patfanken

....with all this talk about the Franchise tag, what about this as an alternative. Under this rule there would still be a Franchise tag. Only now instead of forcing the team that signs the player to give up 2 first round draft choices, the team that loses the franchise player would get 2 first round players from the league. The team would also have the right of first refusal and the league would outlaw poison pills.

So, for example a team offers Samuel the deal he wants. The Pats have 48 hours to match the financial sections of the contract. If they don't they would be awarded 2 first round picks in the next draft. The first would would be after the 16th pick, the second after the 32nd. A team could opt to take ONE of the 2 picks in the next year.

If more than one franchise players is signed away, then the team with the worse record would get the pick after 16 and then the team withd the better record would go next. The same would occur after the 32nd pick.

So what we have done here is make it fairer for everyone. The market would be freer and more active since the team who wants to sign a franchised player wouldn't be force to give up THEIR picks. The team that loses the player knows its going to get 2 great picks, one in the middle of the first round and one at the end of the first round.

I don't think it would screw up the draft. Even in a freer market, I doubt that more than 2 or 3 "franchised" players would be signed in any year. Though I have to admit it would suck to have the #17 pick in the draft.

At any rate, I think this is a decent compromise and makes the franchise tag more palatable for the teams.

Feel free to fine tune, add sections, or trash and dismiss this idea.

patriot lifer

question. could teams take advantage of this and franchise more liberally in the hope of getting extra big draft picks

Ratoath

Ye, i agree.

E.G: a team that is about to cut one of its worst players, decides to franchise them. then they get two 1st rounders if that player is signed by another team?

Va_Pats_Fan

So every team franchises one low level player, and signs one from another team...suddenly there are 64 extra 1st rounders

patriot lifer

the first day of the draft would go into the second day

QuiGon

So the team that signs someone else's franchise player wouldn't have to give up anything above the contract they offered the player..? No way. Teams would be stealing franchise players left and right... Plus you could easily have a situation where there are 50 or maybe even 60 first round picks with all the franchise players that would be stolen...
I agree with you that they should get rid of the poison pill but, unfortunately, the players' union likes them so I don't imagine they are going anywhere...

patsox23

I would take the two first rounders EVERY TIME. I think this would lead to MORE, not less, movement of players around the league, which is not what the NFL wants. I wouldn't want that, either.

patfanken

OK these are good comments. AND they are easily resolved. All you have to do is to set up some criteria for who can become a "franchised player". Here again your thoughts would be invaluable. But the first thing that comes to mind would be a dollar amount. For example a player couldn't be "franchised" until he has refused an offer that amounts to 7% of the cap or more. Thats off the top of my head.

Other posibilities might be...The player has to be a starter. He has to be concidered one of the top 10 players at his postion by some kind of mathematical formula derived at "cold hard football facts" Has to have been elected to the pro bowl, etc

Ratoath

this is getting complicated!!

if jerks like Asante Samuel would just sign the tender, we wouldn't have this problem

patriot lifer

how about if the franchised player wants to enter free agency he can, but he must give up his firstborn.