Is a team wrong to use the Franchise Tag?

[jaythecowboy]

Using the tag consistently is bad cap management imo. More often than not if the player has enough value you should be re-signing the player for cap flexibility or trading them after three years.

 

[Diehardblues]

I never said we let any top player walk.... as we NEVER do. But im also not for bending over because they said so.

I understand but when you stand firm you must be prepared for the impact if they walk.

That’s all part of the risk. Sometimes it can work out if you replace them quickly.

 

[Diehardblues]

well if you pay it off when the bill comes, thats like paying an nfl contract all in one year, like tagging someone. Dont be foolish.

Yea but I was responding to your post ( below)which said using a card wasn’t saving money . Which I’d argue was a poor analogy.

Reid1boys said:
thats like saying you saved money by putting that 2k TV on your chase visa... it isnt saving any money.

 

[fivetwos]

Just saw this now, sorry if already posted…

It’s strange how the MLB Union talks a great game about helping the little guy, but they end up protecting the stars in the end.

Seems very different in the NFL. First rounders are subject to the fifth year option, plus two years of tags. If you’re a top RB these days, that could very well be your entire effective career without ever getting that second deal, which is why Elliott went to Cabo when he did.

Then again, all others are free after four years, and many take 2-3 years to develop if they ever do.

So I think thats a little out of proportion and works against the top players….

 

[Chasing6]

Using the tag consistently is bad cap management imo. More often than not if the player has enough value you should be re-signing the player for cap flexibility or trading them after three years.

For 1st picks after 4 years.

 

[jaythecowboy]

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.

He will most likely make it up because the aav on a new deal will be higher the next year. So you save $4 million (at the cost of cap flexibility) but then give the player an extra $8-$10 million when he signs the big extension the following year.

 

[Chasing6]

H

He will most likely make it up because the aav on a new deal will be higher the next year. So you save $4 million (at the cost of cap flexibility) but then give the player an extra $8-$10 million when he signs the big extension the following year

Let him make it up on another team.

 

[OGSixshooter]

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.

I support using the tag...not sure who you're arguing with.

 

[OGSixshooter]

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

LOL.

 

[ShiningStar]

Heres the history of it all.

Both sides are greedy, HOWEVER it was the players saying "SIGN US BIG MONEY DONT BE MAD IT JUST BIDNESS" So the owners shrugged, said "ok" than had a hand in making and refining the tag, now the owners say "IT JUST BIDNESS" and the players hate it.

Greed works both ways. Sometimes you fight harder for teh short end of the stick and sometimes remembers what you did and keeps the long end. At the end of the day,

"Its just bidness" and that should be on every contract thats signed.

 

[Retro88]

I strongly disagree. Getting 2 top pics and saving $35M is more value than CD in my opinion.

You're not being completely open then. There's no way you want him back for 33mil + this random DT that wasn't in the plans but are willing to do all that since he wants 35 or 36mil.

Which completely changes the convo but its still not smart to tag him twice and try to get scraps later if your goal is to get "top picks". You trade him a few months ago.

 

[Chasing6]

You're not being completely open then. There's no way you want him back for 33mil + this random DT that wasn't in the plans but are willing to do all that since he wants 35 or 36mil.

Which completely changes the convo but its still not smart to tag him twice and try to get scraps later when if youre goal is to get "top picks". You trade him a few months ago.

GM Jethro needed to start negotiating a long time ago. Once you find out they want to much you trade them. Only other option is the tag and then trade.

I am a believer in team complimentary football.

I am not a fan of hero ball.

I will happily take 2 top picks and save $35M over CD at the end of the year.

A good defense can neutralize a player. They can not neutralize a balanced team.

 

[Retro88]

GM Jethro needed to start negotiating a long time ago. Once you find out they want to much you trade them. Only other option is the tag and then trade.

I am a believer in team complimentary football.

I am not a fan of hero ball.

I will happily take 2 top picks and save $35M over CD at the end of the year.

A good defense can neutralize a player. They can not neutralize a balanced team.

Fair enough. I get what you're saying but I wouldn't call it hero ball. He got them numbers bc our offense wasn't good until they just force fed him. While WR you can go the route you're suggesting....you still have to have a good WR core for your team to be successful. If we traded Lamb next offseason we would have to immediately put resources into the WR position. Just don't be the Titans.

They didn't want to pay Brown so they traded him, sunk the 1st rounder into a WR that hasn't panned out, and are now paying Hopkins & Ridley 36mil combined.

 

[Chasing6]

Fair enough. I get what you're saying but I wouldn't call it hero ball. He got them numbers bc our offense wasn't good until they just force fed him. While WR you can go the route you're suggesting....you still have to have a good WR core for your team to be successful. If we traded Lamb next offseason we would have to immediately put resources into the WR position. Just don't be the Titans.

They didn't want to pay Brown so they traded him, sunk the 1st rounder into a WR that hasn't panned out, and are now paying Hopkins & Ridley 36mil combined.

Well you can draft a WR in round 1 and you still have $35M to find another one or even 2 for that matter.

 

[Diehardblues]

Well you can draft a WR in round 1 and you still have $35M to find another one or even 2 for that matter.

That all sounds good in principle but that doesn’t mean there aren’t risk you miss , reach up too far in draft or don’t hit as well as Lamb.

And then what are the impacts . We saw when we let Dez walk the impacts until we had to make a deal for Cooper.

How about with Murray. Another sound Cap move but it cost us until we hit on Zeke in draft.

Those are the impacts we can run into. These decisions don’t come without risk. And it can waste seasons until you hit again.

 

[Diehardblues]

Well you can draft a WR in round 1 and you still have $35M to find another one or even 2 for that matter.

What I’d recommend is when you have a top talent coming up on a contract season is to draft ahead and be in a stronger position to move on.

We should have done same thing at QB. We already knew from last time Dak was a tough negotiator. We should have drafted a heir apparent and been developing.

But not looking ahead places your team in a more vulnerable situation where you risk taking a steeper step back losing top talent without suitable replacements in place which potentially could waste seasons attempting to find replacements.

 

[TequilaCowboy]

If it’s there and was approved by both parties… then why the heck is it wrong to use it? Not exactly good for either party, but I think it was intended to be used as a way to kick the can down the road and prevent holdouts, some at least.

 

[Chasing6]

What I’d recommend is when you have a top talent coming up on a contract season is to draft ahead and be in a stronger position to move on.

We should have done same thing at QB. We already knew from last time Dak was a tough negotiator. We should have drafted a heir apparent and been developing.

But not looking ahead places your team in a more vulnerable situation where you risk taking a steeper step back losing top talent without suitable replacements in place which potentially could waste seasons attempting to find replacements.

The Niners did exactly that drafting a WR in round 1. GM Jethro attempted to do that with Trance.

 

[kskboys]

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?

Absolutely frickin' not.

 

[Reid1boys]

I understand but when you stand firm you must be prepared for the impact if they walk.

That’s all part of the risk. Sometimes it can work out if you replace them quickly.

works out pretty good using the tag also.