Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Only one guy sat out a year. Most who sign the tag then agree a contract. I don't see evidence that the system is clearly broken. I am not saying it is perfect.... but clearly broken? Not for me. 

It’s clearly broken IMO. It started as a way to reward top players and allow teams to keep them. With the escalating cap, no one is thrilled with a 1 year commitment. The players will fight (hard) for changes to it in the next CBA. The owners aren’t really thrilled with it at the moment either. Guys want long-term security. A 2 year commitment isn’t perfect but it is a much better option. Whenever a guy is tagged instantly creates a contentious negotiation. 

 

Another option is to drop the compensation on a non-exclusive tag to one 1st. There shouldn’t be a situation where the nastiest negotiations are with the players most important to your franchise. That’s counter-intuitive.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It’s clearly broken IMO. It started as a way to reward top players and allow teams to keep them. With the escalating cap, no one is thrilled with a 1 year commitment. The players will fight (hard) for changes to it in the next CBA. The owners aren’t really thrilled with it at the moment either. Guys want long-term security. A 2 year commitment isn’t perfect but it is a much better option. Whenever a guy is tagged instantly creates a contentious negotiation. 

 

Another option is to drop the compensation on a non-exclusive tag to one 1st. There shouldn’t be a situation where the nastiest negotiations are with the players most important to your franchise. That’s counter-intuitive.

 

 

Why aren't the owners thrilled with it?    Need some specifics.   I respect your opinion being involved with pro organizations but why would a franchise like Buffalo or Cincinnati want to be without it at their disposal?

Posted
18 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Why aren't the owners thrilled with it?    Need some specifics.   I respect your opinion being involved with pro organizations but why would a franchise like Buffalo or Cincinnati want to be without it at their disposal?

Because it creates hard feelings. They like having it but they don’t like the ill will created. Bell is an extreme example but that could have been prevented. You may keep a guy a year, you may trade him or you may work out a long-term deal. It is just tough to start from “team had total control now let’s see if we can work something out?” When it started the top 5 money was thought to be a benefit to the players. With the rising cap it isn’t. There is no security and every single guy that is slapped with the tag can get more guaranteed money in FA. It puts star players vs. their teams and that’s not good for anyone.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Because it creates hard feelings. They like having it but they don’t like the ill will created. Bell is an extreme example but that could have been prevented. You may keep a guy a year, you may trade him or you may work out a long-term deal. It is just tough to start from “team had total control now let’s see if we can work something out?” When it started the top 5 money was thought to be a benefit to the players. With the rising cap it isn’t. There is no security and every single guy that is slapped with the tag can get more guaranteed money in FA. It puts star players vs. their teams and that’s not good for anyone.

 

I appreciate the well explained response but I don't think the owners care all that much about the hard feelings it creates with the players they use it on.     The tag is rarely used on the team's most valued player...........rather it's used on talented but suspect individuals like LeVeon Bell(suspensions, injuries, positional longevity/value) who the team really isn't sure it wants to invest long term in.   They may call it a "franchise tag" but it's more often applied as a "unsure tag".  Those aren't necessarily the "ring of honor" guys that the team wants to stay friends with.

 

I see the franchise tag primarily as a deterrent for losing your QB in UFA.      That you can use it to retain a RB with a history of suspension issues or a one hit wonder DL who waited until his walk year to go all-in on his game is just a fringe benefit of the primary use.

 

If the tag was rescinded do you not see elite QB's changing teams mid career..........perhaps hastily when that franchise is in a temporary down time?  You don't think that would skew elite QB's toward the largest markets and be disadvantageous to teams like Buffalo?     

 

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted

I guess I'm missing the point.   What's wrong with the system as it is?  

 

I don't see the players union objecting to it, because the franchise tag is irrelevant to 99% of the players in the league.   Getting rid of the tag just benefits a few guys who are making a lot of money already.   And being tagged doesn't hurt them all that much.   All they have to do is show up and play, and they get paid a top-five salary, so arguably they're getting paid what they're worth.  And if they get tagged a second or third year, they're getting paid more than the highest paid guys in the league.    Sure, they aren't getting the big guaranteed payday they'd get if they were free, but they're getting paid a lot. 

 

It does kind of suck that you actually have to sit out a year to force your team to let you go, like Bell did.  Maybe you could change the tag to say that if a team tags a player, it's a TWO-YEAR tag, first year at the average of the top five at the position, then 20% over the top five in the succeeding year AND both years are guaranteed.   So if you get tagged, you know you're getting major dollars (QB would be getting $50 million, guaranteed).   That would sweeten it for the players and make it a slightly bigger risk for the owners.  

 

I agree with those who don't like the way the NBA works.   The owners and the fans should be somewhat secure from their best play holding them hostage.   I don't want to spend five years turning Josh Allen into the best QB in football and then just let him walk.

 

The Patriots keep Brady happy.  The Pack kept Rodgers happy.  Seattle kept Wilson happy.  Cousins is the only guy who's left for greener pastures, and the Redskins probably wish they'd let him go a year earlier.  

