, 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.

 

All that would do is drive up salaries. The pool of good players wouldn't magically expand so say you take the QB out if I am the defensive end's agent I now know they have x more cap space so I ask for more of that. The good players at other positions would just ask for more and unless the supply of good players increases that just pushes up their salary. It would not result in a well managed team being able to collect more good players than a well managed team can collect under the current system. 

[GunnerBill]

On 4/17/2019 at 6:08 AM, Ethan in Portland said:

A team should not be forced to go back into the draft to find talent when they already did.

 

Why not? Ultimately if you want to succeed in the long run in the NFL you have to draft well consistently over a long period. Seattle put together three outstanding draft classes and then basically nothing after that. That is why their window closed.

 

I maintain the advantage they had early in the Carroll reign was he knew the guys in college better than most NFL teams did. Once that advantage was gone and the kids he had once recruited were all through the system Seattle suddenly stopped finding studs all over the draft. 

[Kirby Jackson]

I think that the NBA system is SO much better when it comes to star players. Teams are rewarded for drafting well with things like Bird Rights as @Ethan in Portland alluded to. There are some solutions in the NFL to fix this broken franchise player model.

 

What if it were a 2 year commitment that escalated in year 2? Why is it only a 1 year-commitment? Teams would be more reluctant to slap the tag on just about anyone and players plus be more likely to sign it with a multi-year commitment. It seems like a win-win to me.

 

Another option is to start introducing elements of a soft cap. This COULD be a slippery slope if not done correctly but could also be a HR. You COULD be allowed to exceed the cap by a certain percentage to sign 1 player, drafted by that team, that meets certain criteria. In some ways it would be similar to the Super-max in the NBA. Each team can only have 1 guy on this type of deal, etc... it would have to be hashed out but it would protect a team that drafts Russell Wilson from having to tear down the rest of their team BECAUSE they drafted Russell Wilson. Maybe a super-max contract allows that team to exceed the cap by 2.5% or something like that? 

[GunnerBill]

17 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

 

Another option is to start introducing elements of a soft cap. This COULD be a slippery slope if not done correctly but could also be a HR. You COULD be allowed to exceed the cap by a certain percentage to sign 1 player, drafted by that team, that meets certain criteria. In some ways it would be similar to the Super-max in the NBA. Each team can only have 1 guy on this type of deal, etc... it would have to be hashed out but it would protect a team that drafts Russell Wilson from having to tear down the rest of their team BECAUSE they drafted Russell Wilson. Maybe a super-max contract allows that team to exceed the cap by 2.5% or something like that? 

 

I'm not sure any of these ideas would actually have that affect though. It is pure supply and demand economics.

 

If the supply of players remains the same then the demand for elite players, very good players, good players and average players will remain unchanged. Allowing teams to pay one "super-max" contract which opens up more salary cap space for the team just means that the amount of money it has to secure those elite assets goes up. But players and their agents will know that too. And there are still only so many elite players. Every time the salary cap goes up elite players (at all positions) increase their salary demands. The same would happen to the extra money created by the super-max protection.

 

If you have a salary cap then the only way to control demand and therefore wage escalation for the top players is to improve the supply. While the only option for Seattle is to pay Russell Wilson he will demand more money. Even if the team is allowed to pay some of that off cap all it does is mean that suddenly if it wants to keep Frank Clark for example he has more money to shoot for and so inevitably will. Because if Seattle won't give it to him then the LA Rams who have just signed Jared Goff to a big contract that pays him a % off the cap (they haven't but figurative example) has extra $$s to shoot for and really wants Frank Clark and so he goes there.

Edited April 18, 2019 by GunnerBill

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I'm not sure any of these ideas would actually have that affect though. It is pure supply and demand economics.

 

If the supply of players remains the same then the demand for elite players, very good players, good players and average players will remain unchanged. Allowing teams to pay one "super-max" contract which opens up more salary cap space for the team just means that the amount of money it has to secure those elite assets goes up. But players and their agents will know that too. And there are still only so many elite players. Every time the salary cap goes up elite players (at all positions) increase their salary demands. The same would happen to the extra money created by the super-max protection.

