Is a team wrong to use the Franchise Tag?

[Reid1boys]

The union and the owners both agreed to terms on a franchise tag, when it can be used, and the amount a player is to be paid if the tag is used. The players and owners agreed, that taking the top 5 salaries at a position averaged out is fair for ALL players. This tag protects the players from a ridiculously low offer from a team and protects team from unreasonable demands from a player.

The most important part f this, is that both PLAYERS and owners agreed to this process.

So why is it that if a team uses the tag on a player that they are deemed as evil? In any union, the contract is simply the rules that both sides my pay by... so what is the problem here?

Why do so many of you view the owners as mistreating a player in someway if they use the tag?

 

[Bobhaze]

I don‘t think it’s wrong for the owners to occasionally use the Franchise tag. I do think there are two potential problems with using it though:

1. It actually has a bigger cap impact than a 3-5 year contract which can allow the team the flexibility to defer payments and create a smaller cap impact in a given year.
2. Tagging a player can also occasionally sour the relationship between the team, agent and player. Doesn’t have to and it certainly doesn’t happen 100% of the time. Dak was tagged in 2020 and the team and player obviously worked out a deal in 2021. There are examples where it has worked and didnt over the years.

 

[Chasing6]

The union and the owners both agreed to terms on a franchise tag, when it can be used, and the amount a player is to be paid if the tag is used. The players and owners agreed, that taking the top 5 salaries at a position averaged out is fair for ALL players. This tag protects the players from a ridiculously low offer from a team and protects team from unreasonable demands from a player.

The most important part f this, is that both PLAYERS and owners agreed to this process.

So why is it that if a team uses the tag on a player that they are deemed as evil? In any union, the contract is simply the rules that both sides my pay by... so what is the problem here?

Why do so many of you view the owners as mistreating a player in someway if they use the tag?

The tag is perfect for a player that wants to be the highest paid. That is why GM Jethro has all the leverage.

Paying average of the top 5 is way better than paying the highest paid.

Jerry was correct in stating he has no urgency to sign CD. CD has all the urgency, especially with an injury risk.

 

[OGSixshooter]

Shannon Sharpe described the franchise tag as "the team is betting against (the player)". That's how players view it when the team franchises them. It's basically saying, "No one else can date you, but I won't marry you either." What woman is going be happy in that limbo? And even if you do eventually get together...she will always remember that you had doubts...or may still have them.

It poisons the well...the only time it doesn't is if there is an obvious injury concern or extenuating circumstance. For example, where we have 3 players at the top of the market all hitting free agency, it would be smart business and completely understandable for the Cowboys to franchise either Micah/Dak/CeeDee. Problem is, we can't franchise Dak anymore and CeeDee is not the player who you want to beef with. And that's how either he or Micah will perceive. That has a chance to backfire in the locker room.

 

[zrinkill]

No ...... nothing wrong with that ........ its what the owners use just like players use holding out.

Just do not get mad at one and not the other.

Its just business

 

[big dog cowboy]

Is it wrong? No. Is it stupid? Yes.

No better example than Dak.

 

[shabazz]

1. Tagging a player can also occasionally sour the relationship between the team, agent and player. .

Why doesn't this come up as an issue when a player still has time on his contract and chooses to sit out and force a new one?

It works both ways........but don't tell fans or the media that.

 

[Chasing6]

Shannon Sharpe described the franchise tag as "the team is betting against (the player)". That's how players view it when the team franchises them. It's basically saying, "No one else can date you, but I won't marry you either." What woman is going be happy in that limbo? And even if you do eventually get together...she will always remember that you had doubts...or may still have them.

It poisons the well...the only time it doesn't is if there is an obvious injury concern or extenuating circumstance. For example, where we have 3 players at the top of the market all hitting free agency, it would be smart business and completely understandable for the Cowboys to franchise either Micah/Dak/CeeDee. Problem is, we can't franchise Dak anymore and CeeDee is not the player who you want to beef with. And that's how either he or Micah will perceive. That has a chance to backfire in the locker room.

So what. Dumb analogy.

A player not wanting to sign long term deal means what exactly? Does that sound like marriage to you.

NFL players are rentals. Some short term and some long term. That is all it is.

 

[gimmesix]

The union and the owners both agreed to terms on a franchise tag, when it can be used, and the amount a player is to be paid if the tag is used. The players and owners agreed, that taking the top 5 salaries at a position averaged out is fair for ALL players. This tag protects the players from a ridiculously low offer from a team and protects team from unreasonable demands from a player.

