Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   Pro Football (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Franchise Tag (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6251)

MP123 04-10-2007 08:40 PM

Franchise Tag
 
Should teams have the power to use the franchise tag on a player without his consent?

DaBears9654 04-10-2007 08:43 PM

Yes, b/c that puts the teams in control. If they had to have the players' permission, it would put said players in control and it would likely never be approved.

GB12 04-10-2007 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBears9654 (Post 292940)
Yes, b/c that puts the teams in control. If they had to have the players' permission, it would put said players in control and it would likely never be approved.

And make the tag worthless.

bearsfan_51 04-10-2007 08:47 PM

It's in the labor contract, which the players union agreed to.

That's like asking if fireman should be able to put out fires.

Bengals1690 04-10-2007 08:49 PM

i think a better uestion would be:

is the franchise tag fair?

in which the answer would be no

bearsfan_51 04-10-2007 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bengals1690 (Post 292959)
i think a better uestion would be:

is the franchise tag fair?

in which the answer would be no

Define fair.

ny10804 04-10-2007 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51 (Post 292979)
Define fair.

Define define.

Bengals1690 04-10-2007 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51 (Post 292979)
Define fair.

i mean is it fair for the players that are free agents to not seek a big money contract from another team?

bearsfan_51 04-10-2007 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bengals1690 (Post 293018)
i mean is it fair for the players that are free agents to not seek a big money contract from another team?

They are part of the union, it's a collective agreement. They know this. They have the option to sign longterm contracts with the teams they are on knowing that they likely will be tagged. Not to mention they are still making multi-million dollar deals, and they don't even have to show up till week 10 to make the money.

Sounds fair enough to me.

The Unseen 04-10-2007 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ny10804 (Post 292990)
Define define.

Define "define define."

thaaaaaat's amore

bored of education 04-10-2007 09:25 PM

Is very fair from the team's/owner's/GM's/Coaching Staff's end, maybe a bit more fiar than from the player's end!

MP123 04-11-2007 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51 (Post 293097)
They are part of the union, it's a collective agreement. They know this. They have the option to sign longterm contracts with the teams they are on knowing that they likely will be tagged. Not to mention they are still making multi-million dollar deals, and they don't even have to show up till week 10 to make the money.

Sounds fair enough to me.

I already have enough negative rating btw. No I don't think it's fair.

Splat 04-11-2007 09:05 AM

It kinda sucks for the player that they won't no where they will be the next year but the money is good give and take.

MP123 04-11-2007 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9 (Post 294218)
...

who cares whether or not it's fair? the player's agreed to it in return for some other concession in the labor agreement that isn't fair to the owners and teams. maybe we should just suspend the entire labor agreement. i mean, realistically the most "fair" thing is a completely free market, wherein the packers would have to hope they have a good GM and the redskins could potentially buy the entire pro bowl team. but at least the players could sign with whomever they want when their contracts are up.

stupid question.

No. You're the idiot.

scottyboy 04-11-2007 09:19 AM

of course the bears fans are defending the tag. With out it no way Briggs is in chicago. At least this way they may get something for him.

portermvp84 04-11-2007 09:27 AM

Yes it's up to the team not the player.

bearsfan_51 04-11-2007 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboy (Post 294228)
of course the bears fans are defending the tag. With out it no way Briggs is in chicago. At least this way they may get something for him.

I'm not "defending" it becuase it's not something that needs to be defended. It has nothing to do with me being a Bears fan. If the league suspends Tank for 8 games or even a year I'd be fine with it, it's their league policy that they agreed to.

It's like asking if it's fair that you can't watch every game on television without buying Sunday ticket. Sure it sucks, but that's the way the business world works.

Jay 04-11-2007 10:45 AM

BF51 and njx nailed it. The Players Association agreed to the franchise tag being a part of the collective bargaining agreement, so they have no room to cry over spilled milk.

I find it extremely hard to believe someone making the average of the top five players at their position is being treated unfairly. Furthermore, most of these big contracts are all fluff and will never, evvvver pay out.

