Reiss take on the Franchise Tag

[solman]

The CB franchise is a lot of money though....

He'd have the 2nd biggest cap hit behind Brady.

Much of the analysis has focused on purely numerical measures like this (or the percentage of the salary cap that just three players would be eating up). I think that this sort of numerology has little or no place in a successful salary-cap era NFL team. In my opinion, only one question matters:

If we don't spend $7.9M of cap on Asante, can we use that same money to acquire greater value on the open market?

Several factors strongly argue against this:

1. This year's free agent market will be poor across the board (in large part because teams with money to spend have re-signed players).
2. Many teams are far below the cap. This will drive up free agent salaries into the stratosphere.
3. Without Asante, we are very weak at corner back, so talent at corner back benefits us more than at most other positions.
4. The market for corner backs, especially if you exclude Asante, is probably weaker than that of any other NFL position.

I think it is very unlikely that BB/SP will find a better way to spend $7.9M than franchising Asante.

Let me point out two other things:

1. A franchise contract is a one year deal. Nobody really knows if Asante is a hall of famer who is just coming into his own, or a second rate corner back who just had the best season of his career. A one year deal gives us the opportunity to find out. If he goes out there and has a pro bowl year, then we unquestionably are getting a great deal. If he sucks, then we have avoided the long term commitment that signing top flight free agents requires. If he is mediocre, then his future salary expectations will become more reasonable, and we'll have a chance of doing a long term deal next year (when the market for cornerbacks will be considerably better).

2. The salary cap has gone up, A LOT: 27.5% in just two years. The Brady and Seymore contracts were negotiated in a completely different environment. You can't compare contracts negotiated during a time of small salary cap numbers to contracts negotiated today.

 

[ayjackson]

I was thinking trade value for Graham was a late second or early third. Many teams are very high on him and late drafters could either use their first pick on a tight end or keep it and use the second on Graham. I was thinking an early second for Assante (maybe a fourth next year as well).

But it all depends on the market in the end.

 

[solman]

This is silly....
If he is pissed, how are you going to trade him? All he has to do is refuse to sign a deal with the team the pats want to trade with. You can't trade the tag. If he doesn't sign a deal, there is no trade.

No, your entire argument is silly. If Asante holds out on a Franchise tag season he not only loses $8 MILLION, he decreases his future market value. If Asante is even remotely as good as he thinks he is, holding out in 2007 would cost him upwards of $16M.

Are you seriously telling me that Mr. "Get Paid", would give up this kind of money just to spite the Patriots? It's beyond absurd, and everybody in both the Patriot's organization and Asante's camp knows it.

 

[solman]

I agree with this post except for the part at the end comparing this to the Deion situation. Deion was looking at giving up 10/16 (or is it 9/16?) of 1M if he held out. Asante would be giving up 10/16 of 8M. There is no way Asante holds out. I agree that they should look to trade him, but if a worthy offer never comes along having him for a year at 8M isn't a bad thing.

The 10/16 doesn't apply here. It only applies to players who need to earn a year before reaching free agency. If Asante doesn't sign the contract by the end of Free Agency, I believe he becomes an exclusive rights player of the Patriots for just this year. The Patriots aren't obligated to offer him another contract at the franchise level, and he doesn't need to play another game.

Until they reach a negotiated settlement, Asante doesn't play a game or earn a dime, and the Patriot's don't get the use of his services. He could play for peanuts in the CFL, but he'd be risking a career ending injury by doing so. Any agent that recommended this kind of insanity to a player in Asante's position would probably face the ire of the NFLPA.

 

[solman]

I'm saying his attitude is what matters most.

Then you are still being stupid. Asante's attitude is all about MONEY.

MONEY MONEY MONEY.

Asante is going to do whatever he thinks will earn him the most MONEY.

If he sits out on a franchise contract he loses $8M of MONEY.

If he doesn't play for a season his next contract will include far less MONEY.

Keep in mind that Asante thinks he is great and will have a pro bowl year in 2007. He and his agent will ask the following questions:

How much will I get in my 2008 contract if I am comming off of two consecutive pro bowl quality years?

How much will I get in my 2008 contract if I have one great season in a four year career, and follow that up with a year out of football?

I think there is nearly $20M of difference between the two, maybe more. Suppose he concludes that there is only $10M difference between the two. What chance is there that he throws away $18M = $8M+$10M?