 

If you have a salary cap then the only way to control demand and therefore wage escalation for the top players is to improve the supply. While the only option for Seattle is to pay Russell Wilson he will demand more money. Even if the team is allowed to pay some of that off cap all it does is mean that suddenly if it wants to keep Frank Clark for example he has more money to shoot for and so inevitably will. Because if Seattle won't give it to him then the LA Rams who have just signed Jared Goff to a big contract that pays him a % off the cap (they haven't but figurative example) has extra $$s to shoot for and really wants Frank Clark and so he goes there.

You are missing a very important element of it though and that’s the criteria that has to be met to be eligible. You can’t just designate someone a super-max guy. They will have to qualify to be eligible. Jared Goff wouldn’t be eligible for this but Russell Wilson would be in my hypothetical. It probably doesn’t kick in until you have over 6 years experience (which is your rookie deal as a 1st, plus another year so 3rd contract). You also must meet certain benchmarks in terms of statistics or awards. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

You are missing a very important element of it though and that’s the criteria that has to be met to be eligible. You can’t just designate someone a super-max guy. They will have to qualify to be eligible. Jared Goff wouldn’t be eligible for this but Russell Wilson would be in my hypothetical. It probably doesn’t kick in until you have over 6 years experience (which is your rookie deal as a 1st, plus another year so 3rd contract). You also must meet certain benchmarks in terms of statistics or awards. 

 

In which case it makes the rich richer. You are giving an additional benefit to those teams with franchise QBs. I would suggest that the league is already broadly divided into the good teams (who regularly make the playoffs) who have a franchise QB and the bad teams (who rarely make the playoffs) who don't have a franchise QB. I'm against anything that provides teams who have an established franchise QB additional cap room as a benefit for having a franchise QB.

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

In which case it makes the rich richer. You are giving an additional benefit to those teams with franchise QBs. I would suggest that the league is already broadly divided into the good teams (who regularly make the playoffs) who have a franchise QB and the bad teams (who rarely make the playoffs) who don't have a franchise QB. I'm against anything that provides teams who have an established franchise QB additional cap room as a benefit for having a franchise QB.

You are allowing for those teams with an elite talent (especially at QB) to not have to gut their team because of it. They are still in a bit of a tough situation but it buys them some breathing room. It really would only be triggered by the elite of the elite. Off the top of my head some guys that would be eligible: Brady, Luck, Wilson, Rodgers, Antonio Brown (before the move) or Ben, Julio, Watt, Von Miller, Rivers, AJ Green (maybe), It isn’t a big universe. The criteria would have to be defined and it isn’t a huge difference. That 2.5% number that I threw out equates to another $4.7M in cap space. So a team like the Seahawks would still be forced into a tough decision but have a little more wiggle room. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Kirby Jackson

[GunnerBill]

30 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

You are allowing for those teams with an elite talent (especially at QB) to not have to gut their team because of it. They are still in a bit of a tough situation but it buys them some breathing room. It really would only be triggered by the elite of the elite. Off the top of my head some guys that would be eligible: Brady, Luck, Wilson, Rodgers, Antonio Brown (before the move) or Ben, Julio, Watt, Von Miller, Rivers, AJ Green (maybe), It isn’t a big universe. The criteria would have to be defined and it isn’t a huge difference. That 2.5% number that I through out equates to another $4.7M in cap space. So a team like the Seahawks would still be forced into a tough decision but have a little more wiggle room. 

 

I still don't agree. The benefitting of drafting, developing and signing your own elite players is having those elite players. Why should you get additional benefits? Having elite players and having to manage to cap are par for the course. It helps keep a semblance of balance. 

[BADOLBILZ]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

In which case it makes the rich richer. You are giving an additional benefit to those teams with franchise QBs. I would suggest that the league is already broadly divided into the good teams (who regularly make the playoffs) who have a franchise QB and the bad teams (who rarely make the playoffs) who don't have a franchise QB. I'm against anything that provides teams who have an established franchise QB additional cap room as a benefit for having a franchise QB.

 

 

Yeah the biggest issue restricting parity in the NFL for the past couple decades has been the disparity of QB play.

 

Some of the moves the league has made in the 2000's to improve QB play have actually created a greater disparity between haves and have nots.

 

 But recent changes have allowed teams with young QB's to now have a legit shot to be competitive...........and the fact that those teams don't have a $30M QB on the roster and ones with established QB's do is clearly an important part of that equation.      Big "NO" to super-max exceptions.

