The Franchise Tag

[BeerBaron]

There is some question as to whether or not it will be back in the next CBA...I know teams love having it because they can basically ensure they will get a chance to keep their best players, or, at worst, get something in trade value for them. I mean, if the NBA had something like it, I guarantee you LeBron is either a Cav right now or he was traded out for a king's (pun, get it?) ransom in whatever they could take from a team.

But the players surely hate it. I mean, it's hard to feel bad for them knowing they get paid like a top 5 player at their position guaranteed for just one year...but there is no long term stability in that. If they get hurt badly in that year, they might never get the huge payday that would come with being an unrestricted free agent.

So I could see the tag being conceded by ownership in the CBA negotiations.

So what does everyone else think? Like the tag? Hate it? Think is should/will be kept?

Personally, I'd keep it but greatly restrict its use. For example, using it means you have to pay the player a guaranteed one year salary of what the highest paid player at his position made the previous year. And then you can only use it that one time...you can never franchise that player again.

Thoughts?

[Caddy]

I think keep it, but perhaps institute a rule where a player can only be tagged once by his team. I hate seeing a guy tagged repeatedly when he is deserving of some long term security.

[jrdrylie]

Well, there are rules, like the one where the team has to pay the player at least 120% of his previous year's salary is meant to keep teams from tagging a guy repeatedly. But I hate players who complain about it. It is a guaranteed contract. For most positions, that is around 12 million or more.

[jrdrylie]

Also, look what not having a Franchise Tag is doing to the NBA. Cleveland is so bad now. If this was the NFL, LeBron James would still be in Cleveland. The same thing will happen next year when Carmelo leaves Denver. I know losing one player from an NFL team (usually) won't kill a team, but I still like it when players stay with one team their entire career, which you almost never see in baseball or basketball.

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

Well, there are rules, like the one where the team has to pay the player at least 120% of his previous year's salary is meant to keep teams from tagging a guy repeatedly. But I hate players who complain about it. It is a guaranteed contract. For most positions, that is around 12 million or more.

The thing players don't like is yeah, they get that $12 million (or more) guaranteed, but for the best players, they could be in line for $30 or $40 million or more guaranteed when they sign put pen to paper on that new contract.

And like I said, there is no injury protection. Blow out a knee and the team that tagged you lets you drop the next offseason, then, if you're lucky, you might get a "prove it" deal where the team can cut you after one year with no more money guaranteed if you don't bounce back.

[ElectricEye]

How about simply being able to designate one player to not count against the cap? Or at least not as much. I bet there's a whole host of issues with that, but it sounds pretty good in principal.

[bullg8rdaddy]

Doesn't the NBA have a thing where they can go over the cap to sign their own players if they have been with the team a certain amount of years?

[Nalej]

Bird years...

[wogitalia]

I like the system but I'm kind of old school and like loyalty.

I think the thing missed is that teams generally don't like to use the tag if they can avoid it, they want to get a deal done and generally a player who doesn't want to be franchised is a player who wants to leave, I'd actually be very interested to see how many teams have franchised a player and then had a good season the next year? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

It seems that most players these days are negotiating one year only franchise tags anyway.

I would actually like to see an arbitration system for the Franchise picks, perhaps the other teams in the NFL all bid a draft pick offer and the average is used to set the value with the team that franchises the player always having an option to match any contract that is then offered. Would mean that the franchise tag only requires adequate compensation for a player to leave instead of the exorbitant requirements right now but still keeps in essence the idea that a player will stay with the same franchise.

[wogitalia]

Doesn't the NBA have a thing where they can go over the cap to sign their own players if they have been with the team a certain amount of years?

It's Larry Bird Years, as mentioned above, and it is one of the worst systems ever. Basically it allows poorly managed teams to destroy themselves for extended periods. The NBA's soft cap is one the biggest problems the whole league has and is a major reason why it has fallen so far from it's heyday as teams like the Knicks have been horrible for years because they are able to constantly dig a deeper hole.

The NBA CBA negotiations are actually going to be far more interesting than the NFL for mine, the league is in a much worse position and the last few negotiations have just been a starter to some real changes, the first couple of CBA's the players bent the owners over and had their way with them and now the owners have finally realised they are getting raped in the deal and are digging in, helps that a lot of them are losing a lot of money. Honestly, if the NBA doesn't get this CBA right for once that league is going to have a very hard time surviving. They've done everything to take any personality or emotion out of the sport with the idea of letting the product do the talking, the problem is that anyone who has been watching for more than 15 years knows that the current product is VASTLY inferior to past products, so basically they are charging a lot more for an inferior product with no emotion and they seem confused why no one cares about the NBA anymore...

[vidae]

I'm not a fan of the tag itself and I'm scared that we'll tag Tamba this offseason and he'll walk as soon as possible because of it. A lot of players see the tag as an insult which is a shame.

[GB12]

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

Also, look what not having a Franchise Tag is doing to the NBA. Cleveland is so bad now. If this was the NFL, LeBron James would still be in Cleveland. The same thing will happen next year when Carmelo leaves Denver. I know losing one player from an NFL team (usually) won't kill a team, but I still like it when players stay with one team their entire career, which you almost never see in baseball or basketball.

That wouldn't have kept James in Cleveland or Anthony in Denver. For one year maybe, but then they'd just leave after that. Or if they're repeatedly tagged they'd get pissed and demand a trade.

