Has there been a player who sits some games due to the franchise tag?

[rafaelgreco]

Has there been a player who sits some games because they don't agree with the franchise tag_

 

[WoodysGirl]

Joey Galloway when he was with Seattle..

I'm sure there are others.

 

[rafaelgreco]

Joey Galloway when he was with Seattle..

I'm sure there are others.

Thanks WG

 

[DMX690]

Walter Jones

 

[windward]

Vincent Jackson IIRC.

 

[Nightman]

Thanks WG

Galloway was still on his rookie deal when he held out in 1999. They threatened to tag him in 2000 but Dallas traded 2 firsts for him.

That is exactly what Dez should have done. Hold out last year when he was making 2m+ and report by Week 10 to get the year of service time. He had a lot more leverage and would probably have a long term deal right now.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Vincent Jackson IIRC.

Jackson was a little different because he held out under the restricted free agent tender, around 3.5 million, which was reduced to around $500,000 in mid-June due to the RFA rules. He was looking for a contract around $50 million with 30 million guaranteed. He signed the $11+ million franchise tag in 2011 and reported on time, then the Chargers declined to franchise him in 2012.

 

[JDSmith]

And don't forget they changed the rules for the franchise tag in 2011. So anyone holding out prior to that might not be a valid example. Previously you could negotiate after July 15. Now they can only sign a 1 year deal after July 15, so holding out for games will only cost a player money and can't benefit him with a long term contract. Under the prior agreement holding out for games could result in a long term deal being signed.

Now there is absolutely no reason to hold out and miss a game, it's fruitless and expensive. Which is why it's an empty threat.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Walter Jones

Weren't the Franchise rules different back in the early 2000's though? I thought that you could negotiate all season long, even after signing the franchise offer.

Edit: Just saw that JDSmith confirmed, thank you!

 

[JDSmith]

Saw on one site that the rules used to be kind of the opposite. You could negotiate to a certain point, then not negotiate until AFTER July 15, at which point you could resume negotiations. Now you have until July 15 to get it done. But on that site it did say that you could actually continue to negotiate after July 15, but that the deal could not be longer than a year. So say a kicker got franchised, which would only pay like 2.9 million, he could hold out and still negotiate for a 1 year deal that was market value - which is higher than the franchise tag for kickers. But honestly I can't see any other position doing that because the franchise tag pays well relative to a 1 year deal anyway. Although it could maybe get bumped by incentives - which of course would be harder to reach if you missed games holding out.

 

[conner01]

I can't think of a player who has held out under the present tag rules
The rules were made to prevent that from happening
Before you didn't have the deadline, now you do
No player I can think of had held out when he couldn't still get paid
If dez holds out he can't get that money back this season
I guess if he signed a long term deal next year you could add it back but a long term deal next year is a much harder thing to get done than this year because he will be a year older at the end

 

[xwalker]

And don't forget they changed the rules for the franchise tag in 2011. So anyone holding out prior to that might not be a valid example. Previously you could negotiate after July 15. Now they can only sign a 1 year deal after July 15, so holding out for games will only cost a player money and can't benefit him with a long term contract. Under the prior agreement holding out for games could result in a long term deal being signed.

Now there is absolutely no reason to hold out and miss a game, it's fruitless and expensive. Which is why it's an empty threat.

I think a player might have threatened to hold out, but the team agreed to not franchise him a 2nd time which got him to sign the franchise tag and report. I can't remember who the player was.

 

[Nation]

Joey Galloway when he was with Seattle..

I'm sure there are others.

Galloway held out and missed games in Year 5 of his 5 year rookie deal, he wasn't on a franchise tag at the time

 

[Picksix]

And don't forget they changed the rules for the franchise tag in 2011. So anyone holding out prior to that might not be a valid example. Previously you could negotiate after July 15. Now they can only sign a 1 year deal after July 15, so holding out for games will only cost a player money and can't benefit him with a long term contract. Under the prior agreement holding out for games could result in a long term deal being signed.

Now there is absolutely no reason to hold out and miss a game, it's fruitless and expensive. Which is why it's an empty threat.

Mankins held out the same year Jackson did, and returned in October. But like you said, the rules were different. The way the rules are set up now puts tremendous pressure on both sides. Sure, the pressure right now might be more on the Cowboys, but there is also a lot of pressure on Dez, mostly of his own doing. With these threats to hold out and miss games, he's almost backed himself into a corner. If a deal isn't reached, he's stuck with the franchise deal for this year, no matter what. He can't get more. If he misses games, he loses that money, and doesn't make up for it, at least not until next year. He could theoretically miss a couple games (which I think would kill him inside), come back, have a great rest of the season, and big a major factor in any success the team has. Thus, he could likely command even more money next year in a long term deal (assuming the tag isn't placed on him again). But that is an awfully long way away, and so many things can happen. Yes, Flacco bet on himself for a year and was able to parlay a great playoff/SB run into a monster deal. Could that happen for Dez? What if he doesn't play like a beast, but merely has a "good" year? What if he gets hurt? What if the Cowboys win every game he misses? What if he has some real off-the-field issues while he is holding out? Remember, the Cowboys will face a lot of heat, but there would be nothing they could do. Returning would be all on Dez, and so the focus and frustration will turn to him as well.