 

The franchise tag works well, IMO.  It stops the LeBron's of the NFL from going to the LA or NY markets and forces those teams to have to work like everyone else to get their franchise changing star player(s).  A *few* players don't like it and fans of teams with cap space hate it at that particular time......but it works.   

Edited April 18, 2019 by BADOLBILZ

[Kirby Jackson]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I still don't agree. The benefitting of drafting, developing and signing your own elite players is having those elite players. Why should you get additional benefits? Having elite players and having to manage to cap are par for the course. It helps keep a semblance of balance. 

You do get the benefit of but shouldn’t be punished for developing superstars. That’s a benefit in the other sports. You can do things for your own that other teams can’t. That’s the general concept of the franchise tag but it’s broken. The goal was to let teams keep their stars. The league is already trying to do that. The method though is antiquated. They need to go back to the goal (allow teams to retain their own top talent) and find a method to make it work. There are a bunch of options that are better than that.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

You do get the benefit of but shouldn’t be punished for developing superstars. That’s a benefit in the other sports. You can do things for your own that other teams can’t. That’s the general concept of the franchise tag but it’s broken. The goal was to let teams keep their stars. The league is already trying to do that. The method though is antiquated. They need to go back to the goal (allow teams to retain their own top talent) and find a method to make it work. There are a bunch of options that are better than that.

 

I don't think any of the options put forward here are better. They all have flaws much more fundamental than the franchise tag does. I'm not wedded to keeping the franchise tag. But you have to find something that works. I don't think the current system "punishes" teams or developing stars. Not at all. It incentivises teams to if anything, because FA is so expensive for stars.  

[Kirby Jackson]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think any of the options put forward here are better. They all have flaws much more fundamental than the franchise tag does. I'm not wedded to keeping the franchise tag. But you have to find something that works. I don't think the current system "punishes" teams or developing stars. Not at all. It incentivises teams to if anything, because FA is so expensive for stars.  

The easiest one is to make the franchise tag a 2 year commitment fully guaranteed. In year 3 they can do it again with a 3 year full guarantee. This will prevents teams from slapping tags on marginal players like Kyle Fuller, Grady Jarrett and LaMarcus Joyner. Teams with think twice about making that type of commitment. At the same time guys like Bell or Lawrence are more likely to sign the tag with the extra commitment. It is a WAY better option than the current method (which is clearly broken). We have players skipping an entire year!! That’s not good for anyone.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The easiest one is to make the franchise tag a 2 year commitment fully guaranteed. In year 3 they can do it again with a 3 year full guarantee. This will prevents teams from slapping tags on marginal players like Kyle Fuller, Grady Jarrett and LaMarcus Joyner. Teams with think twice about making that type of commitment. At the same time guys like Bell or Lawrence are more likely to sign the tag with the extra commitment. It is a WAY better option than the current method (which is clearly broken). We have players skipping an entire year!! That’s not good for anyone.

 

Only one guy sat out a year. Most who sign the tag then agree a contract. I don't see evidence that the system is clearly broken. I am not saying it is perfect.... but clearly broken? Not for me. 

[BADOLBILZ]

28 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Only one guy sat out a year. Most who sign the tag then agree a contract. I don't see evidence that the system is clearly broken. I am not saying it is perfect.... but clearly broken? Not for me. 

 

Yeah it's not "clearly broken".    It's "controversial".   But "controversial" is the norm in the NFL.........it's a violent sport where contracts aren't even guaranteed.    The NBA is apples to the NFL oranges.   And "super Max" or "Bird" designations affect a potentially much larger % of the union than "franchise tag" does so it's more important to the players overall.

 

The franchise tag might not even be in the top 5 things that the NFLPA wants amended in negotiations.   "Clearly broken" is something like suspending players for positive tests for marijuana.   That is definitely not good for anyone.   There are things that are clearly broken but the franchise tag isn't one of them, IMO.

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Only one guy sat out a year. Most who sign the tag then agree a contract. I don't see evidence that the system is clearly broken. I am not saying it is perfect.... but clearly broken? Not for me. 

It’s clearly broken IMO. It started as a way to reward top players and allow teams to keep them. With the escalating cap, no one is thrilled with a 1 year commitment. The players will fight (hard) for changes to it in the next CBA. The owners aren’t really thrilled with it at the moment either. Guys want long-term security. A 2 year commitment isn’t perfect but it is a much better option. Whenever a guy is tagged instantly creates a contentious negotiation. 