For that matter, what do you think his leverage over the Pats is? If we don't pay him, he doesn't count against the salary cap. We get a third round compensatory pick in 2008 instead of 2007. Big deal.

Once the Pats franchise him, they have millions of dollars of leverage over Asante, while he has almost none. They can afford to let him sit on his butt, he can't. There isn't a negotiator in the universe who can get a succesful outcome for his client under those circumstances.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Then you are still being stupid. Asante's attitude is all about MONEY.

MONEY MONEY MONEY.

Asante is going to do whatever he thinks will earn him the most MONEY.

If he sits out on a franchise contract he loses $8M of MONEY.

If he doesn't play for a season his next contract will include far less MONEY.

Keep in mind that Asante thinks he is great and will have a pro bowl year in 2007. He and his agent will ask the following questions:

How much will I get in my 2008 contract if I am comming off of two consecutive pro bowl quality years?

How much will I get in my 2008 contract if I have one great season in a four year career, and follow that up with a year out of football?

I think there is nearly $20M of difference between the two, maybe more. Suppose he concludes that there is only $10M difference between the two. What chance is there that he throws away $18M = $8M+$10M?

For that matter, what do you think his leverage over the Pats is? If we don't pay him, he doesn't count against the salary cap. We get a third round compensatory pick in 2008 instead of 2007. Big deal.

Once the Pats franchise him, they have millions of dollars of leverage over Asante, while he has almost none. They can afford to let him sit on his butt, he can't. There isn't a negotiator in the universe who can get a succesful outcome for his client under those circumstances.

And if he and his agent are smart they will also understand that his performance in 2007 under the tag can be impacted by events out of his control. He gets dinged, or worse. Teams stop throwing in his direction and his INTS fall off dramatically while he still gets burned here and there and those are the highlights playing on NFLN rather than his picks.

This is the best possible season for Asante to cash in. To do that he needs to be available in March. So his best option is to play ball with the team and either sign a LT deal here where he is established as the LCB playing behind one of the better front 5's in the league, play ball on a tag and trade, play under the tag, or sit out and get dumped on the market in August when several of the biggest spenders of the 2007 FA season will have already shot their wad. In that order pretty much.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

The 10/16 doesn't apply here. It only applies to players who need to earn a year before reaching free agency. If Asante doesn't sign the contract by the end of Free Agency, I believe he becomes an exclusive rights player of the Patriots for just this year. The Patriots aren't obligated to offer him another contract at the franchise level, and he doesn't need to play another game.

Until they reach a negotiated settlement, Asante doesn't play a game or earn a dime, and the Patriot's don't get the use of his services. He could play for peanuts in the CFL, but he'd be risking a career ending injury by doing so. Any agent that recommended this kind of insanity to a player in Asante's position would probably face the ire of the NFLPA.

thanks, i knew that but i was being dumb.

my point still stands, i could not see Asante sitting while he could be making 8M by suiting up. he'd be cutting off his nose to spite his face.

 

[solman]

This is the best possible season for Asante to cash in. To do that he needs to be available in March. So his best option is to play ball with the team and either sign a LT deal here where he is established as the LCB playing behind one of the better front 5's in the league, play ball on a tag and trade, play under the tag, or sit out and get dumped on the market in August when several of the biggest spenders of the 2007 FA season will have already shot their wad. In that order pretty much.

If he sits out, he won't be dumped on the Market in August, his rights will belong exclusively to the Patriots.

I would be happy if he signs a LT deal with the Patriots, I just don't think that he has a reasonable view of his value.

Keep in mind that although he'll be looking to get a huge signing bonus, the new CBA heavily penalizes teams which live on signing bonuses. In each year if the salary cap is X% of gross, there is a total cash cap of (X+2)%. If a team spends over that amount (and the league as a whole does so as well), its regular salary cap during the remainder of the CBA will be reduced. I suspect that some of the less intelligent teams are going to take significant future salary cap hits this year, because they offer signing bonuses that are more appropriate to the old agreement. The Patriots will be smart and play by the new rules, but Asante will be looking for the kind of huge contracts that the old rules made possible. Its hard to imagine the two sides negotiating their way through this.

