Is a team wrong to use the Franchise Tag?

[Chasing6]

it rarely saves money.

Paying the Franchise Tag vs making CD the highest paid WR would save money 100% of the time.

It will be the same for Micah.

Tagging a player outside of the top 5 is not very smart.

 

[Chasing6]

but it can only be poisoned in 1 direction? So Jerry has offered a very fair deal and Lamb turned it down. So the player is the only part of the equation that matters? The only side that can have "Hurt feeling?" screw that. Use the damn tag. Player doesnt like it, too damn bad.

Exactly. Let him play mad. It is a business, it is not personal.

Maybe he will show up in the playoffs.

Let's see if he is man enough to gamble on himself like Dak.

If he is who he says he is, the price will only go up even more right???

 

[Reid1boys]

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

how so? you tag Lamb this year and he gets how much??? In the 20s?? 27. 28, 29... thats 6 or more million less than 35 hes going for. He aint making that up if he gets a deal next year.

 

[Reid1boys]

Paying the Franchise Tag vs making CD the highest paid WR would save money 100% of the time.

It will be the same for Micah.

Tagging a player outside of the top 5 is not very smart.

bingo.... math, its not complicated.

 

[Chasing6]

how so? you tag Lamb this year and he gets how much??? In the 20s?? 27. 28, 29... thats 6 or more million less than 35 hes going for. He aint making that up if he gets a deal next year.

100% correct. He will also not have last years stats with a tougher schedule.

 

[Reid1boys]

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

thats like saying you saved money by putting that 2k TV on your chase visa... it isnt saving any money.

 

[Reid1boys]

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.

If a player is asking for more than they are worth, or asking for things like a no trade clause, or player demanding a 3 year deal... yea, those are all reasons to not get a deal done.

 

[Reid1boys]

100% correct. He will also not have last years stats with a tougher schedule.

yep.... what are the odds on Lamb repeating last seasons numbers???? Not good. That was a career year.... 138 receptions? No way in hell he does that again.

 

[Reid1boys]

Nothing wrong with it but Ideally it should be avoided. I'd rather get deals done then squabble with stars over a few mil and risk damaging relationships

damaging relationships? when have you seen a player have hurt feelings when they get that check? As soon as they get a deal, they are all smiles and hugs.

 

[Reid1boys]

It’s always amazing to me that the players union agreed to the franchise tag. The only purpose it serves is to prevent a player from getting market value on a long term deal. All the benefit is for the team and all the risk is on the player. Yet they did agree to it and thus, no, I don’t think it’s unfair for a team to use it.

Well what is Market value? The tag is set at MARKET VALUE. If a Corvette sells for 100k, and a dealer is asking 120k.... that aint market value. Lamb has been offered market value... he wants on top of market value.

 

[Reid1boys]

Doesn't that depend on the man she wants long term security with? A woman only has leverage depending on who she is dealing with. To a young famous good looking billionaire who has plenty of women to choose from, there is less a woman can do to force or demand what she wants.

until she gets a positive on that stick.

 

[Reid1boys]

We agree...so you are pushing at an open door. If Jerry wants to hold out...there will be another #88...not exactly the same but someone will wear the jersey. Therefore she (CeeDee Lamb) will always choose long-term security and try to get it over a short-term deal. OTHER women might be short-term rentals, but the star player wants to be given respect.

Now in CeeDee's case, might he want a shorter deal to get back into the market? Not necessarily..that's a QBs ploy who plans on playing until 40. Receivers can easily renegotiate a deal by sitting out if their production outpaces their current salary. They care about guaranteed money...and then yes...ability to get back at the table.

Back on topic: The franchise tag takes ALL of this away from the player and delays attaining some form of longer-term money for another year - or two. This breeds bad blood ...see Dak.

it doesnt breed bad blood. There is zero bad blood between Dak and the Cowboys. They have supported him from day 1.

 

[Chasing6]

It’s always amazing to me that the players union agreed to the franchise tag. The only purpose it serves is to prevent a player from getting market value on a long term deal. All the benefit is for the team and all the risk is on the player. Yet they did agree to it and thus, no, I don’t think it’s unfair for a team to use it.

It is not the only purpose of preventing market value.

Zach Martin robbed GM Jethro last year.

GM Jethro had no backup/replacement plan and had zero choice but to pay him.

It is not just about market value. It is also about taking advantage of a bad GM.

A GM will happily take advantage of a bad or rookie agent all day long.

When you don't have a strong GM, you will constantly have holes on your roster. Or a superstar like CD, with a the rest of the WR group being average at best. A good agent, knows and will exploit this.

 

[KingCorcoran]

If a player is asking for more than they are worth, or asking for things like a no trade clause, or player demanding a 3 year deal... yea, those are all reasons to not get a deal done.

What would be a reason to “get a deal done”?

 

[Diehardblues]

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 problem is that it expresses the team isn’t ready to commit which can lead to some discontent from the player.

I think the bigger concerns is why isn’t the team ready to commit ? Is it all about not being able to arrive at a compromise in negotiations. Or is it more of simply wanting to hold on to a player as long as possible before the player reaches Free Agency.

In either case I’d think it creates some ill will from the player which prevents or delays him greater offers and long term security in FA while risking injury which could impact those FA offers.

While the Union and Owners did agree to such an arrangement with Tag and it does pay top 5 average it’s a temporary decision which places his future and career basically on hold.

 

[Retro88]

damaging relationships? when have you seen a player have hurt feelings when they get that check? As soon as they get a deal, they are all smiles and hugs.

I don't think Bell was too happy that he didn't get his deal. He was pretty unpleased about his 2nd tag too.

 

[Reid1boys]

What would be a reason to “get a deal done”?

If i offered you 33 million, 2nd most in the league for the position, 4 years, and more guaranteed than the highest paid guy... that deal should be done. If Lamb says no... then Id tag his butt next year and tell him hes playing for 17 million this year. Now go pound rocks.

 

[Diehardblues]

It’s good for the Dalton Schultz and Tony Pollards of the world. Not for the Daks and Lambs..

Yes, it’s good for the teams if they aren’t planning on securing a long term deal.

While the players are paid a fair Tag wage it places their future on hold and threatens security in the event they have a career ending injury.

 

[Reid1boys]

I don't think Bell was too happy that he didn't get his deal. He was pretty unpleased about his 2nd tag too.

thats because bell never got the deal... EVER. He was demanding ridiculous money. The steelers held firm, and who lost? Not the steelers.

 

[Flamma]

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.

I was just going to bring this up. The players vote on these contracts. If being tagged is so horrible, vote no until it's removed. They'll have to concede something in return, but that's how it works. Truth is, most of the players don't care enough about it.