The most important part f this, is that both PLAYERS and owners agreed to this process.

So why is it that if a team uses the tag on a player that they are deemed as evil? In any union, the contract is simply the rules that both sides my pay by... so what is the problem here?

Why do so many of you view the owners as mistreating a player in someway if they use the tag?

There is no problem since it was an agreed-upon process. Doesn't mean the players have to like it (both sides have to give a little to come to an agreement) or that fans have to agree with who gets tagged, which I think is more the issue than it being deemed evil. I'm not sure I know of any fan who wanted Pollard tagged last year, even those who thought he could handle being the bell cow.

 

[Roadtrip635]

The Franchise Tag isn't wrong to use, it's generally not a desirable option for anyone. If a team deems someone worthy of using the tag, usually means they value that player and would like to keep that player beyond a one year deal and players want the security that a new contract offers. Both sides want the stability of a new contract instead of using the tag to just kick the can to the next season and go through negotiations all over again. Basically, no one gets what they really want and no one really likes using it.

The best use of the tag is when there is no intention of a player playing under the tag. There's a time in the off-season that a tag is often used when negotiations are close, but need the additional time to complete the deal.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Nobody thinks it's evil it's just stupid to use for basically anyone but a quarterback.

 

[Bobhaze]

Why doesn't this come up as an issue when a player still has time on his contract and chooses to sit out and force a new one?

It works both ways........but don't tell fans or the media that.

That’s a fair question Shab…I just think it depends on multiple factors. An example when the Wash Commodes were trying to figure out whether or not to keep Kirk Cousins and they tagged him. Unlike the Dak situation, Wash tagged Cousins two years and Cousins wanted out.

 

[Chasing6]

No ...... nothing wrong with that ........ its what the owners use just like players use holding out.

Just do not get mad at one and not the other.

Its just business

Why would it be stupid if it saves the team money?

 

[Proof]

Why would it be stupid if it saves the team money?

it rarely saves money.

 

[Bobhaze]

it rarely saves money.

Right. Because it makes the cap hit 100% that year. Can’t defer anything

 

[BleedSilverandBlue]

I don‘t think it’s wrong for the owners to occasionally use the Franchise tag. I do think there are two potential problems with using it though:

1. It actually has a bigger cap impact than a 3-5 year contract which can allow the team the flexibility to defer payments and create a smaller cap impact in a given year.
2. Tagging a player can also occasionally sour the relationship between the team, agent and player. Doesn’t have to and it certainly doesn’t happen 100% of the time. Dak was tagged in 2020 and the team and player obviously worked out a deal in 2021. There are examples where it has worked and didnt over the years.

Exactly. It is a tool that exists for front offices to use, but honestly it is in neither party's long term interest.

There is no reason not to get a long term deal done abd secure the salary cap flexibility that comes with it if you are already willing to take a ridiculous cap hit for a single year if you were to use the tag.

I actually believe that using the tag is something that should be avoided at all costs. All you do is take a monster 1-year hit to keep the player for another season and barring catastrophic injury, you are right back where you started next season and the asking price just went up.

 

[Proof]

Right. Because it makes the cap hit 100% that year. Can’t defer anything

along with typically producing a new negotiation floor the following year.

 

[OGSixshooter]

So what. Dumb analogy.

A player not wanting to sign long term deal means what exactly? Does that sound like marriage to you.

NFL players are rentals. Some short term and some long term. That is all it is.

We obviously deal with a different caliber of women in different ways. It's perhaps all you can afford or all the women you deal with are good for. But a woman who can - will demand or create - long-term security.

Apologies if you can't grasp the analogy.



Carry on.

 

[CWR]

The union and the owners both agreed to terms on a franchise tag, when it can be used, and the amount a player is to be paid if the tag is used. The players and owners agreed, that taking the top 5 salaries at a position averaged out is fair for ALL players. This tag protects the players from a ridiculously low offer from a team and protects team from unreasonable demands from a player.

The most important part f this, is that both PLAYERS and owners agreed to this process.

So why is it that if a team uses the tag on a player that they are deemed as evil? In any union, the contract is simply the rules that both sides my pay by... so what is the problem here?

Why do so many of you view the owners as mistreating a player in someway if they use the tag?

It's no more wrong than a player holding out.

Truth be told the hold out can back fire if a team is willing to go the distance. Lev Bell comes to mind. I don't remember the details though. I do know players have to report at a certain point to be credited for the year otherwise they remain under contract.

 

[Chasing6]

4 years is long term? If Dallas wants 5 years or longer, who is afraid of marriage?