 

[salty]

As you can tell from my sig line, I think the Pats should franchise Asante. There are a number of reasons for this. In no particular order, they are:

1) The Patriots have nobody behind Samuel right now. They are solid with Hobbs as the other starter, but after that it gets very iffy. Gay will hopefully be back after spending the year on IR, but should the Patriots rely on him as a full-season starter? I think not. Its possible that Eugene Wilson could be moved to corner, but again, I think he would be more of a nickel/slot corner than a regular starter. There are other guys out there on the roster, but bottom line is none of them are ready to step in and start should the Pats lose Asante. So if they lose him, they'll have to scramble for a replacement (Duane Starks, anyone?).

2) Asante Samuel at the franchise salary would actually be a decent deal for the Patriots. The average of the top 5 corners in the league is a lot of money, but most of those contracts are from BEFORE the cap went up a great deal, as it has in the past two years. So relatively speaking, the franchise salary would be somewhat cheap. Also, this allows the Pats to try out Samuel for another year. Is he the real deal? Will he get even better? These are good things to know before throwing a gargantuan contract at him.

3) The sign and trade option is a viable one. If Asante is worth as much as he and his agent seem to think he is, then a team should have no trouble giving up even a first rounder for his services. After all, the guy is just entering the prime of his career. A franchise and trade would still leave the Pats hurting at corner, but at least they'd get something pretty significant in return.

4) Asante Samuel will play. He'd make 8 million dollars this year, compared to the 300,000-400,000 he has been getting under his rookie contract. Sure, he'd like a long term deal, but he's not going to pass up that kind of pay raise.

5) Daniel Graham is important to the offense and I sure hope the Patriots keep him, but Samuel would be MUCH harder to replace, given the personnel on the team and available in free agency at their respective positions.

All in all, it means the Patriots either give Samuel a huge long-term deal (unlikely), or franchise him and at least get something substantial in return. Merely letting him walk is NOT an option.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If he sits out, he won't be dumped on the Market in August, his rights will belong exclusively to the Patriots.

I would be happy if he signs a LT deal with the Patriots, I just don't think that he has a reasonable view of his value.

Keep in mind that although he'll be looking to get a huge signing bonus, the new CBA heavily penalizes teams which live on signing bonuses. In each year if the salary cap is X% of gross, there is a total cash cap of (X+2)%. If a team spends over that amount (and the league as a whole does so as well), its regular salary cap during the remainder of the CBA will be reduced. I suspect that some of the less intelligent teams are going to take significant future salary cap hits this year, because they offer signing bonuses that are more appropriate to the old agreement. The Patriots will be smart and play by the new rules, but Asante will be looking for the kind of huge contracts that the old rules made possible. Its hard to imagine the two sides negotiating their way through this.

I agree. It's both a cash over cap and a value issue (not only in paying him but like Givens in how that impacts across the remaining 52 man roster). Which is why I don't think he'll be signed either. But I do think if he's foolish enough to not work with them on the alternative as Space seems determined to think, he could end up dumped on the market under a rescinded tag because they won't let it fester into the season should it get that ugly. But Asante isn't going to get his best deal then.

 

[spacecrime]

All you guys that think it is so cool and a no brainer to franchise and tag a player, can you explain why teams almost never do this. Every year there are a hundred or more FAs that hit the market. How many franchise and tags have there been every year? 20? 25? How about usually none.

If it is such a no brainer and such a good idea, why is it almost never done?
Hint: Because unless the player agrees up front, it is the worst thing a team can do. Annoy a player over whom you have no control, becasue he won't sign the agreement until the last minute and until then he doesn't answer to you, and who can only get what he wants by making your life miserable.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Besides Tebuckey and Price, name me a handful of times a franchise/trade was done.

Compare this to the number of times a top FA was merely allowed to go his way.

Franchise a player if you want to play him. Expect him not to participate in any camp, because players franchised against their wills rarely do, and do not expect him to sign a long term deal the following year. But you do get a year's play out of him.

But unless the player agrees up front, forget about trying to force him to sign an agreement with another team unless he absolutely wants do. I simply cannot believe how short-sighted people are to believe they can force a player to agree to a trade.

 

[spacecrime]

Which is why I don't think he'll be signed either. But I do think if he's foolish enough to not work with them on the alternative as Space seems determined to think, he could end up dumped on the market under a rescinded tag because they won't let it fester into the season should it get that ugly. But Asante isn't going to get his best deal then.

This is highly possible (that he won't get teh best deal in August). Depends on how badly a team needs a CB. There are always ways to make room when the CAP is $109 mil, plenty of contracts to push out.

