Franchise Tag

[EveryoneElse]

Who besides myself thinks the "Franchise Tag" needs to be done away with? To me it's an unfair tactic. If you can't sign a player to a long term deal, or aren't willing to do so.....let him go to a team that is willing.

Maybe it's just me.

Anyone have an opinion on this?

[Champsheart]

Who besides myself thinks the "Franchise Tag" needs to be done away with? To me it's an unfair tactic. If you can't sign a player to a long term deal, or aren't willing to do so.....let him go to a team that is willing.

Maybe it's just me.

Anyone have an opinion on this?

I guess I can see both sides.
But, I like the Franschise Tag and think it is good for the league. Teams should have the ability, and some protection to keep their star players.

It is not always about money. A team may have drafted a Stud Player, and developed him, but he just wants to go somewhere else no matter what you are willing to pay him.
At least this gives the team some protection.

To me the other alternative would be the team could be allowed to pay you more than any other team, but then we get into all kinds of other things that would change the salary cap.

I see the other side to though. Especially when all other Free-Agents have the right to go anywhere they want to, so why should there be a few exceptions.

I guess I think teams should have some kind of protection they can utilize.

[SuspectCorner]

i like the "franchise player" tag. it allows teams a certain amount of latitude regarding star players they have developed. it allows them to put off ONE tuff decision per season. it ain't free to them either. it costs them bank.

[Nerm]

I'm ok with using the franchise tag to keep players. It allows teams to keep their best guys, the ones that their fans go out and cheer for. It helps teams keep their core players to build around. I'm not a big fan of free agency or the massive turnover on nfl teams each year. The tag helps limit that.

However, I don't like the tag and then trade aspect. I don't think a team should be able to trade a player it has tagged within 12 months of putting the tag on them. That wasn't what the tag was meant for and it does nothing for keeping core guys with the team.

[JackMagist]

A franchise player often ends up costing more under the salary cap than if the team gave a big bonus and a long term contract. But it allow the team some latitude when a "star" player is trying to hold a gun to their head for more money or a longer term contract (or whatever) than the team feels that the player deserves or they can afford. This year it looks like a really bad idea but that is only because other teams keep franchising player we are hopeful of signing.
:banghead:

[Alexander]

i like the "franchise player" tag. it allows teams a certain amount of latitude regarding star players they have developed. it allows them to put off ONE tuff decision per season. it ain't free to them either. it costs them bank.
It is a concession. And it keeps balance.

Otherwise everyone would be a Redskin (but they still would not win anything).