Is a team wrong to use the Franchise Tag?

[Chasing6]

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.

They can't walk if you trade them.

 

[Reid1boys]

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.

all relative to how much the cap keeps going up. People crying about inflation, but som eunons got 30% raises over 4 years.... they quickly forget about that.

 

[jaythecowboy]

all relative to how much the cap keeps going up. People crying about inflation, but som eunons got 30% raises over 4 years.... they quickly forget about that.

Yes but the franchise tag puts a big cap charge on your cap immediately so in the short term it’s way worse on cap space. The savings on the books wouldn’t be realized till later in the contract which as you stated will mean less relatively because of the cap going up.

 

[Flamma]

Im not denying it was a sound financial decision. But what was the impact on the Steelers.

This is what teams must be prepared for when letting top talent walk. The teams which have suitable replacements in place are in a more favorable position.

That's a very solid opinion. The loss of Bell had to be huge. He was a good WR as well. But consider the possibility that Bell was in sharp decline. Either way they lost Bell. Look at Zeke. Had they not paid him, people might have said the same thing. In hindsight, you wouldn't pay a player in decline. But either way, pay him or not, they lost Zeke.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

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.

First of all, you can't tag him this year. He's still under his rookie deal.

It is dumb because that is a ridiculous cap hit for year one of a deal, especially when it doesn't give you any long-term consistency. Tyreek Hill's total cap hit for the first two years of his deal was only ~$19m.

 

[Chasing6]

Im not denying it was a sound financial decision. But what was the impact on the Steelers.

This is what teams must be prepared for when letting top talent walk. The teams which have suitable replacements in place are in a more favorable position.

The money they saved must have gone somewhere and from the looks of his performance in NY, they were going to lose the production whether they resigned him or not.

 

[Flamma]

nope, as I dont need to get any deal done. I already have you under contract this year. Then I will franchise you next year, and then the year after... so Im pretty good for 3 years.

That's good for the owner, he saves a lot of money. But it sucks for the cap. Your idea pays him 18M, 23M, 28M. Higher cap hits than if you just gave him a 4 year extension. It makes dollar sense, just not team friendly sense. Instead of having 3 bad cap hits, with a 4 year extension, only the 4th year would suck, and then you can part ways.

 

[Chasing6]

That's good for the owner, he saves a lot of money. But it sucks for the cap. Your idea pays him 18M, 23M, 28M. Higher cap hits than if you just gave him a 4 year extension. It makes dollar sense, just not team friendly sense. Instead of having 3 bad cap hits, with a 4 year extension, only the 4th year would suck, and then you can part ways.

18, 23, and 28 is significantly cheaper than. 10, 20, 45, and 65.

 

[Flamma]

18, 23, and 28 is significantly cheaper than. 10, 20, 45, and 65.

For total cash, yes. But not cap. You can make those first 3 years look like anything you want. Then the 4th year absurd. Better 1 bad year than 3. Manipulate the cap to fit the players. Deal with issues when they arise. Don't forget that the cap is higher the further on you go. Three years from not 45M might be close to or equal to 28M. It certainly was for QBs. Fit players in now, worry about the cap later.

 

[McKDaddy]

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

if it prevents team from marrying a mistake, doesn't it save money over the long run?

 

[Diehardblues]

The money they saved must have gone somewhere and from the looks of his performance in NY, they were going to lose the production whether they resigned him or not.

Again , we can’t assume his production in NY would have been same in Pittsburgh. But we can measure the impact his departure on the Steelers.

And while it did loosen up Cap space did the Steelers use it effectively so the loss of his talent wasn’t as impactful.

 

[Diehardblues]

That's a very solid opinion. The loss of Bell had to be huge. He was a good WR as well. But consider the possibility that Bell was in sharp decline. Either way they lost Bell. Look at Zeke. Had they not paid him, people might have said the same thing. In hindsight, you wouldn't pay a player in decline. But either way, pay him or not, they lost Zeke.

Yes , they eventually let Zeke go as he was in decline which was probably a sound Cap move.

But back when he renegotiated his second contract the impact of losing his talent level on our offense could have been insurmountable to our offense and QB effectiveness . And probably why we felt so inclined to cave in.

Look back at Murray situation. No doubt a sound Cap move but the impact was crucial without a suitable replacement on our offense, QB and ultimately the seasons results.

