BSN Bills Fan Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 So would some one please tell me What's so wrong with being franchised ? I don't get it ! If the team franchises you it means #1) that they apparently don't want to lose you so that means the player is wanted ! #2) In the situation with Byrd or any other player getting put on the tag they will be getting paid a average of the highest paid players at that position that year (right ?) So Byrd stands to make $6.9 MILLION this year . #3) Who here wouldn't mind getting paid $6.9 million to PLAY A GAME ??? So what is so bad about being franchised by a team ? You always here that these players that get the tag hold out or in the Byrd's case & others they go into silent mode & no one but there agent here's any thing from them for weeks on end . I get that they don't want to practice with out a contract in place due to injury possibilities but why the silent treatment ? I just don't get it I know the money is a HUGE factor in this game we all love so much, but really $6.9 million any way you look at it is still $ $6,855000 more than i make a year !!!! Hey heres a idea, have the NFL make a new rule, let these guys that get the franchise tag have to work as a farm hand shoveling cow S**T for the off season (until they sign there tag or contract) then maybe they would realize just how blessed they are to be playing a game for a living !!
Kirby Jackson Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 If he has a career ending injury that is all that he will see. If he signs a 5 year $42M dollar deal with $20M guaranteed it is a much better deal for him. In the NFL you do not want to operate year to year. That's why players don't like it.
CBD Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) Dashon Goldson's contract signed this offseason: 3/13/2013: Signed a five-year, $41.25 million contract. The deal contains $22 million guaranteed, including a first-year roster bonus of $4.5 million, Goldson's first- and second-year salaries, and a fully guaranteed 2014 roster bonus of $3 million. 2013: $4.5 million, 2014: $6 million (+ $3 million roster bonus), 2015: $7.5 million (+ $500,000 workout bonus), 2016: $7.5 million (+ $500,000 workout bonus), 2017: $6.75 million (+ $500,000 workout bonus), 2018: Free Agent http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4444/dashon-goldson vs. 1 year $6.9M guaranteed. Edited May 16, 2013 by Carey Bender
Luxy312 Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 If he has a career ending injury that is all that he will see. If he signs a 5 year $42M dollar deal with $20M guaranteed it is a much better deal for him. In the NFL you do not want to operate year to year. That's why players don't like it. This in a nutshell. This is exactly why players that even play the year under the tag actually negotiate with the team to NOT allow them to be tagged again. The average NFL career is just over 3 years. That's it. With that said, I will gladly play a game for 1 year and take almost $7 million. Unless you try to live like Richie Rich, you can retire with that kind of coin.
mrags Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 If he has a career ending injury that is all that he will see. If he signs a 5 year $42M dollar deal with $20M guaranteed it is a much better deal for him. In the NFL you do not want to operate year to year. That's why players don't like it. this. All it guarantees is one payday. For one season. And a small one compared to what he could make over the rest of his career. Think of a career ending injury on year 4-5 of your career. You've just been franchised for $7million. Now your done and only made (let's just say) $10m in yiur career. But if you were t injured you could have signed another 2-3 contracts with at least as much as you've already made, not to mention any player that's good enough to be franchised will probably be making in the range of the $40+million range for probably any position. Well, unless your one of the kickers. And teams use the franchise tag as a tool to make these guys sign smaller contracts or be traded. Just because someone is franchised, doesn't mean they really want the player. Just means there's other teams that will probably be willing to give up 1-2 draft picks for. Of course it could rally mean that we want that player, but that's not always the case.
Cash Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 If I thought my 2 realistic options were between 1.) getting $6.9 million to play a game, with no guarantee of anything else if I get hurt playing that game, or 2.) getting $9 million to play a game this year, with an additional $9 million guaranteed even if I get hurt playing that game, I wouldn't feel great about #1. Not saying Byrd is right to hold out, or even that he will hold out, but I don't blame him for at least attempting to get Dashon Goldson's contract before signing the franchise tender.
Kirby Jackson Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 The reality is that the union in the NFL is way weaker than in other sports. The baseball players union and the NBAPA have already established that they won't play for non guaranteed deals. If a team makes a mistake and offers Drew Gooden $35M than they live with that mistake. In the NFL Gooden would have been gone after a year and the team only out the guaranteed portion.
CodeMonkey Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) It is a bad idea in my opinion for both sides. Team: Gets a, probably disgruntled, player for one more year ... and then what? Player: Risks a career ending injury with a one year contract when he could probably get a long term deal somewhere. The player put in their time with the rookie contract, Time to let them put themselves on the open market if they choose. Edited May 16, 2013 by CodeMonkey
peteski Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 Another thing is that it takes unrestricted free agency away from him. It takes the players right of playing in any other city away. It also takes away the opportunity to get a stupid contract that pays him over what he is worth (see Levitre, Mario Williams).
BillsWatch Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 This in a nutshell. This is exactly why players that even play the year under the tag actually negotiate with the team to NOT allow them to be tagged again. The average NFL career is just over 3 years. That's it. With that said, I will gladly play a game for 1 year and take almost $7 million. Unless you try to live like Richie Rich, you can retire with that kind of coin. I doubt the average applies to players who are being tagged. Sounds like you work for NFLPA.
ny33 Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 I doubt the average applies to players who are being tagged. Sounds like you work for NFLPA. Yeah, that statistic is completely misleading.
