Thoughts on the franchise tag?

[psubills62]

It seems the franchise tag is one of the few remaining issues for the CBA negotiations.

What are your thoughts on it? Do you think it's a good thing and we should keep it around or do you not like it?

Right now, I'm barely leaning towards disliking it and wanting it gone. As a Bills fan, the only time the franchise tag seems to come into play is when other teams prevent guys we want from getting to free agency. We're a bad team, so we seem to rarely need to use it.

In general, I think the franchise tag is used more to keep good teams good, and doesn't really help bad teams keep one particular player, from what I've seen.

I've been siding with the owners on most of the issues, but on this I think I'd rather see teams work harder to sign guys to extensions or new contracts instead of just falling back on the tag.

[SquishDaFish]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

I'm on the fence on this one.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

My thoughts are that they should use the Franchise tag.

[BLeonard]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

IMO, the Franchise Tag is one of the few ways a team can actually keep a player. I also think that players now have way too much power on how, when and where they'll play. Also, it's not like they can use the Franchise Tag on 10 players... They only get one and, last time I checked, no single player has ever won a game by himself.

What happens a few years down the road, if the tag is gone and Dareus is eligible for Free Agency? The Bills would then have to compete with the Washingtons, Dallases and New Englands of the League... Just doesn't seem right to me that players have ALL the power... Then again, I'm old enough to remember when teams would stay together for long periods of time.

In most cases, the Franchise Tag is used to extend the negotiation period between team and player and, in most cases, an agreement is reached.

Also, I don't see how it prevents the Bills from getting a player. For example, the Colts have tagged Peyton Manning... Even if he wasn't tagged, do you really think the Bills have a shot at him?

Again, IMO, eliminating the tag would simply give players even more power than they already have. The next thing the players will try to eliminate is the Draft if it continues in this trend.

-Bill

[psubills62]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

IMO, the Franchise Tag is one of the few ways a team can actually keep a player. I also think that players now have way too much power on how, when and where they'll play. Also, it's not like they can use the Franchise Tag on 10 players... They only get one and, last time I checked, no single player has ever won a game by himself.

What happens a few years down the road, if the tag is gone and Dareus is eligible for Free Agency? The Bills would then have to compete with the Washingtons, Dallases and New Englands of the League... Just doesn't seem right to me that players have ALL the power... Then again, I'm old enough to remember when teams would stay together for long periods of time.

In most cases, the Franchise Tag is used to extend the negotiation period between team and player and, in most cases, an agreement is reached.

Also, I don't see how it prevents the Bills from getting a player. For example, the Colts have tagged Peyton Manning... Even if he wasn't tagged, do you really think the Bills have a shot at him?

Again, IMO, eliminating the tag would simply give players even more power than they already have. The next thing the players will try to eliminate is the Draft if it continues in this trend.

-Bill

You're right, it is only one. But if Dareus was approaching FA and he was worth the tag, I'd hope that the Bills would have locked him up to a contract extension before he gets to free agency.

No, I don't expect to get Peyton Manning, but adding those star players to the free agency pool means other, generally average players are less likely to get outrageously overpriced (ahem, TJ Houshmandzadeh). The second tier will be that much better and possibly more willing to go somewhere like Buffalo if they know they aren't the cream of the crop.

If a team wants to keep a guy, I think they should simply sign him to an extension, especially if they're willing to pay him top 5 money for his position.

[BLeonard]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

You're right, it is only one. But if Dareus was approaching FA and he was worth the tag, I'd hope that the Bills would have locked him up to a contract extension before he gets to free agency.

Then, you have a situation where a guy has one good year and sits out because he wants to renegotiate his deal... Remember Jason Peters?

No, I don't expect to get Peyton Manning, but adding those star players to the free agency pool means other, generally average players are less likely to get outrageously overpriced (ahem, TJ Houshmandzadeh). The second tier will be that much better and possibly more willing to go somewhere like Buffalo if they know they aren't the cream of the crop.

If a team is in need, the money's gonna come from somewhere... I don't think having Peyton Manning in the FA market makes the #2 QB on the market settle for less than what he would if Manning weren't available.

If a team wants to keep a guy, I think they should simply sign him to an extension, especially if they're willing to pay him top 5 money for his position.

The thing is, like I said before, the tag is more often used as a way to extend negotiations with the player. The player could always sign the deal and get paid the average of the top 5 at the position, but how often does that happen?

Like I said before, I think it's one of the very few tools teams have left to get players to stay, or to at least to get them to negotiate some.

Any good system needs checks and balances and, at least in my opinion, the players have many more ways to get to Free Agency than teams have of keeping their players. Taking the tag away gives the team no real way to keep the player, with the exception of being the highest bidder.

-Bill

[psubills62]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

Then, you have a situation where a guy has one good year and sits out because he wants to renegotiate his deal... Remember Jason Peters?