Whether Asante works with the team depends on what Asante thinks he is worth on the open market. If he isn't confident, then he ought to play ball.

But again, it is his call to make, not the Pats'. That is the point I have been trying to make that absolutely no one accepts. You can't decide to franchise/trade a player unless he agrees.

But if he agrees to play ball, then all is good anyway. There are no problems with franchising and trading if the player agrees.

The problem is trying to franchise/trade him if he doesn't want to, of trying to force him with the attitude of, "If he doesn't sign, we'll jsut franchise and trade him."

I'll leave it lie now. No one is listening to my gums flap anyway

 

[cstjohn17]

All you guys that think it is so cool and a no brainer to franchise and tag a player, can you explain why teams almost never do this. Every year there are a hundred or more FAs that hit the market. How many franchise and tags have there been every year? 20? 25? How about usually none.

If it is such a no brainer and such a good idea, why is it almost never done?
Hint: Because unless the player agrees up front, it is the worst thing a team can do. Annoy a player over whom you have no control, becasue he won't sign the agreement until the last minute and until then he doesn't answer to you, and who can only get what he wants by making your life miserable.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Besides Tebuckey and Price, name me a handful of times a franchise/trade was done.

Compare this to the number of times a top FA was merely allowed to go his way.

Franchise a player if you want to play him. Expect him not to participate in any camp, because players franchised against their wills rarely do, and do not expect him to sign a long term deal the following year. But you do get a year's play out of him.

But unless the player agrees up front, forget about trying to force him to sign an agreement with another team unless he absolutely wants do. I simply cannot believe how short-sighted people are to believe they can force a player to agree to a trade.

Easy, easy does it...

It is more than annoyance, it is control. The franchise tag is leverage, it is not a perfect tool but it is used when teams see value in keeping control of a player at a fixed price point for one more year. The players aren't happy about it but unless I have missed something about how the Patriots operate, one of the last things they consider are "feelings". The tag is not used a lot because most FAs are not worth it, put another way the franchise tag is not good value. The number for CB is close enough to make the tag a viable option for Samuel. Another news flash, as unhappy as players are it all comes down to money. Example - Richard Seymour, he was "upset with the Patriots" but still signed an extension because of the dollars.

Without any research the history of the Franchise tag is likely split into the following outcomes (I will make guesses at the percentage of each event):
a) 20% - Player ends up signing with original team
b) 50% - Player moans, skips camp and then signs offer sheet and plays season/ Most often leaves after year 1 however in some cases the player gets re-franchised the next year as well (Orlando Pace, Woodson)
c) 10% - Player is traded (Abraham last year is a good example, the Jets knew they weren't going to keep up but got a first round pick out of it)
d) 10% - Player holds out or causes mass destruction, wrecks team unity and causes other disuption. What is Samuel going to say? "the Patriots are cheap", I think they have heard this before.
e) 10% - Player is released, typically right at end of training camp and doesn't get top money because teams don't have the cap space.

Spin the percentages any way you want, events A, B & C far outweigh events D, & E. Again it is not perfect but its usage tends to favor the team.

Trades - You are right, it is difficult to "force" a trade. If it comes down to a trade typically teams tell the agent go get a contract from another team. The agent comes back and if suitable compensation can be reached the deal is done. The player essentially picks the team but also must hope an acceptable trade can be reached. Again less leverage for the player as teams must give up top $ and a draft pick.

 

[solman]

All you guys that think it is so cool and a no brainer to franchise and tag a player, can you explain why teams almost never do this. Every year there are a hundred or more FAs that hit the market. How many franchise and tags have there been every year? 20? 25? How about usually none.

Teams have rarely used the franchise tag because it seldom makes sense for them to do so.

The only time a team would even consider using the franchise tag is when they have an unrestricted free agent who is amongst the top five or ten at his position. This only happens to a few teams per year.

Of the few teams that are in this position, many are able to reach an agreement to re-sign the player. Some of the remaining teams are unable to find room under the salary cap to use the tag (We may get a shot at Adelius Thomas (sp?) because the Ravens are in bad salary cap shape.) Some of the rest decide that they can get better value on the free agent market than from franchising the player in question. Everybody else uses the franchise tag.

