Franchise tag is backwards

[PATSNUTme]

Under the present system a team can franchise tag a player. That player can get offers from other teams. The original team can match and keep the player or let him go for 2 #1 draft picks.

IMO , this is backwards. I think it should work this way. A team can franchise a player. The player cannot go out and seek offers from other teams. If another team is interested in the player they have to go to the original team with a compensation package. If the original team accepts the compensation package, then the other team can negotiate with the player.

Under the present system, other team can poison the water between the player and his original team. Then they wait for things to get to the point of no return between the player and the original team. Then come in and make a "trade" offer below what they would have made if they had to deal with the original team first.

This is what it think happened with Samuel. But, it has happened many times to other players and teams in the past.

Before this is called anti player. Don't forget that the player gets the average oof the top 5 salaries for that position. So, the player does get a good compensation package anyway.


Thoughts?

 

[GoWhalers]

The reason the player is allowed to negotiate directly with the other teams is because he *is* a free agent (albeit a tagged one) -- meaning that in order for him to be willing to sign with another team, he needs to be happy with the contract offer.

This is different from a player still under contract, where the player's compensation is already agreed upon; it's only up to the two trading teams to see which one ends up paying the salary as per the contract. However, teams will still sometimes negotiate a new contract with the player, in order to ensure they don't have a franchise tag or salary cap situation the following year.

As for an outside team "poisoning" the negotiations between the player and his current team, it's a double-edged bluff. If the player holds out, then yes, the current team suffers as a result. But the player suffers as well -- they don't get paid a dime until they show up.

 

[dhamz]

There is a version of the franchise tag that forbids the player to negotiate with other teams. It pays the player more $ because it takes away his FA rights. The Colts used it on Freeney. The Pats chose not to use that version on Samuel.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I understand what others have posted here. However, I don't believe that when they came up with the "tag" rules they invisioned the "poisoning" happening time after time.

I don't know why the owners did not demand a change to this last year. It seems that one team or another goes through this every year.

 

[Miguel]

I don't know why the owners did not demand a change to this last year. It seems that one team or another goes through this every year.

What would you have given the NFLPA in return??

 

[ChoWZa]

From wikipedia (yes i know thats not a guaranteed source)

There are two types of franchise tag designations: the exclusive rights franchise tag, and non-exclusive rights franchise tag:

* An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount equal to or greater than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the "current" year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams.
* A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount equal to or greater than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position in the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.

It is the team's choice whether it uses an exclusive or a non-exclusive franchise tag. While it may seem that a team would always choose the exclusive option, there are two reasons a team might prefer the non-exclusive option instead. The first is that the salary is based on the top 5 salaries of the previous year instead of the current year, which could be a significant difference. The second reason is that a team may want the opportunity for the two first-round draft picks they would receive if they lost their player.

 

[PATSNUTme]

What would you have given the NFLPA in return??

Nothing. It would benefit the players as they would not get "we will give you this, if only if your team would be reasonable with a trade".

Once the deal is made with the team, the player will now get honest offers.

I have no facts to back it up, just years of business experience. But most of those offers are bogus fishing expeditions. They are designed to cause trouble between the player and the team so they can lowball both in the end.

 

[Miguel]

Nothing. It would benefit the players as they would not get "we will give you this, if only if your team would be reasonable with a trade".

If a team does not want a player to be able to get offers from team, then they should use the exclusive franchise tag. Its presence is why I think that your proposal would be dead on arrival.

 

[PATSNUTme]

If a team does not want a player to be able to get offers from team, then they should use the exclusive franchise tag. Its presence is why I think that your proposal would be dead on arrival.

That is true, unless they revise the system, which is the point of the thread. The system is not working and causing too much controversy for teams AND players.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

That is true, unless they revise the system, which is the point of the thread. The system is not working and causing too much controversy for teams AND players.

I think if the owners proposed changing the franchise system, the NFLPA would welcome the idea -- by getting rid of it altogether. After all, why should a team be able to restrict the movement of a player who's played out his entire contract?

The transition tag, which gives teams the right of first refusal to the original team, makes more sense.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I think if the owners proposed changing the franchise system, the NFLPA would welcome the idea -- by getting rid of it altogether. After all, why should a team be able to restrict the movement of a player who's played out his entire contract?

The transition tag, which gives teams the right of first refusal to the original team, makes more sense.[/quote]


But that is exactly what is wrong with the system today.

Look at it this way. Asante made $400,000 last year and said a little while ago he would be happy to play for the almost $8mil this year.

Now he's not happy. Why? Because other teams have been giving him so called offers. These are not official offers, becasue if they were, the Patriots would have the right to match or get 2 First rounders.

This is a stupid system. I would much rather see that if a team has a genuine interest in the player that they make a compensation offer to the team that has rights to the player first. That way they can't create an adversary relationship between the player and the team.

There would have to be a cut off date such as the week before the draft.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

I think if the owners proposed changing the franchise system, the NFLPA would welcome the idea -- by getting rid of it altogether. After all, why should a team be able to restrict the movement of a player who's played out his entire contract?