 

Another option is to drop the compensation on a non-exclusive tag to one 1st. There shouldn’t be a situation where the nastiest negotiations are with the players most important to your franchise. That’s counter-intuitive.

[BADOLBILZ]

3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It’s clearly broken IMO. It started as a way to reward top players and allow teams to keep them. With the escalating cap, no one is thrilled with a 1 year commitment. The players will fight (hard) for changes to it in the next CBA. The owners aren’t really thrilled with it at the moment either. Guys want long-term security. A 2 year commitment isn’t perfect but it is a much better option. Whenever a guy is tagged instantly creates a contentious negotiation. 

 

Another option is to drop the compensation on a non-exclusive tag to one 1st. There shouldn’t be a situation where the nastiest negotiations are with the players most important to your franchise. That’s counter-intuitive.

 

 

Why aren't the owners thrilled with it?    Need some specifics.   I respect your opinion being involved with pro organizations but why would a franchise like Buffalo or Cincinnati want to be without it at their disposal?

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

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

 

A visit from Tony, Christopher, and Paulie Walnuts?

[Kirby Jackson]

18 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Why aren't the owners thrilled with it?    Need some specifics.   I respect your opinion being involved with pro organizations but why would a franchise like Buffalo or Cincinnati want to be without it at their disposal?

Because it creates hard feelings. They like having it but they don’t like the ill will created. Bell is an extreme example but that could have been prevented. You may keep a guy a year, you may trade him or you may work out a long-term deal. It is just tough to start from “team had total control now let’s see if we can work something out?” When it started the top 5 money was thought to be a benefit to the players. With the rising cap it isn’t. There is no security and every single guy that is slapped with the tag can get more guaranteed money in FA. It puts star players vs. their teams and that’s not good for anyone.

[BADOLBILZ]

12 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Because it creates hard feelings. They like having it but they don’t like the ill will created. Bell is an extreme example but that could have been prevented. You may keep a guy a year, you may trade him or you may work out a long-term deal. It is just tough to start from “team had total control now let’s see if we can work something out?” When it started the top 5 money was thought to be a benefit to the players. With the rising cap it isn’t. There is no security and every single guy that is slapped with the tag can get more guaranteed money in FA. It puts star players vs. their teams and that’s not good for anyone.

 

I appreciate the well explained response but I don't think the owners care all that much about the hard feelings it creates with the players they use it on.     The tag is rarely used on the team's most valued player...........rather it's used on talented but suspect individuals like LeVeon Bell(suspensions, injuries, positional longevity/value) who the team really isn't sure it wants to invest long term in.   They may call it a "franchise tag" but it's more often applied as a "unsure tag".  Those aren't necessarily the "ring of honor" guys that the team wants to stay friends with.

 

I see the franchise tag primarily as a deterrent for losing your QB in UFA.      That you can use it to retain a RB with a history of suspension issues or a one hit wonder DL who waited until his walk year to go all-in on his game is just a fringe benefit of the primary use.

 

If the tag was rescinded do you not see elite QB's changing teams mid career..........perhaps hastily when that franchise is in a temporary down time?  You don't think that would skew elite QB's toward the largest markets and be disadvantageous to teams like Buffalo?     

 

 

[buffaloboyinATL]

I know a guy.  Leave 5 large in a paper bag in your mailbox and he will make it go away...permanently.

[Shaw66]

I guess I'm missing the point.   What's wrong with the system as it is?  

 

I don't see the players union objecting to it, because the franchise tag is irrelevant to 99% of the players in the league.   Getting rid of the tag just benefits a few guys who are making a lot of money already.   And being tagged doesn't hurt them all that much.   All they have to do is show up and play, and they get paid a top-five salary, so arguably they're getting paid what they're worth.  And if they get tagged a second or third year, they're getting paid more than the highest paid guys in the league.    Sure, they aren't getting the big guaranteed payday they'd get if they were free, but they're getting paid a lot. 

 

It does kind of suck that you actually have to sit out a year to force your team to let you go, like Bell did.  Maybe you could change the tag to say that if a team tags a player, it's a TWO-YEAR tag, first year at the average of the top five at the position, then 20% over the top five in the succeeding year AND both years are guaranteed.   So if you get tagged, you know you're getting major dollars (QB would be getting $50 million, guaranteed).   That would sweeten it for the players and make it a slightly bigger risk for the owners.  