And they still have every ability to seek a long term deal with any team that they want to. The team is just protected with the right to first refusal and compensation in the event that they decline to match. If Lance Briggs or Asante Samuel or Charles Grant want to go out and sign a mega-contract somewhere else, they have the right and ability. They find out very quickly, though, how much they are worth when the team can't simply throw money at them and have them for free.

Walter Jones is a perfect example. The guy was franchised, what, three years in a row before he signed his long term deal? He ended up making more off of that then he ever could have dreamed of had he signed a long term deal from the start. Boo hoo if he had to play hard for three straight years to maintain a level that would make him maximum dollars. That is the way it should be, anyway.

The thing these guys don't seem to understand is that job security is a privilege, it is not a right. Sure, everyone wants to have job security and wants to make the most money they can. Unfortunately, like everyone else in the real world, these guys that get slapped with the franchise tag have to follow procedure. If they play hard enough, they will get their money. If they get hurt, they still got a lot of money from the franchise contract, and they wouldn't have gotten all their money off of the long term deal because if it was that bad that they can't play anymore, they are going to get cut.

These players are assets to their current teams. The Bears, the Patriots, the Saints, whoever chooses to franchise a player, have invested a great deal of time, training, coaching, draft pick(s) and money into these players and considering they think so highly of them they are willing to pay them as one of the highest paid at their position, they are obviously vital cogs to their teams success. The team has every right to protect their asset.

And that's just the way the ball bounces...

wogitalia 04-11-2007 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bengals1690 (Post 293018)
i mean is it fair for the players that are free agents to not seek a big money contract from another team?

I would think that it is fairly fair for them to get the average of the top 5 contracts at their position. I get the whole "what if I get injured" thing, but they are getting paid regardless and the franchise tag does not stop them seeking a contract elsewhere, it just protects the team that has put the development time into them.

I like it, realistically its a huge hit for the team as well.

BlindSite 04-11-2007 06:32 PM

If the players reps signed it then they must think its fair, and there's is the opinion that matters.

TPFKA#1SaintsFan 04-11-2007 06:51 PM

Franchise players are not under contract until they sign the franchise tender. This means that a player given the franchise tag could theoretically sit on his ass for nearly the whole season, show up and sign it (anytime before Week 10, as was said earlier in this thread), and not receive any fines from the team. If anything, it's unfair to the guy who's under a long term contract and is unhappy. Even then, it's still stupid. This whole thread is stupid. Just to reiterate, the Players Association agreed to this.

B-Dawk 04-11-2007 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51 (Post 294267)
I'm not "defending" it becuase it's not something that needs to be defended. It has nothing to do with me being a Bears fan. If the league suspends Tank for 8 games or even a year I'd be fine with it, it's their league policy that they agreed to.

It's like asking if it's fair that you can't watch every game on television without buying Sunday ticket. Sure it sucks, but that's the way the business world works.

Sunday Ticket isn't fair but because it is only on direct tv which is not available to everyone.

TPFKA#1SaintsFan 04-11-2007 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Dawk (Post 296042)
Sunday Ticket isn't fair but because it is only on direct tv which is not available to everyone.

NFL Network is not available to me where I live. I'd love to be able to get it, but I can't. You don't hear me bitching.

Scotty D 04-11-2007 06:59 PM

I don't like the franchise tag at all, and either do most of the guys who it is slapped on. Players want security in this type of sport and it takes that away.

TPFKA#1SaintsFan 04-11-2007 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty D (Post 296068)
I don't like the franchise tag at all, and either do most of the guys who it is slapped on. Players want security in this type of sport and it takes that away.

Yeah, cause you know, getting the average salary of the top 5 highest paid guys at your position just sucks. Please, that one year contract sets the franchised player and his family up pretty comfortably. So they could get hurt or play poorly and miss out on that big contract the next offseason? Same could happen under contract, they just get cut. These guys are getting paid far too well to get any sympathy from me. Besides, they DID agree on the Franchise rules.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.