Should the NFL get rid of the "franchise tag", every player seems to hate it?

Question

Lance Briggs of the Chicago Bears is the latest upset player to request a trade after being "tagged" as a franchise player.

Answer 1

OF course the players hate it. It basically takes them off of the Free Agent Market and makes them have to negotiate only with their own team. Over 99% of players "tagged" are players headed for BIG paydays in free agency, and being tagged significantly downgrades that payday. However, while the players hate the tags, it saves the owners BIG money, and because of this, the NFL won't get rid of it anytime soon.

Answer 2

The franchise tag is a great compromise for team owners as well as fans, and should remain a part of the game. It's completely fair. The league decided in the early 90s to allow players to have some control over their destinies through free agency. The compromise: owners are allowed to force a contract on one player per year.

A mature player should realize that it's all just a part of the big contract game. First, the player gets a truckload of money, guaranteed, for a full season. Second, there are still options if the player wants to get off the team. If he really hates the situation, he can hold out. He doesn't get paid, but he can force the team to cut him, giving him the free agency he's wanted. Or he can ask for a trade, like Lance Briggs and others. Third, owners often follow up a franchise tag with a long-term offer. A franchise tag eats up a lot of cap space, and they'd much rather be able to give a player a longer contract with a signing bonus that will spread the cap hit over the following years.

The owner shouldn't mind if the player asks for a trade, either. All he's doing is making sure one of his best players doesn't walk away for nothing. If he's going to lose a superstar, at least he'll get a draft pick or another player for it.

As for the fans, it's really lame when a player who became your hero last year leaves your team in the lurch for more money, and your team suffers.

Peter King of Sports Illustrated answered this question a few weeks ago in response to Dwight Freeney's complaints about the franchise tag. He said:

"I think, by the way, the one rant that gets so old every year is the one from players about their hatred of the franchise tag. "They've got to get rid of it,'' soon-to-be-franchised defensive end Dwight Freeney of the Colts told me a couple of days after the Super Bowl. "How can you be a free agent when the team doesn't allow you to ever get to the market?''

"Study your history, Dwight. In 1993, you got free agency and a guaranteed cut of the gross revenues -- which your football brethren struck over in a previous football generation -- and in return your leadership gave each team the freedom to keep its best player for the average of the top five salaries at his position. Hardly a hardship. What the best players miss in this system --but not often -- is a huge signing bonus, but that's a small price to pay for a system that has worked this well for players and owners for 14 years."

Answer 3

No and not all players hate it.

Unless said player is by far and away the best player at their position, free agency is scarce at their position with a team or two really desparate for their services, the player is likely not to make a better deal in free agency...for at least a year.

Now if they are solely banking on that LONG term deal, then yeah that would suck. But the consolation is they get the average of the top 5 salaries at their position for that season.

Usually if a team slaps you with the franchise, they want you at least medium term, usually long term, but the player is asking for way too much in a contract.

You see it alot when the player could've made more by staying put than testing the market. That's why it's referred to as "TESTING" the market.

Of course there are always different situations and circumstances. And each side has a legit arguement. I just don't think that all the players hate it, basically, because you don't have every team slapping the franchise tag on someone every year. It's mostly when a team really wants to resign someone and the two sides can't meet in the middle in time. And more often than not, said player winds up signing a long term deal sometime that next season.

Answer 4

I think the franchise tag is good for the league. Teams need to have flexibility in locking up players for long-term, and if the franchise tag allows them to put that off for a year, then so be it. I think they should have a rule preventing teams from applying the tag to the same player twice, though, because that seems ridiculous to me.

As far as Briggs goes, I have followed him since college (Arizona Wildcats!), and I would be sad to see him leave the Bears. But I'm sure that he feels like he is overshadowed by Urlacher (he is), and he feels like he could be a franchise linebacker for another team (he could be).

Answer 5

A few years ago when the players union was negotiating for free agency, there were huge arguments that by adding free agency the owners would lose all their big name players when they hit the market. Finally the two sides came to an agreement when the owners agreed to free agency as long as they had the power to protect one player on their team from entering free agency. Hence the birth of the franchise tag. No franchise tag, no free agency.

Answer 6

No. I think the Franchise tag is a good thing. It allows losing francises hold on to their best players because think about it if a losing teams best players could apply for FA and recieved big offers from other teams how many of them would stay with the losing team, even if that team could match a offer from a winning team. It is a way to help the NFL from turning into the MLB.

Answer 7

It was a compromise that the NFLPA agreed to back when the owners agreed to Free Agency. The owners wanted some protection against at least one key player becoming a price war between clubs. It was a key change the owners wanted in order to agree to FA so it is a trade off like it or not for the players.

Answer 8

Business wise, it's a very good tool, and it exposes guys who act "classy" from guys who really are(LT, Peyton, along with all other guys who take LESS money to get their good teams to be better). If I were making even ONE million dollars a year I'd be happy. I don't mean to rant as I love football and generally support the players over the coaches/owners, but it doesn't say much about your character when you are so rich (AND on a wining team --it really confuses me why guys leave winning teams for .5-1million more) and squabble about a little bit richer.

I can understand wanting the "garunteed" money (and longer contracts, especially since so many guys get injured nowadays), but the amounts themselves and the hissy-fits thrown over them are ridiculous. I know I'm in a different position, but if I were a start athelete on a very good team, I wouldn't leave to a less than .500 team that's going nowhere (ie: Edge and the Cardinals) for ~500K more.

Answer 9

He'll get it together, he's too good not to. He's very streaky though, just like Jayson Werth. He can be really hot for a week than really cold the next week. Not seeing the ball very well, but I expect Longoria to get it together very soon. Chase Utley was in a horrible hitting slump earlier in the year, and yeah it was very frustrating.

Answer 10

Well then let's get rid of Free Agency because the OWNERS seem to hate it. Come on only ONE PLAYER per team can be given the tag and they can only have it forced on them so many times, I think three but not sure, from that team. There are compromises to it.