solman

Its worth remembering that most of the benefit from having a Franchise tag goes to other players, not to the owners. Every salary cap dollar not spent on Franchise players is available to be spent on other players.

Even if some teams don't spend to the cap, the new CBA includes a provision that increases future salary caps to compensate for this. (Last year the owners spent about $20M less than 59% of total revenues on players, so the cap for 2007-2011 [but not 2012 Miguel] went up by $134K).

This isn't the only example of the union favoring a majority of its players over a minority. The Entering player pool (AKA rookie salary cap) transparently benefits veterans at the expense of rookies. The CBA even has a provision that allows owners to end the entering player pool... but only if they compensate the veteran players who earn less as a consequence.

BelichickFan

I'll start paying attention when it's over. It seems like one of the big complaints is he can be Franchised again next year. Well if that horrible scenario plays out he'll have pocketed $17M over 2 years and be a UFA at age 28. Wah.

He could get hurt ? He can get insurance on that.

He's a little whiny *****. Like the rest of them. Turning his nose up at $17M over 2 years.

Miguel

If the franchise tag did not have any benefit to the owners, why did they decide to have it in the CBA and keep it at every extension??

__________________
My youngest sister's best friend is on the board of directors of a food pantry in Malden, Massachusetts that distributed 285,000 meals and meal equivalents in 2005. I am asking that if you have found my salary cap pages useful that if you are able to do so, please make a donation to it. Please contact me for more information.

Miguel

Do you think benefiting veterans over rookies is a bad thing???For the record, I do not.

__________________
My youngest sister's best friend is on the board of directors of a food pantry in Malden, Massachusetts that distributed 285,000 meals and meal equivalents in 2005. I am asking that if you have found my salary cap pages useful that if you are able to do so, please make a donation to it. Please contact me for more information.

PatsFanInVa

I thought that you spend more on a franchised player, for that one year, than you would if he signed. Therefore, less is available for "the majority" of players.

You just don't get the multi-year deal if you get tagged. In Asante's case, for instance, you have to face the uncertainty of playing for $7.9M for one year, instead of some larger amount of guaranteed money, covering more years of play. That money would be prorated, however, so more money from the cap would be available "for other players" were the Patriots to sign on the dotted line today.

PFnV

skaIownsIyou

point is that samuel's numbers were almost identical to champ bailey's and bailey was a dpoy candidate...espn has samuel ranked as #1 tied with bailey, so he feels that he deserves a long contract, yeah you can make the point that he's making 7.9-8 million this year, but what about next year? or the year after that?

instead of being tagged for 2-3 years, he'd rather have a locked up deal

and to be tagged for 2-3 years, he'll have to have career seasons every year

not to mention that he was the #1 rated CB due for FA this offseason, and the 2nd best cb got an 8 year 80 million deal...with guaranteed money

he'd rather cash in on his career season because you never know what'll happen next year

he's had an amazing season this year, all under the radar imo....but i guess you can kinda understand where the pats admin are coming from, if i was the gm, i'd want to see another very productive year before handing out 20 million in guarantees, then i'd know that his great season in 06 wasnt just 'luck'

PatsFanInVa

Are you saying somebody got a $10M average per year contract, 100% guaranteed? Or are you saying "with guaranteed money," as a sort of side dish, like, he got fries with that contract?

Franchise tag is $7.9M, guaranteed. As in, you sign it, you get the checks.

Who are you talking about who got an $80M, 8 year contract? How much is guaranteed? Because that is the money that matters, the part you actually get paid, no ifs ands or buts.

More likely he has guarantees for <$7.9M a year, but for more years. And that, my friend, is the point, at least of this thread: Not whether Samuel is right, but whether "the majority of players" are "benefitting" from "more money being available," when you franchise a guy.

My impression is there is actually less money available.

PS, I do agree it does not benefit owners per se to franchise a player. It is a tool they have to put together the best possible team. A good owner spends to the cap most years anyway.

PFnV

Jimke

The franchise tag on Asante Samuel has already benefited the Pats.

Had they not had the tag available, he would already be on another team

with a 2008 3rd round compensatory pick in return. As a worst case scenario

the Pats should get more than a 3rd round pick in a trade. Best case is

that they have more than 3 months to work out a long term deal.

PatsFanInVa

Just read the other thread about Asante wanting a deal which guarantees him 30M in 3 years... Clements apparently got that (according to Reiss, and my bad, I didn't follow the Clements deal...) but as part of an 8 year deal. Which probably means, he can take his 10M a year to the bank for 3 years, and pray to God his play remains worth that money in the out years.

Edited in: By the way, you still might have a scenario where he has a 6 year deal, 30M guaranteed, pro-rated, which puts you at 5M/yr guaranteed, 3 years of which is dead money, and then out the door with your greedy buttocks. So you still end up with about 3M more a year for those three years, to spend on other players, then 5M/yr to try to write off the books for the next 3 years in dead money. Not a very Pats way of doing things, but the point is the money isn't necessarily coming out of other players' pockets even in this scenario.

But yeah, if that article is to be believed, the best corner out there will get
2M more. The last time a CB attempted to get $10M APY (of course, in a different era [already],) it was Ty Law. You remember Ty Law....

So in terms of this thread, I'll just amend my comment. IN MOST CASES, you're making the tradeoff of guaranteed money versus a one-year bonanza -- this does not benefit other players vying for those same dollars.

One man in NE is considered worth 10M APY at present. The Reiss article saying that Asante wants 10M guaranteed over 3 years, makes me think, okay, that's just funny.

Sit out a year if ya want, Asante. See what that does for your market value. Or, get real. The cap has certainly inflated... but I think you're pegged your self-assessment well north of where the Pats have you on their value chart.

Or, in terms of the scatter-plots on yet another thread... we want a curve, not a hockey stick.

PFnV

solman

I doubt the owners like free agency, but curiously that is in the CBA, and has remained there at every extension. I think its safe to say that there are many things in the CBA that the owners did not want.

I don't think that the Franchise tag is one of these. I'm simply pointing out that the owners are not the primary beneficiaries. The vast majority of the benefit from the Franchise tag goes to the 98% of players who will never be in danger of getting tagged.