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by GB12

That wouldn't have kept James in Cleveland or Anthony in Denver. For one year maybe, but then they'd just leave after that. Or if they're repeatedly tagged they'd get pissed and demand a trade.

But either way, the Cavs wouldn't just be left with nothing. They could tag him and probably trade him to Miami for say, Michael Beasley and a decades worth of draft picks. At least it would be something to try and rebuild with. As of now, they lost their best player and got nothing in return.

I think that's why there will still be some way in the NFL for a team to keep a star player whose contract has expired, even if it's not the same old Franchise Tag we all know.

Like I said above, I'd like to see it kept but restricted. Can only use it on a player once, and that player gets paid as much as the highest paid player at his position the previous year.

I'd also try and work in some way to make it beneficial to sign the player long term after he's franchised. Some players just wouldn't accept it...hold out until the season starts, play that last year, and then jump in free agency the following year. But it would at least give teams a shot to resign him long term knowing that if they don't, they will lose him for sure.

[ElectricEye]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

I'd also try and work in some way to make it beneficial to sign the player long term after he's franchised. Some players just wouldn't accept it...hold out until the season starts, play that last year, and then jump in free agency the following year. But it would at least give teams a shot to resign him long term knowing that if they don't, they will lose him for sure.

Some kind of extra signing bonus that doesn't count against the cap would be good.

[GB12]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

But either way, the Cavs wouldn't just be left with nothing. They could tag him and probably trade him to Miami for say, Michael Beasley and a decades worth of draft picks. At least it would be something to try and rebuild with. As of now, they lost their best player and got nothing in return.

They should have traded him last year if that's what they wanted.

[Raiderz4Life]

Originally Posted by GB12

They should have traded him last year if that's what they wanted.

How were they supposed to know he'd ditch em? I'm sure if he had told em they he wasn't coming back they would have done something about it. Most analysts and experts had him coming back as the most likely scenario. Like BB said...they could have tagged him and worked out a deal that wouldn't have left them with nothing.

[GB12]

It's no different. They could have done the same thing with or without the franchise tag. The only difference is without one it has to happen a year sooner.

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by GB12

It's no different. They could have done the same thing with or without the franchise tag. The only difference is without one it has to happen a year sooner.

Bull. iirc, Lebron didn't let them know his plan, and then they did offer him more money than any other team could offer. He not only ditched them, but didn't let them know he was ditching them, likely with the intent to make sure he got out scot free to the destination of his choice.

With something like a tag in place, he would have been forced to reveal his plan. Then they tag and trade for something.

The NBA has a major, major problem where the players have waaaaaaay too much power. Completely guaranteed contracts basically make teams powerless to punish them in any real way if they start to slack off, or, in situations like this, leave teams high and dry.

I think the NFL will work to avoid anything like this ever happening with one of their star players. Even if they have to concede the tag in it's current form, I think something will be in place to allow teams the opportunity to resign or trade their star players, rather than getting nothing.

[GB12]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

Bull. iirc, Lebron didn't let them know his plan, and then they did offer him more money than any other team could offer. He not only ditched them, but didn't let them know he was ditching them, likely with the intent to make sure he got out scot free to the destination of his choice.

With something like a tag in place, he would have been forced to reveal his plan. Then they tag and trade for something.

A tag doesn't force him to let them know any more. Either way they have to reach an extension or he leaves/is traded. A tag just gives them another year to do that.

[shane_man]

Originally Posted by GB12

A tag doesn't force him to let them know any more. Either way they have to reach an extension or he leaves/is traded. A tag just gives them another year to do that.

Or during the "tagged" year trade him for something(which is better then the nothing they got)... Cleveland were given no warning of LeBron's intentions. How were they supposed to expect the guy to be an ass and look at the contract and leave anyway? They bent over backwards to accomodate him and he ****** them over anyway. If a tag were in place. LeBron's intentions would have shone through giving the Cavs a year to find some trade partner and get some worth out of the mercenary instead of the BS way that it was handled.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by wogitalia

I like the system but I'm kind of old school and like loyalty.

I think the thing missed is that teams generally don't like to use the tag if they can avoid it, they want to get a deal done and generally a player who doesn't want to be franchised is a player who wants to leave, I'd actually be very interested to see how many teams have franchised a player and then had a good season the next year? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

It seems that most players these days are negotiating one year only franchise tags anyway.

I would actually like to see an arbitration system for the Franchise picks, perhaps the other teams in the NFL all bid a draft pick offer and the average is used to set the value with the team that franchises the player always having an option to match any contract that is then offered. Would mean that the franchise tag only requires adequate compensation for a player to leave instead of the exorbitant requirements right now but still keeps in essence the idea that a player will stay with the same franchise.

Edgerrin James and Julius Peppers come to mind.

[WinslowBodden]

It's an odd system but I like it, prevents teams from losing key players and not getting anything for them.

If only the NBA had it lol.

[wogitalia]

I think it would actually work better in the NBA where one player makes far more difference and low end draft picks are worth far less. I actually think that teams would sign franchised players anyway, any team would have given up a couple of firsts for LeBron(hell Miami essentially did, just not to Cleveland).

The fact that we are arguing over the franchise tag just goes to show how much better a state the NFL CBA is in than the NBA where it is an absolute mess!