 

I agree with those who don't like the way the NBA works.   The owners and the fans should be somewhat secure from their best play holding them hostage.   I don't want to spend five years turning Josh Allen into the best QB in football and then just let him walk.

 

The Patriots keep Brady happy.  The Pack kept Rodgers happy.  Seattle kept Wilson happy.  Cousins is the only guy who's left for greener pastures, and the Redskins probably wish they'd let him go a year earlier.  

 

I'm not seeing the problem here.  

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

55 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I appreciate the well explained response but I don't think the owners care all that much about the hard feelings it creates with the players they use it on.     The tag is rarely used on the team's most valued player...........rather it's used on talented but suspect individuals like LeVeon Bell(suspensions, injuries, positional longevity/value) who the team really isn't sure it wants to invest long term in.   They may call it a "franchise tag" but it's more often applied as a "unsure tag".  Those aren't necessarily the "ring of honor" guys that the team wants to stay friends with.

 

I see the franchise tag primarily as a deterrent for losing your QB in UFA.      That you can use it to retain a RB with a history of suspension issues or a one hit wonder DL who waited until his walk year to go all-in on his game is just a fringe benefit of the primary use.

 

If the tag was rescinded do you not see elite QB's changing teams mid career..........perhaps hastily when that franchise is in a temporary down time?  You don't think that would skew elite QB's toward the largest markets and be disadvantageous to teams like Buffalo?     

 

 

I don’t think it would direct a player anywhere but to the highest bidder (as it does now). It isn’t that the owners are worried about feelings it’s about a system that doesn’t achieve its initial goal. It won’t look the same way in the next CBA and the owner’s aren’t going to put up massive resistance. The players will never accept it in its current state and the owners aren’t going to pound the table for it. It’s flawed. You may be able to designate a player as exclusive to you but it absolutely, 100% will not be a 1 year deal that is the average of the top 5 highest paid players at a position. It may evolve to a multi-year deal, it may be the highest paid player at a position plus 5%, etc... The system as it is now is coming to an end. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Kirby Jackson

[HardyBoy]

On 4/16/2019 at 8:28 PM, MAJBobby said:

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. 

 

Don't they get suspended for every single one of those and lose money while suspended?

[MAJBobby]

1 hour ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Don't they get suspended for every single one of those and lose money while suspended?

 

Paycheck is the small thinking. I am talking % of the entire 10B revenue pie. 

 

That is all the NFLPA should be concerned about. Just like the owners are 

[ricko1112]

Without reading anything...

 

WHY? Smart teams use it intelligently... 

[BADOLBILZ]

4 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I don’t think it would direct a player anywhere but to the highest bidder (as it does now). It isn’t that the owners are worried about feelings it’s about a system that doesn’t achieve its initial goal. It won’t look the same way in the next CBA and the owner’s aren’t going to put up massive resistance. The players will never accept it in its current state and the owners aren’t going to pound the table for it. It’s flawed. You may be able to designate a player as exclusive to you but it absolutely, 100% will not be a 1 year deal that is the average of the top 5 highest paid players at a position. It may evolve to a multi-year deal, it may be the highest paid player at a position plus 5%, etc... The system as it is now is coming to an end. 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree about the bolded.   The difference in dollars that teams will offer for very top players will not be significant(though it WOULD escalate salaries quicker).  Without the franchise tag giving the Seahawks just enough leverage I think Russell Wilson would have been the NY Giants QB in 2020.   

 

I think the owners will put up massive resistance to everything in negotiations.    One thing they learned watching MLB waste chips in the 1970's and 1980's.....long before the NFL even had UFA......was not to give up ANYTHING without "massive resistance".    The ONLY reason players are still getting suspended for positive marijuana tests is because it's a bargaining chip.    If THAT seemingly mutually beneficial matter is worth to owners what it costs their teams in player time lost and acrimony(and possible health issues related to pain killers) then the franchise tag would be worth A LOT in trade,  IMO.

 

But I agree that I could see it altered in exchange for something.........."highest paid for one year" in itself would be a big concession.    I just don't think the teams will give up that "tag" leverage though.   They are going to want to keep that,  IMO.

