Jump to content

Eliminating the franchise tag in the next CBA


Recommended Posts

I'm a huge advocate of taking away the franchise tag, but I don't see it happening. It's a way of controlling players, and the owners just aren't going to give up that control

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, King P said:

I'm a huge advocate of taking away the franchise tag, but I don't see it happening. It's a way of controlling players, and the owners just aren't going to give up that control

How about instead of having a franchise tag, every NFL team has the ability to automatically make (2) two of their players be designated as "Restricted Free Agents", so the team is allowed to match any offer and keep the player if matched?

It would still be a way of protecting players, but allow them to get other offers.  Get rid of the Franchise tag, and replace it with this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nycdan said:

I could see them compromising on limiting its use to one year only.  

I think so. Or make it much more punitive to use it twice, like it is for a 3rd season (e.g. year 2 is a 50% raise over the prior year). 

Or maybe reduce the frequency with which a team can use it (e.g. they can only use it once every 2 years instead of every year).

Also making it the average of the top 5 for the prior 5 seasons has a tremendous effect on making those numbers lower. Covid aside, the cap goes up by way too much every year to use any figures from half a decade prior. Never mind for a uniquely short-career (certainly short as starter) position like RB, which really should be immune from the tag outright for that reason. 

The Jets are benefitting from a safety tag number of ~$10.5MM for Maye. No-brainer to tag him at that level, but in truth the tag amount should be a good amount higher at about $14MM; enough where there isn't such a massive savings over a long-term deal to make the tag a no-brainer. 

The upcoming FA WRs are also going to get screwed over. Tagging an Allen Robinson - even tagging him twice, if he doesn't hold out - is an even bigger no-brainer/savings than the Jets get with Maye. He'd have no problem getting a $20MM/year contract in FA, and quite possibly it'd be closer to the $22-23MM/year range. Chicago can tag him for just under $16MM, or tag him back-to-back for $36MM (with no injury risk beyond the upcoming season). 

Right now it's way too lopsided. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do that, they should make players that a team drafts EXEMPT from the salary cap. 

i.e. - Jets draft a player, rookie deal is expiring, new deal is exempt from the cap. 

Teams shouldn't be punished for hitting on draft picks then not being able to afford them down the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its such a fn buzzkill and while I understand the tag in general is viewed as a win for the owners - to me each time a tag is used 31 teams are not happy about it and 1 is anywhere from content to happy. Take Joe Thuney as an example - yes tagging him was a win for the Patriots, but there were 10 teams that likely were hoping to sign Thuney and a team like the Jets that were ready to go all in on him if you believe the reports kind of get screwed at the last minute by an 11th hour tag. 

The other part of this is fans have become obsessed with offseason activity and things like free agency and the draft are more followed than ever before. Having more players in the pool will result in more engagement, particularly for fanbases like the Jets whose offseason provides a lot more hope than any regular season game...

If they want to keep the franchise tag it should be punitive. Look at Marcus Maye as an example, the Jets can tag him for $10.5mm, which is probably a discount to what he would sign in the open market. The whole purpose of the franchise tag was owners identifying cornerstone pieces they couldn't afford to lose (it started with John Elway). If thats the intent of the designation make it that. If you are a franchise player sign at a premium to the top 5 players. The Jets have had two years to extend Maye, why are they rewarded with a discounted deal? Its BS and takes fun away. Make it punitive so there are only 3-4 tags in any given year or just get rid of it altogether and make it like the NBA where a team that drafted a player can offer more money than other teams...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, King P said:

I'm a huge advocate of taking away the franchise tag, but I don't see it happening. It's a way of controlling players, and the owners just aren't going to give up that control

They shouldn’t give up control. They own the teams not the players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel awful for the players who work their asses off their whole lives to get that second NFL contract. One bad injury in a franchise tag year means you’re losing tens of millions of dollars. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PS17 said:

I feel awful for the players who work their asses off their whole lives to get that second NFL contract. One bad injury in a franchise tag year means you’re losing tens of millions of dollars. 

If I'm the NFLPA, I would tie in some form of insurance policy paid for by the owners to prevent that.

But again, NFLPA is the owner's beeyoootch.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, PS17 said:

I feel awful for the players who work their asses off their whole lives to get that second NFL contract. One bad injury in a franchise tag year means you’re losing tens of millions of dollars. 

Like the 5th year option, the Franchise tag should require a second year, at an increase, guaranteed for injury.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, New York Mick said:

They shouldn’t give up control. They own the teams not the players.

Whether they should or shouldn't is a whole different story. The point is they aren't 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, peebag said:

If I'm the NFLPA, I would tie in some form of insurance policy paid for by the owners to prevent that.

But again, NFLPA is the owner's beeyoootch.

And that will never change as long as the NFL is the only game in town. The players have no leverage.

That's why the XFL being built up into a legitimate league could actually be a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the way the salary cap is structured in every way. If the NFL want's the cap and obviously they do, they should try to put some discounts towards home grown players so teams can keep teams they built via the draft together. They should also try to do something with the QB position which is now getting to the point one player is close to or in some cases more than 1/4 of a teams entire cap allowance.

For a start, keeping in mind this is off the top of my head as I type this. Maybe players teams draft, organizations can get a 25% discount towards the cap and when signing the starting QB maybe half of his salary counts towards the cap. This could help both parties (players and teams)  when you think about it. It sucks that teams who draft good and build solid teams via the draft have to start trading off players or let them test FA basically dismantling the team they built. 

All FA's count 100 % toward  the cap (including QB's)

Starting QB's count 50% toward the cap (home grown)

All Drafted players count 75 % towards that teams cap

I'm sure there are ways to pick this apart but one thing I think would help instantly is the 50% QB discount. This will help teams be able to retain a few more players and keep QB's and high salaried players from constantly having to restructure to help teams sign Important players.

Biggest gripe I have is teams that build through the draft and draft well constantly get screwed. Keeping these  built teams together makes for better teams and the ones who draft well get rewarded. Those who don't draft well have to deal with the consequences. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

Well in about 10 years when the new CBA is up, we might find out.  

Hate to agree with a Raider fan, but the current deal is in place until 2030.  If they were going to do away with it, they would have.  Considering the influence covid may have on the league, I think they have plenty of other things to be concerned with and the whole deal might require blowing up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...