I don't consider Jason Peters to be typical. And I'm assuming that the Bills would lock Dareus (or whoever performed at a high level) up for good money. I think that's the exception and not the rule.

If a team is in need, the money's gonna come from somewhere... I don't think having Peyton Manning in the FA market makes the #2 QB on the market settle for less.than what he would if Manning weren't available.

They may not, but it's a pretty simple principle of increasing supply to meet demand. Also, if Manning signed for X amount per year, then that sets some parameters for what the other QB's will get paid. Will they still get overpaid? Probably, but not nearly as much as if Manning weren't on the market.

The thing is, like I said before, the tag is more often used as a way to extend negotiations with the player. The player could always sign the deal and get paid the average of the top 5 at the position, but how often does that happen?

Like I said before, I think it's one of the very few tools teams have left to get players to stay, or to at least to get them to negotiate some.

Any good system needs checks and balances and, at least in my opinion, the players have many more ways to get to Free Agency than teams have of keeping their players. Taking the tag away gives the team no real way to keep the player, with the exception of being the highest bidder.

-Bill

It is sometimes used to extend negotiations, but not always. Even when teams do negotiate, the player often ends up playing the year under the franchise contract, not an extension.

Teams often have years to negotiate contracts. They seem to be able to put the work into it when they want to.

Not sure I'd mind the franchise tag, I just think that removing it would help with team equality. And it's not always about getting players. I would like to see Logan Mankins leave the Patriots, but thanks to the tag, I doubt that will happen.

[BLeonard]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

If they would set rules stating that a player couldn't hold out for a new contract, with more than a year left on the current deal, there'd be less needd for the tag, IMO.

Again, I just feel the players get so many advantages in today's NFL that eliminating the tag would be just another break given to the players, as opposed to the teams. I don't want a Miami Heat situation, where everyone decides who they play for. The teams, at least in my opinion, need more power in the situation. The tag is one of the last things teams have in their corner.

-Bill

[justasportsfan]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

I'm okay with it. Teams should have the options of keeping their players who they have drafted and developed especially when they were the ones who devloped players like Jason Peters.

[Extremebillsfan247]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

It seems the franchise tag is one of the few remaining issues for the CBA negotiations.

What are your thoughts on it? Do you think it's a good thing and we should keep it around or do you not like it?

Right now, I'm barely leaning towards disliking it and wanting it gone. As a Bills fan, the only time the franchise tag seems to come into play is when other teams prevent guys we want from getting to free agency. We're a bad team, so we seem to rarely need to use it.

In general, I think the franchise tag is used more to keep good teams good, and doesn't really help bad teams keep one particular player, from what I've seen.

I've been siding with the owners on most of the issues, but on this I think I'd rather see teams work harder to sign guys to extensions or new contracts instead of just falling back on the tag.

Well, there is another way of looking at that. This team wont always be a bad one. At some point things will improve. The real question is whether you want to be the team that stands to lose its good players when they matter or not. No matter how good your front office is at signing players, your not likely to get everyone you deem important to the stability of the franchise under contract in time before that Player's contract is expired.

On a personal note, I don't think they should do away with the franchise tag, just redefine what it means to be franchised. In my opinion, you should be able to franchise your best player right from the get go. That gives you first chance to resign that player should negotiations not be completed before the expiration of that players contract. The current setup is one I don't really care for but see how it is somewhat necessary.

[Ebenezer]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

It's one player. If the players union can't conceed that then small market teams won't ever have a chance.

[X-Era]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

On the the fence.

Teams that have franchise caliber players ought to be able to keep them. But players should be held hostage by teams either.

The dumb part is that if you can afford to pay top 5 pay for one year you ought to be able to make a deal long term.

I think I like the one year limit for any player.

[X-Era]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

It's one player. If the players union can't conceed that then small market teams won't ever have a chance.

The days of the "small market" issue are about over... in literally days. It will no longer be that big money teams can sign players and small market teams can't. The raised cap floor kills cash to cap (for league purposes) and forces everyone to pay about the same in total salaries across the league.

The only remaining issue would be teams pro-rating SB's or going the guaranteed money route. Not sure players would prefer one over the other.

[Extremebillsfan247]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

The days of the "small market" issue are about over... in literally days. It will no longer be that big money teams can sign players and small market teams can't. The raised cap floor kills cash to cap (for league purposes) and forces everyone to pay about the same in total salaries across the league.

The only remaining issue would be teams pro-rating SB's or going the guaranteed money route. Not sure players would prefer one over the other.

Now it should come down to how well managed your front office is. JMO

[X-Era]

Re: Thoughts on the franchise tag?

Now it should come down to how well managed your front office is. JMO

And I think it will.

I think the Bills will be more frugal with pro-rating SB's and may favor guaranteed money contracts instead. I'm not sure how much it will matter as far as being attractive to players... I would think 8 mill per is 8 mill per.