The transition tag, which gives teams the right of first refusal to the original team, makes more sense.[/quote]


But that is exactly what is wrong with the system today.

Look at it this way. Asante made $400,000 last year and said a little while ago he would be happy to play for the almost $8mil this year.

Now he's not happy. Why? Because other teams have been giving him so called offers. These are not official offers, becasue if they were, the Patriots would have the right to match or get 2 First rounders.

This is a stupid system. I would much rather see that if a team has a genuine interest in the player that they make a compensation offer to the team that has rights to the player first. That way they can't create an adversary relationship between the player and the team.

There would have to be a cut off date such as the week before the draft.

Samuel didn't say he'd be happy to play under the franchise tender. What his agent said was ""We don't look at [the franchise tag] as a bad thing. This is a step in the process in working toward a long-term deal."

Samuel isn't unhappy only because he's hearing offers from other teams, he's unhappy because he's not getting the kind of offers from the Pats he'd hoped for. Do you think it takes actual "poisoning" from other teams for a player to have an idea of what his market value would be?

Clements just got over $20 million in guaranteed money. Dre Bly got $16 million. And you think Samuel needed to hear from another team that he could get something like that? Do you think Samuel wouldn't be unhappy if only he couldn't talk to other teams? That's just not realistic.

The franchise tag will always create animosity -- players who've played out their contracts just aren't going to like having their free agency restricted. The fact is, they're sacrificial lambs that the NFLPA promised 32 of each year in order to secure free agency for the rest of the players.

The only way to make the process smooth is to have it not restrict a player's rights in free agency -- in other words, give the original team a chance to match the deal he signs elsewhere, or let him go.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Samuel didn't say he'd be happy to play under the franchise tender. What his agent said was ""We don't look at [the franchise tag] as a bad thing. This is a step in the process in working toward a long-term deal."

Samuel isn't unhappy only because he's hearing offers from other teams, he's unhappy because he's not getting the kind of offers from the Pats he'd hoped for. Do you think it takes actual "poisoning" from other teams for a player to have an idea of what his market value would be?

Clements just got over $20 million in guaranteed money. Dre Bly got $16 million. And you think Samuel needed to hear from another team that he could get something like that? Do you think Samuel wouldn't be unhappy if only he couldn't talk to other teams? That's just not realistic.

The franchise tag will always create animosity -- players who've played out their contracts just aren't going to like having their free agency restricted. The fact is, they're sacrificial lambs that the NFLPA promised 32 of each year in order to secure free agency for the rest of the players.

The only way to make the process smooth is to have it not restrict a player's rights in free agency -- in other words, give the original team a chance to match the deal he signs elsewhere, or let him go.

Here's the article from 3/12 in which he says he's happy.

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=187915&srvc=art

Now, he's not happy just a month later. That answers your other question.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Here's the article from 3/12 in which he says he's happy.

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=187915&srvc=art

Now, he's not happy just a month later. That answers your other question.

He was happy with the way negotiations were going. He thought he was going to get the contract he wanted from the Pats. He bever came close to saying he would be happy to play under the franchise tag.

At this point, negotiations have reached a snag, neither side is willing to budge, so he's not happy.

If you really think it took other teams "poisoning" him with the novel notion that he could get a big signing bonus elsewhere, than apparently you think that Asante Samuel and the entire sports agency that reps him can't come up with the same simple conclusion that every two-bit sports fan posting on a message board could.

 

[Jimke]

Many labor negotiations are not settled until the last minute.

Don't push the panic button until we are closer to July 15th.

I don't think Asante will want to take the chance of playing next

year under a one year contract. He takes the big risk of seeing

the number of his interceptions go down.

 

[PATSNUTme]

He was happy with the way negotiations were going. He thought he was going to get the contract he wanted from the Pats. He bever came close to saying he would be happy to play under the franchise tag.

At this point, negotiations have reached a snag, neither side is willing to budge, so he's not happy.

If you really think it took other teams "poisoning" him with the novel notion that he could get a big signing bonus elsewhere, than apparently you think that Asante Samuel and the entire sports agency that reps him can't come up with the same simple conclusion that every two-bit sports fan posting on a message board could.

If you believe that other teams are not trying to gain a competitive edge to get a player that the want without giving compensation, you are the one who is niave. Or, you have never been in a competitive business inviroment that in which competitors will do anythng legal(sometimes not ethical) to gain an edge.

That is the premise of this thread, the system needs to be changed. I'm sure that when they agreed to this system the intentions were that they had a good and fair system in place. But as soon as some people set rules there are others ready to see how the can get around them or bend them.

 

[Miguel]

Personally, I would leave the system the way it is. I do not feel that the system is broken. I know that the franchised players do not like it But they really can get over it.

But let's accept the premise that the current system is faulty. I think that teams are going to try their best to avoid placing the franchise tag on a player by signing their key players to extensions earlier than they have in the past. See the Eagles, Chargers and 49ers.