Welcome to PatsFans.com

Just a thought....

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by patfanken, Jul 18, 2007.

  1. patfanken

    patfanken Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,982
    Likes Received:
    821
    Ratings:
    +1,442 / 23 / -11

    #91 Jersey

    ....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. ;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2007
  2. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +74 / 0 / -1

    #87 Jersey

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

    Ratoath On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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?
     
  4. Va_Pats_Fan

    Va_Pats_Fan Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +120 / 3 / -2

    #95 Jersey

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

    patriot lifer 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +74 / 0 / -1

    #87 Jersey

    the first day of the draft would go into the second day
     
  6. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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...
     
  7. patsox23

    patsox23 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,397
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +17 / 1 / -0

    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.
     
  8. patfanken

    patfanken Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,982
    Likes Received:
    821
    Ratings:
    +1,442 / 23 / -11

    #91 Jersey

    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
     
  9. Ratoath

    Ratoath On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    this is getting complicated!!

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

    patriot lifer 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +74 / 0 / -1

    #87 Jersey

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

    Ratoath On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    good one!:)
     
  12. patfanken

    patfanken Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,982
    Likes Received:
    821
    Ratings:
    +1,442 / 23 / -11

    #91 Jersey

    another criteria that would be simpler. A player can't be franchised unless he has refused a one year offer that is at least the average of the 5 top contracts of a player in his position. In other words the current franchise #. That idea alone or in combination with some of the other ideas floated would make it more likely that only the BEST players would be franchised.
     
  13. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +74 / 0 / -1

    #87 Jersey

    sounds better. but with if they're in cahoots.
     
  14. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    14,611
    Likes Received:
    159
    Ratings:
    +400 / 3 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Here's is what I'd like to see.

    If a team franchises a player they have made a huge financial commitment to that player. Before another team can talk to that player they have to reach compensation agreement with the players team,first. That will get rid of other teams poisoning the water between the player and the "contact" team.

    On the players side, a team can only franchise a player for one year. The next year they can use the transition (less compensation required) tag but still have to pay the player franchise salary. The next year the player is as free as a bird.

    I really don't like how the current system is set up.
     
  15. PatsSox363804

    PatsSox363804 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    45
    Ratings:
    +156 / 2 / -1

    I like it in theory but the 2 comp picks isn't the way to go. Instead, I think it works better if the signing team gives up their first round pick and then the franchising team gets an extra comp pick (1st - 3rd round) similar to what they would get for letting a free agent walk based on the previous years stats. So for example with Samuel say the Saints sign him to a tender the Pats get the Saints #1 pick and a comp based on Samuels 2006 season, most likely a first based on the 10 INTs which would really be the 33nd pick, so a tweener 1st/2nd round pick. This wouldn't cause excessive franchising because teams still give up a 1st round pick, but it would open the door for some teams to sign franchised players more often and prevent hold outs.
     
  16. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    12,046
    Likes Received:
    592
    Ratings:
    +1,759 / 9 / -2

    #50 Jersey

    Ken, doesn't this run against the whole purpose of the franchise tag? It's always been my understanding that the tag was devised as a way to limit the corrosive effect of free agency on team continuity, thus improving play and -- more importantly -- maintaining fan loyalty. The very name of the tag speaks to this intent. It's supposed to let teams keep the franchise quarterback, the franchise running back, the face of the team. It's not really about compensation, it's about restricting movement. Franchise players aren't supposed to go anywhere. Your proposal sounds to me more like an extension of the comp pick system, where teams get special compensation for losing top-tier free agents.

    Some of the other proposals here sound close to the de facto current system. Officially, you're not supposed to tag a player just for purposes of trading him. In reality, trades for less than the two first rounders do happen.

    I guess my main question would be, is the franchise tag system really "broken"? Many tagged players sign long-term deals, some sign the franchise tender, a few are traded and a few threaten holdouts. Is that so bad?
     
  17. Va_Pats_Fan

    Va_Pats_Fan Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +120 / 3 / -2

    #95 Jersey

    The problem with the franchise tag is it is misused by the teams. It was originally meant so that a player that meant so much to a team could be retained and a long term deal worked out. Recently, teams have used it as a club to keep a player that they cannot (or do not wish to) afford (long term) for another year (or 2) of service. I use the word misuse in the sense of spirit of the rule, not letter.
    To solve the dilemma, the rules surrounding the tag should be changed to reflect the spirit of what was intended. If a player is franchised, the player is automatically offered a contract of the average of the top 5 salaries in that position (like today). This contract extends 4 years, with a 20% raise in each year. 30% of the total contract must be paid as a signing bonus.

    Using Samuel as an example (and rounding to make the #'s easy) The contract would look like:

    year 1: 8 million
    year 2: 9.6 mil
    year 3: 11.5 mil
    year 4: 13.8 mil

    This totals about 43 million, and with 30% "up front" it would be be a 13 million signing bonus. This would make the over all contract look like

    13 million up front,
    year 1 salary 4.8 mil
    year 2 salary 6.5 mil
    year 3 salary 8.3 million
    year 4 salary 10.6 million.

    A team could have only one player at a time on the "franchise" system. If they want to change players, they must either cut or trade the current franchised player. A traded player is no longer considered "franchised", but the receiving team must guarantee the remaining contract. The original team takes the cap hit of the signing bonus, accelerated to the trading year.
    Another team may step in and sign the player to the exact same deal, based on the current waiver order. If it does sign the player, it gives up a 1st round in year 1, a second round in year 2, a third in year 3 and a 4th in year 4 of the deal. If this happens, the signing team does not use up its franchise tag, and the original team receives it back.

    A franchised player has no option but to sign if no other team is willing to offer the same deal.

    This gives the teams a way to have a franchised player long term, and guarantees the player financial stability not offered with the current system. It also allows for player movement if a team is willing to step up and play ball.

    Yes, its expensive for the team. But they want to prevent a player from leaving...should cost them.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2007
  18. TomBrady'sGoat

    TomBrady'sGoat 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Ack. It sounds like you'd be working towards baseball's system, which blows.

    I think the current compensation system is fine. Maybe lowering the price to a 1&2 or 1&3 would work, but I think two first day picks is necessary to discourage teams from signing away franchised players. The problem, as VA_Pats_Fan pointed out well, is that the one-year tenders are such good deals for the teams. NE would never dream of paying Asante $8M/yr for 4 years, but at a one-year commitment it's a great deal. Make the franchise tag a longterm commitment and you'd see it used much less often. Of course this allows the player no say as to where he plays for awhile, which isn't very fair. Maybe a franchised player has the option to sign a 1 year or 4 year tender. It would still be worth it to teams for true franchise guys, but the threat of the 4-year deal would eliminate guys like Asante being franchised.
     
  19. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That would be unwise. If you were planning to cut a guy, he probably isn't very good. So if you franchised such a player, chances are you'd get stuck paying him the average of the top-5 at his position.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2007
  20. Ratoath

    Ratoath On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    no. i amn't suggesting that he should be paid, i am suggesting that he be traded for two 1st rounders.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>