[HardyBoy]

41 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Paycheck is the small thinking. I am talking % of the entire 10B revenue pie. 

 

That is all the NFLPA should be concerned about. Just like the owners are 

 

Come on, stop being niaeve. There's around 32 majority owners over a 5 year span and what 3000 players probably over that span.  A suspension is a massive percentage of a contract for a player. The Colts owner got fined a bunch a bit back, did that hurt his wealth in any real way? No, didn't touch it. NFL player gets suspended a week, that's a crazy big percentage of his contract. 

 

The 'poor' owners are scamming you man, all of us actually. They get so many tax breaks, so many, and pass it forward by squeezing your opportunity by all the hand outs they get. And we complain about a dude literally killing himself trying to make it so they damn owners don't keep them in their place through arbitrary crap that they themselves do consistently. Please, wake up.

[Augie]

29 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

We'll have to agree to disagree about the bolded.   The difference in dollars that teams will offer for very top players will not be significant(though it WOULD escalate salaries quicker).  Without the franchise tag giving the Seahawks just enough leverage I think Russell Wilson would have been the NY Giants QB in 2020.   

 

I think the owners will put up massive resistance to everything in negotiations.    One thing they learned watching MLB waste chips in the 1970's and 1980's.....long before the NFL even had UFA......was not to give up ANYTHING without "massive resistance".    The ONLY reason players are still getting suspended for positive marijuana tests is because it's a bargaining chip.    If THAT seemingly mutually beneficial matter is worth to owners what it costs their teams in player time lost and acrimony(and possible health issues related to pain killers) then the franchise tag would be worth A LOT in trade,  IMO.

 

But I agree that I could see it altered in exchange for something.........."highest paid for one year" in itself would be a big concession.    I just don't think the teams will give up that "tag" leverage though.   They are going to want to keep that,  IMO.

 

A lot of very good, and politely presented points in there. Really. 

 

 

?

[MAJBobby]

14 hours ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Come on, stop being niaeve. There's around 32 majority owners over a 5 year span and what 3000 players probably over that span.  A suspension is a massive percentage of a contract for a player. The Colts owner got fined a bunch a bit back, did that hurt his wealth in any real way? No, didn't touch it. NFL player gets suspended a week, that's a crazy big percentage of his contract. 

 

The 'poor' owners are scamming you man, all of us actually. They get so many tax breaks, so many, and pass it forward by squeezing your opportunity by all the hand outs they get. And we complain about a dude literally killing himself trying to make it so they damn owners don't keep them in their place through arbitrary crap that they themselves do consistently. Please, wake up.

Yeah typical small thinking.  OO know lose a game check.  300K.  but to change that suspension stuff players give up 1% of the total revenue pie. or 450M (in 2018).  

 

So yeah the NFLPA needs to focus on one thing.  Increasing their % of the total revenue pie

 

You know what increases those Players contracts???  More % of the revenue split.  So the players gave up 3% of total revenue in last CBA.  Or 450M a year.  so since 2011 the players have Lost 2.7558B Dollars About 919k Per player (when divided by your 3000 number).  Hmmm good thing they got relaxed practice schedules etc...

 

So who is naïve?

 

 

If the players are going into these negotiations with anything else on their mind other than the total % split of the revenue pie they already lost.

Edited April 19, 2019 by MAJBobby

[HardyBoy]

3 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Yeah typical small thinking.  OO know lose a game check.  300K.  but to change that suspension stuff players give up 1% of the total revenue pie. or 450M (in 2018).  

 

So yeah the NFLPA needs to focus on one thing.  Increasing their % of the total revenue pie

 

You know what increases those Players contracts???  More % of the revenue split.  So the players gave up 3% of total revenue in last CBA.  Or 450M a year.  so since 2011 the players have Lost 2.7558B Dollars About 919k Per player (when divided by your 3000 number).  Hmmm good thing they got relaxed practice schedules etc...

 

So who is naïve?

 

 

If the players are going into these negotiations with anything else on their mind other than the total % split of the revenue pie they already lost.

 

Good rebuttal, and valid point to an extent on the slice of 1% certainly seems like it is more than the tiny relative amount I thought it was (though still minuscule compared to an owners take of 1%).