One other thing. Dez is threatening to miss games. If no deal is reached, he puts himself in the precarious position of either missing time (which he doesn't want) or going back on his word (which will make him look weak, and possibly affect him and other players in future negotiations). After tomorrow, it all goes on him.

For what it's worth, I'm still in the "deadlines make deals" camp, and think something will happen by 3 PM (Dallas time) tomorrow.

 

[Nation]

Galloway was still on his rookie deal when he held out in 1999. They threatened to tag him in 2000 but Dallas traded 2 firsts for him.

That is exactly what Dez should have done. Hold out last year when he was making 2m+ and report by Week 10 to get the year of service time. He had a lot more leverage and would probably have a long term deal right now.

He'd have been fined $70,000 for missing minicamp and $30,000 per day that he missed of training camp. If he had reported on September 1st last year he'd have been fined 1,450,000 which has you close to playing for free.

 

[Nation]

Mankins held out the same year Jackson did, and returned in October. But like you said, the rules were different. The way the rules are set up now puts tremendous pressure on both sides. Sure, the pressure right now might be more on the Cowboys, but there is also a lot of pressure on Dez, mostly of his own doing. With these threats to hold out and miss games, he's almost backed himself into a corner. If a deal isn't reached, he's stuck with the franchise deal for this year, no matter what. He can't get more. If he misses games, he loses that money, and doesn't make up for it, at least not until next year. He could theoretically miss a couple games (which I think would kill him inside), come back, have a great rest of the season, and big a major factor in any success the team has. Thus, he could likely command even more money next year in a long term deal (assuming the tag isn't placed on him again). But that is an awfully long way away, and so many things can happen. Yes, Flacco bet on himself for a year and was able to parlay a great playoff/SB run into a monster deal. Could that happen for Dez? What if he doesn't play like a beast, but merely has a "good" year? What if he gets hurt? What if the Cowboys win every game he misses? What if he has some real off-the-field issues while he is holding out? Remember, the Cowboys will face a lot of heat, but there would be nothing they could do. Returning would be all on Dez, and so the focus and frustration will turn to him as well.

One other thing. Dez is threatening to miss games. If no deal is reached, he puts himself in the precarious position of either missing time (which he doesn't want) or going back on his word (which will make him look weak, and possibly affect him and other players in future negotiations). After tomorrow, it all goes on him.

For what it's worth, I'm still in the "deadlines make deals" camp, and think something will happen by 3 PM (Dallas time) tomorrow.

Mankins and VJax were both on unnatural Restricted Free Agent tags from the uncapped year, so they only made $1.54 million in 2010 when each did that holdout. Both were franchise tagged in 2011 and both signed the tag for the start of camp, with Mankins getting a new contract a couple weeks later and Jackson going to 2012 free agency.

 

[Picksix]

Mankins and VJax were both on unnatural Restricted Free Agent tags from the uncapped year, so they only made $1.54 million in 2010 when each did that holdout. Both were franchise tagged in 2011 and both signed the tag for the start of camp, with Mankins getting a new contract a couple weeks later and Jackson going to 2012 free agency.

Thanks for the info. I knew their situations were different, but couldn't remember why.

 

[Nightman]

He'd have been fined $70,000 for missing minicamp and $30,000 per day that he missed of training camp. If he had reported on September 1st last year he'd have been fined 1,450,000 which has you close to playing for free.

He wouldn't have to miss camp since he was under contract.

But if he held out for 8 games it would only be around 800k total or the same as skipping one game this year.

Plus he could get a new deal as a way to end the holdout. Now he can't.

 

[DCBoysfan]

I think a player might have threatened to hold out, but the team agreed to not franchise him a 2nd time which got him to sign the franchise tag and report. I can't remember who the player was.

Could have been D. Revis

 

[guag]

And don't forget they changed the rules for the franchise tag in 2011. So anyone holding out prior to that might not be a valid example. Previously you could negotiate after July 15. Now they can only sign a 1 year deal after July 15, so holding out for games will only cost a player money and can't benefit him with a long term contract. Under the prior agreement holding out for games could result in a long term deal being signed.

Now there is absolutely no reason to hold out and miss a game, it's fruitless and expensive. Which is why it's an empty threat.

Does anyone remember why they imposed this July 15th deadline for signing an extension while tagged? Was this put in place for the team's benefit so that they wouldn't have to worry about distractions about players threatening to hold out? Would be kind of ironic if this was the case.

Edit: actually, I must have missed this post, which basically answers my question:

I can't think of a player who has held out under the present tag rules
The rules were made to prevent that from happening
Before you didn't have the deadline, now you do
No player I can think of had held out when he couldn't still get paid
If dez holds out he can't get that money back this season
I guess if he signed a long term deal next year you could add it back but a long term deal next year is a much harder thing to get done than this year because he will be a year older at the end