Yea, we found a suitable replacement the following year but the impact it made had lasting effects on our QB’s career and resources we used to replenish the loss.

And that’s a similar dilemma we have now. If we intend to resign our QB what will the effects be if we don’t resign our WR1 regardless if it’s a sound Cap move .

 

[Diehardblues]

They can't walk if you trade them.

Right. Unless they have a no trade clause,

 

[Diehardblues]

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

I’m not sure we can use Lance as a good example to draft and develop a heir apparent but I get the point you’re trying to make.

And I agree that having a potential heir apparent is sound football Mgmt which provides more options.

 

[blueblood70]

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.

Yeah but sometimes they're forced to don't act like some players and agents don't force the issue,

in this case we know that CD Lam and his agents did not wanna sign early they did not want to have talks last year proof or no proof we he was waiting on this next pool a wide receivers to get paid that he felt are in his same market therefore he waited and now he was offered a fair deal that I wouldn't come off of if I'm the ownership but you could not blame the ownership for the lamb situation if they have to throw the tag on him then that's just gonna be have to fall back on what the original poster saying it's there to use and in this case it's on the agents and players, they can't always do it the way the fanbase thinks and some of this fan base and I'm trying not to point fingers but I think I'm talking to one of the people think that that GM position and the ownership have full control over contracts they should sign everyone early because every single player well except an early lower lowball deal to help the team.

NOT THE CASE many are now in this little new era of I want to be the highest paid player that's a non quarterback.. The demands are becoming ridiculous and sometimes you gotta fall back on using tags and the fifth year option is one of them I know it would be bad to have to use a fifth year option and the tag but there's a reason this fifth year option in lambs case is gonna be beneficial because he doesn't wanna lose $15 million in fines in 12 games missed just to report and just have the tag slapped on him it makes his loss is much bigger he's not in a position where he's only making about 300,000 a year or whatever it is and he's not a running back I know why zeke did this early because he knew this was gonna happen he was gonna have a short career he wanted all the money he could get now while he was in his prime but in this case I don't mind to hold out but I believe this should have turned into a hold in with lamb and it's becoming ridiculous that he turned down this kind of money and at this point I'm not offering it him anymore and let's see what he'll do I'm ready to push my cards to the middle of the table but using the tag in this case is the sole reason it's there.. Gotta try to keep your superstars and if negotiations become at an impasse you have to use everything you can..

 

[Reid1boys]

First of all, you can't tag him this year. He's still under his rookie deal.

It is dumb because that is a ridiculous cap hit for year one of a deal, especially when it doesn't give you any long-term consistency. Tyreek Hill's total cap hit for the first two years of his deal was only ~$19m.

its not ridiculous... if Lamb is asking for stuff like a no trade clause... you agreeing to those terms?

 

[Reid1boys]

That's good for the owner, he saves a lot of money. But it sucks for the cap. Your idea pays him 18M, 23M, 28M. Higher cap hits than if you just gave him a 4 year extension. It makes dollar sense, just not team friendly sense. Instead of having 3 bad cap hits, with a 4 year extension, only the 4th year would suck, and then you can part ways.

oh, but I want to give Lamb a 4 year extension, but hes demanding a no trade clause, and hes demaning no franchise tag... you giving that?

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

its not ridiculous... if Lamb is asking for stuff like a no trade clause... you agreeing to those terms?

Yea I don't care.

 

[Chasing6]

I’m not sure we can use Lance as a good example to draft and develop a heir apparent but I get the point you’re trying to make.

And I agree that having a potential heir apparent is sound football Mgmt which provides more options.

Trance was a horrendous example, but we are talking about GM Jethro.

 

[Proof]

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.

no. it doesn't. assuming they made him the highest paid receiver in the game today, that money would not actually hit the books until after next year (last year of his contract). additionally knowing how they operate they would push the money back and his the first year of the contract would be a minimal cap hit. as stated previously the tag for next year (as things stand avg of the top 5) would be 31 million. that money is guaranteed in full and due immediately. so you'd either have ceedee making 35 mil a year but not having a 35 mil cap hit, or 31 plus due in full. and if you opt to keep him after that, you're either tagging him again at a 120% increase, or signing him at the new market rate. where exactly are the savings?