Max997 Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 its all about not being able to shop their services to the highest bidder and get the guaranteed money that comes with a long term contract
BillsWatch Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 its all about not being able to shop their services to the highest bidder and get the guaranteed money that comes with a long term contract Blame the NFLPA - they are the ones who agreed to franchise tag in order to get other things like higher percentage of take.
C-Man Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 I know I am opening myself up for criticism here, but here it goes - I actually feel badly for most NFL players - especially during this free agency. I cannot fathom how they signed a contract with the owners that was so one-sided. Even the draftees get screwed by a reduced salary. Additionally, rookies who are drafted in the 3rd round (and lower?) are not allowed to renegotiate for better contract prior to their rookie contract expiring. I think the players got very nervous as most of them do not have marketable skills outside of football. They felt it was better to get something as opposed to nothing. The veterans who wanted the rookie wage scale probably had never thought that it would be this difficult getting a new contract. They assumed all that $$ would go to more experienced guys. Think not. On top of it all? The sport is dangerous as hell. Meanwhile baseball and basketball enjoys guaranteed contracts for sports that have minimal risks...
shibuya Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 the players are the ones who choose not to sign reasonable deals and hold out for bigger money and end up playing on a Franchise contract If they go that route they best be willing to take the consequences of being injured on a franchise deal. A bird in the hand is always better then 2 in the bush
Maybe Someday Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 Yes, from the player’s standpoint, the franchise tag is a bad thing because it takes away just about all of the players options. This is a what have you done for me lately league. If Byrd signs his 1 year tender and has a bad season or blows out his knee prior to becoming an UFA next year, he likely will not get the offers that he would have had he been an UFA this year. While I would jump at the chance to make $6.9 mil in 1 year, I would much rather sign a long term contract that guarantees me $20 mil regardless of how I play or if I get hurt. The NFL is the most popular of the 4 major sports leagues yet these players have the shortest average career and also on average make less money. So the players have to get what they can, when they can. It may look like they’re being greedy but I really can’t blame them. IMO, all NFL contracts should be guaranteed. I’d also like it if the NFL adopted the NBA rule allowing a team to pay a player that has accrued a certain number of seasons more money than any other team is able to offer allowing teams to keep their star players.
NoSaint Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 the players are the ones who choose not to sign reasonable deals and hold out for bigger money and end up playing on a Franchise contract If they go that route they best be willing to take the consequences of being injured on a franchise deal. A bird in the hand is always better then 2 in the bush right but what if there are 6 in the bush? sometimes its not near as simple when two sides sit down to negotiate.
ny33 Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) Yes, from the player’s standpoint, the franchise tag is a bad thing because it takes away just about all of the players options. This is a what have you done for me lately league. If Byrd signs his 1 year tender and has a bad season or blows out his knee prior to becoming an UFA next year, he likely will not get the offers that he would have had he been an UFA this year. While I would jump at the chance to make $6.9 mil in 1 year, I would much rather sign a long term contract that guarantees me $20 mil regardless of how I play or if I get hurt. The NFL is the most popular of the 4 major sports leagues yet these players have the shortest average career and also on average make less money. So the players have to get what they can, when they can. It may look like they’re being greedy but I really can’t blame them. IMO, all NFL contracts should be guaranteed. I’d also like it if the NFL adopted the NBA rule allowing a team to pay a player that has accrued a certain number of seasons more money than any other team is able to offer allowing teams to keep their star players. Given the amount of wear and tear, as well as injuries sustained by players, guaranteed contracts are impractical, unfortunately. Adopting the NBA's rule would place a cap on the maximum salary teams could offer to players, and there is no chance that agents, or top players, would want it in place. The NFL doesn't have individual max salaries like the NBA does. Edited May 16, 2013 by ny33
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 I know I am opening myself up for criticism here, but here it goes - I actually feel badly for most NFL players - especially during this free agency. I cannot fathom how they signed a contract with the owners that was so one-sided. Even the draftees get screwed by a reduced salary. Additionally, rookies who are drafted in the 3rd round (and lower?) are not allowed to renegotiate for better contract prior to their rookie contract expiring. I think the players got very nervous as most of them do not have marketable skills outside of football. They felt it was better to get something as opposed to nothing. The veterans who wanted the rookie wage scale probably had never thought that it would be this difficult getting a new contract. They assumed all that $$ would go to more experienced guys. Think not. On top of it all? The sport is dangerous as hell. Meanwhile baseball and basketball enjoys guaranteed contracts for sports that have minimal risks... Actually numerous people here agree with your opinion. Not everyone believes that all North American professional athletes are "spoiled" and "entitled." I think many people recognize the special downsides inherent in NFL football that differentiate it from the other major pro sports.
Maybe Someday Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 Given the amount of wear and tear, as well as injuries sustained by players, guaranteed contracts are impractical, unfortunately. Adopting the NBA's rule would place a cap on the maximum salary teams could offer to players, and there is no chance that agents, or top players, would want it in place. The NFL doesn't have individual max salaries like the NBA does. All they need to add is some type of injury buyout clause to the contracts. As long as the player is physically able to play, they get paid what their contract says. The amount of the injury settlement could be negotiated or just be a percentage of the deal. As a fan, I’m sick of the huge contracts when just about everyone knows the chances of the player collecting the full amount are slim and none. It would force teams to be more realistic with these contracts. Also, I didn’t mean adopt the entire NBA salary cap, just the part allowing a team to pay more for their existing players than another team could.
Recommended Posts