Franchise Tags not applicable?

[Scott Dierking]

he NFL Players Association has sent a memo to all certified agents disputing the league's contention that the franchise tag will be available for use as normal over the next few weeks.

"The current CBA provides that 'each club shall be permitted to designate one of its players who would otherwise be an Unrestricted Free Agent [or RFA] as a Franchise Player each season during the term of this Agreement,'" said the memo. "The 2011 season is not a 'season during the term of this Agreement' so the NFL has no valid basis for claiming the right to franchise players in 2011." The NFLPA seems to have a legit complaint here, but the league is sure to have a rejoinder.

Source: Pro Football Talk on NBCSports.com

[jason423]

I think the issue is that as the CBA is written there is a designation period which takes place during the prior league year, meaning during the term of the agreement. The actual tag itself does not go into effect until the player signs the tender during the following league year. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference. If the union is that anti-tag, then simply negotiate it out of the new CBA. If there is no tag then the designation is worthless. If the union plans on keeping the tags in place then Im not sure why they are wasting the time fighting it.

[Sperm Edwards]

I think the issue is that as the CBA is written there is a designation period which takes place during the prior league year, meaning during the term of the agreement. The actual tag itself does not go into effect until the player signs the tender during the following league year. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference. If the union is that anti-tag, then simply negotiate it out of the new CBA. If there is no tag then the designation is worthless. If the union plans on keeping the tags in place then Im not sure why they are wasting the time fighting it.

Yeah I remember hearing much more about it as a bone of contention in prior CBA negotiations. I think given the amounts that guys get tagged for nowadays it's only an issue on paper. In reality if a guy gets $8M guaranteed to play one year, and then is granted full free agency again (unless the following year he's given $10M guaranteed, after which he's a free agent again), it's much less of an issue compared to when guys would get tagged for 1/4 of that or less.

The only problem I'd have with that, from the union's point of view, would be for tailbacks. Their careers are generally so much shorter, or more to the point, the best of the best remain such for such a short span of time that a long-term deal is rarely a better investment than back-to-back franchise tagging. At the end of 1 or 2 years of getting that tag, a RB's window of a megadeal has often closed already (if their career hasn't been cut short outright due to injury).