Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

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.

 

The reasons that players don’t like the tag is that it limits them to one year deals. There’s no long term stability. Theres no guarantees beyond the one stretch. Don’t play the “15m is plenty” card because we’re talking about market value relative to their career and what they’re “worth.” Obviously if someone wanted to pay me 30 million or whatever for one year of work, I’d be glad to do that. But I’m not worth a long term deal that would guarantee my future at a very high rate.

 

Thats definitely true. I was just watching a video about the supplemental draft of USFL players and how pissed they were (Steve Young included) that they didn’t become FA. I think there’s definitely a balance to it, but I have always thought the franchise tag is one specific area of overreach that is questionable at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Augie said:

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. 

 

 

Agreed.

26 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

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

 

 

Ssssssssssssso .... there'd be a salary cap. That would be much the same as it is now, only the defacto cap total would be higher.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

The reasons that players don’t like the tag is that it limits them to one year deals. There’s no long term stability. Theres no guarantees beyond the one stretch. Don’t play the “15m is plenty” card because we’re talking about market value relative to their career and what they’re “worth.” Obviously if someone wanted to pay me 30 million or whatever for one year of work, I’d be glad to do that. But I’m not worth a long term deal that would guarantee my future at a very high rate.

 

Thats definitely true. I was just watching a video about the supplemental draft of USFL players and how pissed they were (Steve Young included) that they didn’t become FA. I think there’s definitely a balance to it, but I have always thought the franchise tag is one specific area of overreach that is questionable at best. 

 

I understand the argument about the lack of freedom.

 

But consider this.............how many players on the Bills wouldn't prefer playing this year on the franchise tag as opposed to their current contract?

 

Not just considering their salary this year.........but considering their entire remaining contract.

 

My count........just 2 players...........Mitch Morse who just got paid and maybe the regrettably over-guaranteed Star Lotulelei(but next year he'd gladly take that tag, thank you.:thumbsup:)

 

So maybe 2 guys out of 90 who will be under contract at camp.........53 of which who will actually be on the roster opening day.

 

Point is that the franchise tag is truly an elitists concern..........it barely makes a dent in the greater cause of advancing player freedom.    

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

The reasons that players don’t like the tag is that it limits them to one year deals. There’s no long term stability. Theres no guarantees beyond the one stretch. Don’t play the “15m is plenty” card because we’re talking about market value relative to their career and what they’re “worth.” Obviously if someone wanted to pay me 30 million or whatever for one year of work, I’d be glad to do that. But I’m not worth a long term deal that would guarantee my future at a very high rate.

I'd actually like to see the franchise tag be a fully guaranteed contract that allows for a players option of 1 or 2 years. That way the player could basically lock in two years of the top5 average pay if they're worried about injury and security. The teams would have to gamble a bit which would probably make it more of a pain for position players, but keep the same value the franchise tag holds now for QBs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.    

I don't think it's a deterrent. Teams just plan and expect to pay a franchise QB big money and are not willing to let them walk away. QB's get offered to dollar anyway and have no need to test free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MJS said:

I don't think it's a deterrent. Teams just plan and expect to pay a franchise QB big money and are not willing to let them walk away. QB's get offered to dollar anyway and have no need to test free agency.

 

 

All I can say is I will be glad that the Bills have it in their pocket in negotiations if Josh Allen becomes a dominant franchise QB.   Hasn't been a young, healthy and proven one of those on the open market since Warren Moon came down from Edmonton 35 years ago.:lol:     There wasn't even consensus on Cousins and look at the deal he got.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I understand the argument about the lack of freedom.

 

But consider this.............how many players on the Bills wouldn't prefer playing this year on the franchise tag as opposed to their current contract?

 

Not just considering their salary this year.........but considering their entire remaining contract.

 

My count........just 2 players...........Mitch Morse who just got paid and maybe the regrettably over-guaranteed Star Lotulelei(but next year he'd gladly take that tag, thank you.:thumbsup:)

 

So maybe 2 guys out of 90 who will be under contract at camp.........53 of which who will actually be on the roster opening day.

 

Point is that the franchise tag is truly an elitists concern..........it barely makes a dent in the greater cause of advancing player freedom.    

 

well yeah, players who are worth less would obviously like to get paid more. That doesn’t change the issue of players who are worth more being forced to play on one year deals. I don’t think it’s a huge issue, but it’s just always been surprising to me that the NFLPA doesn’t take more offense to it. Some of the more public happenings of tag issues lately may change that.

 

 

As I said in the op, even something like lowering the comp for a tagee to one first would make a huge difference. Imagine if Demarcus Lawrence was out there for 1 1. Tell me someone wouldn’t try for that and see if Dallas matches their offer. Make it more of a transition tag meets RFA type deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tag should be converted to a Larry Bird's rights type deal.

If a player is tagged, the team can match the offer by paying a 10% higher wage but the salary only costs the amount of the matched offer against the cap.

This is a win for everyone.  Players can test the market and get above market compensation.  Teams can overpay to keep a star player but not destroy their cap.

Also teams should be allowed to trade cap space for players or draft picks.  Why should a team like Seattle, be forced to dismantle their team just because they had a three year window of drafting very well.  If they could have traded a first round pick for cap space they could have paid Sherman, Thomas, and Bennett in addition to paying Wilson and Wagner.  A team should not be forced to go back into the draft to find talent when they already did.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, auburnbillsbacker said:

The owners want it and very few players are impacted by it.  This typically means that it will remain in future contracts.

 

Definitely truth to this, but I think the exposure it's gotten lately might have an effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

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.

Yes, would be a bad thing.  I absolutely hate the NBA for all the whiny babies playing there.

 

I do not want to see 'super teams' in the NFL like the NBA.  It would hurt the NFL product immensely.  The beauty of the NFL is that there is so much parity that any team (within reason) can be competitive within 1-2 years.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 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.

 

But it's the 3% with name recognition that sell jerseys

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 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. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

well yeah, players who are worth less would obviously like to get paid more. That doesn’t change the issue of players who are worth more being forced to play on one year deals. I don’t think it’s a huge issue, but it’s just always been surprising to me that the NFLPA doesn’t take more offense to it. Some of the more public happenings of tag issues lately may change that.

 

 

As I said in the op, even something like lowering the comp for a tagee to one first would make a huge difference. Imagine if Demarcus Lawrence was out there for 1 1. Tell me someone wouldn’t try for that and see if Dallas matches their offer. Make it more of a transition tag meets RFA type deal. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

The tag should be converted to a right to match tag. The teams get to keep their player or do a sign and trade. The players get their value either way. 

 

Yeah - removing some of the deadline dates would make it easier.  If its week 8 and the guy wants to negotiate he should be able to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

The tag should be converted to a Larry Bird's rights type deal.

If a player is tagged, the team can match the offer by paying a 10% higher wage but the salary only costs the amount of the matched offer against the cap.

This is a win for everyone.  Players can test the market and get above market compensation.  Teams can overpay to keep a star player but not destroy their cap.

Also teams should be allowed to trade cap space for players or draft picks.  Why should a team like Seattle, be forced to dismantle their team just because they had a three year window of drafting very well.  If they could have traded a first round pick for cap space they could have paid Sherman, Thomas, and Bennett in addition to paying Wilson and Wagner.  A team should not be forced to go back into the draft to find talent when they already did.

Whoa! That's interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...