Just a thought....

[patfanken]

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.

Thats right a bad player would sign the tender in a nano second

But I think we are beyond that now. Clearly you would have to institute certain caveates that would insure that only the best players would get "franchised"

 

[patfanken]

Some very good ideas are coming out here. Patchick, VPF, and TBG have offered some intriguing ideas.

Clearly you want to change the rule so that it is less painful to sign a franchised player. You also want to make sure that only the best players are being franchised. Like VPF mentioned many teams (including the Pats) have misused the franchise tag in order to impede potential FAs. On the other hand as TBG notes, you don't want to make it TOO easy, because the object of the Franchise Tag is ultimately to allow teams to keep their key players, at the same time not penalizing the player financially for staying.

So based on what I've heard here is my new proposal:

1. A team may franchise one player who has become a FA that season.
2. The original team will have the right of first refusal. No poison pills
3. A player who is franchised will receive a tender which guarantees him the average to the top 5 salaries of his position for that year, AND a second guaranteed year at the top 5 salaries next year, plus 15%. Thus when a player signs his tender he is GUARATEED 2 huge years. It should satisfy his "security needs" AND being just a 2 year contract, gives him a chance for another big pay day before he is too old.
4. A player can only be Franchised ONE time without his written permission.
5. If a team signs a franchised player they lose their first round pick in the next draft.
6. If a team loses a first round player they receive the sandwich 1st round picks after the 16th and 32nd picks in the first round. They have the option to use one of the picks the next year.

This way a team will think twice about Franchising a player because they have to guarantee 2 years, with both years having big cap hits.

The player is more likely to stay with his original team, or work out a longer term deal based on the 2 years GUARANTEED he knows he will get

Teams might be a bit more likely to go after a franchised player since all they will lose is one first round pick.

Does this sound more workable than the original proposal

 

[QuiGon]

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

But if a guy is mediocre enough that you are planning to cut him, then how the heck do you think you could ever get some other team to give you 2 1st rounders for the guy..?

 

[Ratoath]

But if a guy is mediocre enough that you are planning to cut him, then how the heck do you think you could ever get some other team to give you 2 1st rounders for the guy..?

cos that what is being suggested in the thread! the idea raised was that the team signing the player wouldnt have to give the two 1st round picks, it would be the league that gives them. at the moment, of course a team would not give up 2 1st rounders for a mediocre player, but according to the idea raised, a team would not lose their draft picks when signing a franchised player!

 

[QuiGon]

cos that what is being suggested in the thread! the idea raised was that the team signing the player wouldnt have to give the two 1st round picks, it would be the league that gives them. at the moment, of course a team would not give up 2 1st rounders for a mediocre player, but according to the idea raised, a team would not lose their draft picks when signing a franchised player!

I apologize, I misunderstood you. Yes, it's true, any mediocre 53rd player could be franchised (under this hypothetical new rule) and then you would pick up 2 first rounders if some other team stole him away - and that other team wouldn't lose the 1st rounders... still, I maintain such a move would be risky because if a guy was mediocre enough that you were planning to cut him, chances are he would jump at the chance to sign a franchise tender because it's more money than he would get elsewhere.

Anyway, it doesn't matter much none... we're arguing about what could hypothetically happen under a hypothetical plan that isn't even in place... I don't think either of our scenarios have any chance of coming to pass

 

[patchick]

So based on what I've heard here is my new proposal:

Interesting! I still think there's a lot of potential for abuse when the old team gets a lot more than the new team gives up (recipe for collusion?) But there's a lot good to chew on.

One side issue is how the "top 5 players at the position" are calculated. Right now it's extremely difficult to franchise certain positions (e.g. center) because they're grouped with higher-paid positions (e.g. left tackle).

 

[patsox23]

interesting stuff, and I hate to be "that guy," but there's just no way the "sandwich picks" would EVER go over if it interrupts the flow of the 32 teams. That's just so completely unfair to those teams that pick AFTER 16. It's a HUGE advantage (to the 1-16 teams), too huge, for anyone to swallow it. Maybe at the end of the 1st round, after everyone's had a pick, but before then it's COMPLETELY unrealistic.

Great thread, though.

 

[patchick]

interesting stuff, and I hate to be "that guy," but there's just no way the "sandwich picks" would EVER go over if it interrupts the flow of the 32 teams. That's just so completely unfair to those teams that pick AFTER 16.

Thanks for this, it made me realize that I misread that post the first time. I totally agree with you -- completely unfair for pick #16 to come 5 picks before #17.

Also, it sets up a situation where the signing team could lose, say, #33 while the original team gains #17 and #34 -- worth almost 3 times as much! This is a dangerous imbalance that could throw the whole franchise tag idea out of whack. Consider just this one scenario, for instance:

Two teams with low draft picks are looking at talented players heading toward free agency. Rather than simply inking long-term deals, they sign each others' franchise players, then trade the players for one another -- and walk away with a free first-round draft pick a piece.

 

[patfanken]

No, PC, that wouldn't happen. You can fix that quickly by applying some the the same criteria they do now with comp picks. You can easily put in language that would negate your scenerio. So if a team signs a franchise player and loses a franchise player, then there would be no draft pick comp.

Hey if it creates such I stink (and I don't think it would), just give the team that loses the player the sigining team's first rounder, and the 2nd pick would come after 32. I could live with that.

However the key element the new proposal IMHO is TBG's idea to add years to the franchise tender. He mentioned 4, but I think 2 would do the trick. The bottom line is that the Player will more likely accept the tag with multiple years guaranteed

 

[patchick]

No, PC, that wouldn't happen. You can fix that quickly by applying some the the same criteria they do now with comp picks. You can easily put in language that would negate your scenerio. So if a team signs a franchise player and loses a franchise player, then there would be no draft pick comp.

Absolutely, it was an intentionally extreme scenario. Just trying to illustrate my worries about a system where such valuable picks are up for grabs, maybe a little too freely.

However the key element the new proposal IMHO is TBG's idea to add years to the franchise tender. He mentioned 4, but I think 2 would do the trick. The bottom line is that the Player will more likely accept the tag with multiple years guaranteed

Here we agree. IMO, the main problem with the current system isn't the 2-pick compensation, it's that the 1-year franchise tender feels punitive in the current financial landscape. It was intended to assure that the franchisee isn't harmed, and it's no longer doing the job. A longer standard tender of some kind does seem to make sense.