 

The one piece you're missing is that the majority of the increse of the pie would go to the top players, so most of the members of the union would not see a near $1m bump in salary (using my random 3000 number). I would be interested if they raised the minimum salaries across the board (including practice squad and camp players) how that would look.

 

I think where I really struggle is two players do the exact same thing (hit a defensless receiver for example) and they get fined the same amount. One player makes $10m a year, the other $500k, the punishment is much stronger on the less valuable player. I think they should focus on making fines based on % of salary, and that would be a good first step on getting the lower salaried players to buy into fixing the franchise tag (which is basically the same argument I'm making flipped to just players...why the heck would the lower valued players, who will never get tagged, vote for giving up something to help the stars avoid getting tagged).

 

Anyway, I think this is an interesting conversation, looks like I was wrong most likely on the small amount the players would get of they increased the revenue a tiny but, so I am wrong on my assumption of your though process, my bad on that. I think we potentially align on this pretty closely actually, but would still want to see assurances that lower level players are seeing a fair share of the increase, and it doesn't just go to raise the salary cap allowing for more huge contracts offset by rookie deals and low minimum vetran contracts.

[MAJBobby]

8 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Good rebuttal, and valid point to an extent on the slice of 1% certainly seems like it is more than the tiny relative amount I thought it was (though still minuscule compared to an owners take of 1%).

 

The one piece you're missing is that the majority of the increse of the pie would go to the top players, so most of the members of the union would not see a near $1m bump in salary (using my random 3000 number). I would be interested if they raised the minimum salaries across the board (including practice squad and camp players) how that would look.

 

I think where I really struggle is two players do the exact same thing (hit a defensless receiver for example) and they get fined the same amount. One player makes $10m a year, the other $500k, the punishment is much stronger on the less valuable player. I think they should focus on making fines based on % of salary, and that would be a good first step on getting the lower salaried players to buy into fixing the franchise tag (which is basically the same argument I'm making flipped to just players...why the heck would the lower valued players, who will never get tagged, vote for giving up something to help the stars avoid getting tagged).

 

Anyway, I think this is an interesting conversation, looks like I was wrong most likely on the small amount the players would get of they increased the revenue a tiny but, so I am wrong on my assumption of your though process, my bad on that. I think we potentially align on this pretty closely actually, but would still want to see assurances that lower level players are seeing a fair share of the increase, and it doesn't just go to raise the salary cap allowing for more huge contracts offset by rookie deals and low minimum vetran contracts.

I hear you on the protections or base fines on the contract of the player, but that is an argument for concession on something like Owners want more Practice time back.  Fine we want fines tide to a % of the game check.  

 

at the end of the day the main goal of the players though should be to get back the 3% that they lost in the last CBA an to actually try and flip the revenue Pie.  The easy way to do that is talk games.  Owners you want 17 games ok we want 50/50% revenue split.  You want 18 games we want 60/40 split.  point should be though to come out better than they did with the % of the pie.  Without that they lost.  just like thy did in 2011, no matter how much they will prop up the little wins like the franchise tag cap. 

[billykay]

On 4/18/2019 at 6:58 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that the NBA system is SO much better when it comes to star players. Teams are rewarded for drafting well with things like Bird Rights as @Ethan in Portland alluded to. There are some solutions in the NFL to fix this broken franchise player model.

 

What if it were a 2 year commitment that escalated in year 2? Why is it only a 1 year-commitment? Teams would be more reluctant to slap the tag on just about anyone and players plus be more likely to sign it with a multi-year commitment. It seems like a win-win to me.

 

Another option is to start introducing elements of a soft cap. This COULD be a slippery slope if not done correctly but could also be a HR. You COULD be allowed to exceed the cap by a certain percentage to sign 1 player, drafted by that team, that meets certain criteria. In some ways it would be similar to the Super-max in the NBA. Each team can only have 1 guy on this type of deal, etc... it would have to be hashed out but it would protect a team that drafts Russell Wilson from having to tear down the rest of their team BECAUSE they drafted Russell Wilson. Maybe a super-max contract allows that team to exceed the cap by 2.5% or something like that? 

When the 2 year commitment ends, can there be another 2 year tag applied ?

[Kirby Jackson]

4 minutes ago, billykay said:

When the 2 year commitment ends, can there be another 2 year tag applied ?

I was thinking 3 but 2 is an option.