Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Franchise tag thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Franchise tag thread

    Discuss...

    Patriots: NT Vince Wilfork (franchise).

    Steelers: NT Casey Hampton (franchise), K Jeff Reed (transition).

    Raiders: DE Richard Seymour (francise).

    Packers: NT Ryan Pickett (franchise).

    Seahawks: K Olindo Mare (franchise).

    49ers: NT Aubrayo Franklin (franchise).
    Last edited by Splat; 02-24-2010, 09:25 PM.

  • #2
    Good decision. Guy was one of the best 3-4 NTs in the league last year and is a big reason for the 49ers success on defense. His long term deal will probably set the market for Wilfork and the Pats.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ugh, I wish the Pats would just give him an extention already.
      This CBA is really ******* **** up for us
      -Boston Red Sox-New England Patriots-Boston Celtics-

      Comment


      • #4
        Report: Saints will franchise Sharper

        Comment


        • #5
          At this point in his career, he's gotta be happy with that. It's guaranteed money, and, at his age, way more than he'd average over the life of a long-term contract.

          Comment


          • #6
            Personally, I dislike the tag. I would wish the NFL, would get rid of it. Player is forced to play so many years before he can become a FA, then when he is elgible, he gets tagged.

            Sig by Bone Krusher

            Comment


            • #7
              If we do, then I expect this to be his last year in a Saints uniform unless we sign him for very cheap the following year.

              Beastly sig by BoneKrusher

              Super Bowl XLIV Champions
              WHO DAT!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by frubulubu View Post
                Personally, I dislike the tag. I would wish the NFL, would get rid of it. Player is forced to play so many years before he can become a FA, then when he is elgible, he gets tagged.
                I've never liked it either, but it is something the players collectively bargained for. I never understood why they didn't make it a one-year thing.

                Negotiations for an extension usually start when a player is heading into the last year of his contract. So if you haven't come to an agreement after that last year PLUS the franchise tag year, then it's probably not gonna happen.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by yourfavestoner View Post
                  I've never liked it either, but it is something the players collectively bargained for. I never understood why they didn't make it a one-year thing.

                  Negotiations for an extension usually start when a player is heading into the last year of his contract. So if you haven't come to an agreement after that last year PLUS the franchise tag year, then it's probably not gonna happen.
                  wait the players actually were pro-tag, or did they agree to it as part of the owners' demands?

                  If it's the first I don't get it. If the second, I can see how they kinda traded off the tag against something they wanted. THat's negotiations I guess.

                  Sig by Fenikz

                  I remember NFLDC
                  don't tell anyone, but Charlie Casserly is a dope fiend

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by frubulubu View Post
                    Personally, I dislike the tag. I would wish the NFL, would get rid of it. Player is forced to play so many years before he can become a FA, then when he is elgible, he gets tagged.
                    Why? As a fan, I want to see the big name guys play for their home team as long as possible. I like seeing Green Bay or Arizona or [insert small market team] have something that lets them hold onto talent before they go get paid by Dan Snyder or Al Davis. The salary cap is a lie anyway (this year, literally).

                    Thanks to BK for the sig

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Addict View Post
                      wait the players actually were pro-tag, or did they agree to it as part of the owners' demands?

                      If it's the first I don't get it. If the second, I can see how they kinda traded off the tag against something they wanted. THat's negotiations I guess.
                      I'm not sure which way it went, but I think the tag was a much more attractive option when the CBA was signed. Then player saw skyrocketing signing bonuses that made it an anitquated system and prevented them from getting the big, long-term payday.

                      Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Is it true a team can franchise 2 players this year if they so choose?
                        #Chop


                        sig by BoneKrusher

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Addict View Post
                          wait the players actually were pro-tag, or did they agree to it as part of the owners' demands?

                          If it's the first I don't get it. If the second, I can see how they kinda traded off the tag against something they wanted. THat's negotiations I guess.
                          Yes, back in the 1990s when they were setting up the CBA for the new salary cap era, the franchise tag was seen as win-win for both player and team.

                          The problem with the tag is that it was never really applied in the way that it was intended. Almost immediately, owners began using it as leverage AGAINST the players they tagged. The big problem with the franchise tag is the compensation it requires, and I think the players union made a big mistake in thinking that teams would readily trade two firsts or a first and a third for a "franchise" player. This thing was originally intended to be used when a player and team were close to an extension before the free agency period and only needed to buy a little time. It wasn't meant to be used on a player multiple years in a row, which is why the players demanded that a franchise player be paid the average of the top 5 salaries in the NFL (not just at their position) if they get tagged a third year.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Giantsfan1080 View Post
                            Is it true a team can franchise 2 players this year if they so choose?
                            Yes, this is true.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by yourfavestoner View Post
                              Yes, this is true.
                              Damn. Uncapped and two tags... NFLPA's getting screwed this year.

                              Sig by Fenikz

                              I remember NFLDC
                              don't tell anyone, but Charlie Casserly is a dope fiend

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information