Let me turn your question around. How many teams have NOT franchised a player because they didn't want to upset that player? I can't think of one. Any GM who puts the feelings of a soon to be ex-player ahead of his own team's well being should be immediately fired. You can't neegotiate well if your main focus is not offending the guy on the other side of the table.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

All you guys that think it is so cool and a no brainer to franchise and tag a player, can you explain why teams almost never do this. Every year there are a hundred or more FAs that hit the market. How many franchise and tags have there been every year? 20? 25? How about usually none.

If it is such a no brainer and such a good idea, why is it almost never done?
Hint: Because unless the player agrees up front, it is the worst thing a team can do. Annoy a player over whom you have no control, becasue he won't sign the agreement until the last minute and until then he doesn't answer to you, and who can only get what he wants by making your life miserable.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Besides Tebuckey and Price, name me a handful of times a franchise/trade was done.

Compare this to the number of times a top FA was merely allowed to go his way.

Franchise a player if you want to play him. Expect him not to participate in any camp, because players franchised against their wills rarely do, and do not expect him to sign a long term deal the following year. But you do get a year's play out of him.

But unless the player agrees up front, forget about trying to force him to sign an agreement with another team unless he absolutely wants do. I simply cannot believe how short-sighted people are to believe they can force a player to agree to a trade.

how many times has the salary cap gone up 20-30M over the course of a couple years? none.

franchising makes more sense when you're at the beginning of a salary escalation and the average of the top 5 contracts is comparable to what you're going to have to pay a good player anyway. do I think asante is as good as champ bailey? no. do i think he would make us much as bailey were he a UFA? definitely. Would I have franchised asante 4 years ago? never.

Also, teams have the cap room to play with. how often have teams entered the offseason with 20M+ in cap room. this year it is not uncommon.

the franchise tag is a better deal now than any time in the past. make your decisions based on how things used to be and you get left behind.

 

[solman]

But I do think if he's foolish enough to not work with them on the alternative as Space seems determined to think, he could end up dumped on the market under a rescinded tag because they won't let it fester into the season should it get that ugly. But Asante isn't going to get his best deal then.

I don't care how bad the press gets, If BB/SP franchise Asante and then release him, it would be a terrible error.

Negotiating contracts is always about leverage. What happens to each side if no deal gets done versus what happens if an agreement is reached.

If BB/SP refuse to release holdouts, it means that those players will have to sit at home, not earning money, and seeing the value of any future contract drop. This gives the players a very strong incentive to sign a contract with the Patriots, even if it is not for the amount of money they wanted.

If BB/SP release holdouts, it will destroy their leverage. Any player who thinks that the August FA market is better than their current contract will chose to hold out.

BTW, I think its a pretty good bet that in August of this year a lot of teams will still be sitting on plenty of cap space. Granting an exclusive rights player release in August of this year is down right generous.

BTW2, If Asante turns down $7.9M to sit at home, I don't think the press will be all that bad. His Patriots team mates would probably say nice things in the press. But behind closed doors, few of them would understand how an NFL player can choose sitting at home over a guaranteed $7.9M payday.

 

[solman]

That is the point I have been trying to make that absolutely no one accepts. You can't decide to franchise/trade a player unless he agrees.

No one accepts this because it is blatantly false. The CBA governs the franchise tag, and it makes absolutely no mention of getting the players agreement. We Franchised Adam V. twice, and he was unhappy about it both times. In fact, no player wants to be franchised. That hasn't kept teams from using the franchise tag on them anyway.

Which players were franchised by their team and did NOT subsequently either play for that team or accept a trade?

 

[spacecrime]

No one accepts this because it is blatantly false. The CBA governs the franchise tag, and it makes absolutely no mention of getting the players agreement. We Franchised Adam V. twice, and he was unhappy about it both times. In fact, no player wants to be franchised. That hasn't kept teams from using the franchise tag on them anyway.

Which players were franchised by their team and did NOT subsequently either play for that team or accept a trade?

By franchise/trade, I mean "franchise and then trade."

You cannot trade a franchised player unless he agrees. That is blatantly true. How can you?

 

[spacecrime]

I hope, I hope, I hope this works out.

I hope they intend to play him, or if a trade, that he goes along with this.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

I hope, I hope, I hope this works out.

I hope they intend to play him, or if a trade, that he goes along with this.

Is he disagrees to both, he becomes a holdout and his market value goes down quickly to where it could be at the start of free agency. I think even an idiot agent understands that.