 

I'm not seeing the problem here.  

 

 

Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I appreciate the well explained response but I don't think the owners care all that much about the hard feelings it creates with the players they use it on.     The tag is rarely used on the team's most valued player...........rather it's used on talented but suspect individuals like LeVeon Bell(suspensions, injuries, positional longevity/value) who the team really isn't sure it wants to invest long term in.   They may call it a "franchise tag" but it's more often applied as a "unsure tag".  Those aren't necessarily the "ring of honor" guys that the team wants to stay friends with.

 

I see the franchise tag primarily as a deterrent for losing your QB in UFA.      That you can use it to retain a RB with a history of suspension issues or a one hit wonder DL who waited until his walk year to go all-in on his game is just a fringe benefit of the primary use.

 

If the tag was rescinded do you not see elite QB's changing teams mid career..........perhaps hastily when that franchise is in a temporary down time?  You don't think that would skew elite QB's toward the largest markets and be disadvantageous to teams like Buffalo?     

 

 

I don’t think it would direct a player anywhere but to the highest bidder (as it does now). It isn’t that the owners are worried about feelings it’s about a system that doesn’t achieve its initial goal. It won’t look the same way in the next CBA and the owner’s aren’t going to put up massive resistance. The players will never accept it in its current state and the owners aren’t going to pound the table for it. It’s flawed. You may be able to designate a player as exclusive to you but it absolutely, 100% will not be a 1 year deal that is the average of the top 5 highest paid players at a position. It may evolve to a multi-year deal, it may be the highest paid player at a position plus 5%, etc... The system as it is now is coming to an end. 

Edited by Kirby Jackson
Posted
On 4/16/2019 at 8:28 PM, MAJBobby said:

Money. All the owners care about is their % of the pie. 

 

That is ALSO really all the NFLPA should care about BUT they don’t. They also worry about Weed, Commissioner Discipline, Practice Days and a lot of other NOISE. 

 

Don't they get suspended for every single one of those and lose money while suspended?

Posted
1 hour ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Don't they get suspended for every single one of those and lose money while suspended?

 

Paycheck is the small thinking. I am talking % of the entire 10B revenue pie. 

 

That is all the NFLPA should be concerned about. Just like the owners are 

Posted
4 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I don’t think it would direct a player anywhere but to the highest bidder (as it does now). It isn’t that the owners are worried about feelings it’s about a system that doesn’t achieve its initial goal. It won’t look the same way in the next CBA and the owner’s aren’t going to put up massive resistance. The players will never accept it in its current state and the owners aren’t going to pound the table for it. It’s flawed. You may be able to designate a player as exclusive to you but it absolutely, 100% will not be a 1 year deal that is the average of the top 5 highest paid players at a position. It may evolve to a multi-year deal, it may be the highest paid player at a position plus 5%, etc... The system as it is now is coming to an end. 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree about the bolded.   The difference in dollars that teams will offer for very top players will not be significant(though it WOULD escalate salaries quicker).  Without the franchise tag giving the Seahawks just enough leverage I think Russell Wilson would have been the NY Giants QB in 2020.   

 

I think the owners will put up massive resistance to everything in negotiations.    One thing they learned watching MLB waste chips in the 1970's and 1980's.....long before the NFL even had UFA......was not to give up ANYTHING without "massive resistance".    The ONLY reason players are still getting suspended for positive marijuana tests is because it's a bargaining chip.    If THAT seemingly mutually beneficial matter is worth to owners what it costs their teams in player time lost and acrimony(and possible health issues related to pain killers) then the franchise tag would be worth A LOT in trade,  IMO.

 

But I agree that I could see it altered in exchange for something.........."highest paid for one year" in itself would be a big concession.    I just don't think the teams will give up that "tag" leverage though.   They are going to want to keep that,  IMO.

Posted
41 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Paycheck is the small thinking. I am talking % of the entire 10B revenue pie. 

 

That is all the NFLPA should be concerned about. Just like the owners are 

 

Come on, stop being niaeve. There's around 32 majority owners over a 5 year span and what 3000 players probably over that span.  A suspension is a massive percentage of a contract for a player. The Colts owner got fined a bunch a bit back, did that hurt his wealth in any real way? No, didn't touch it. NFL player gets suspended a week, that's a crazy big percentage of his contract. 

 

The 'poor' owners are scamming you man, all of us actually. They get so many tax breaks, so many, and pass it forward by squeezing your opportunity by all the hand outs they get. And we complain about a dude literally killing himself trying to make it so they damn owners don't keep them in their place through arbitrary crap that they themselves do consistently. Please, wake up.

Posted
29 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

We'll have to agree to disagree about the bolded.   The difference in dollars that teams will offer for very top players will not be significant(though it WOULD escalate salaries quicker).  Without the franchise tag giving the Seahawks just enough leverage I think Russell Wilson would have been the NY Giants QB in 2020.   

 

I think the owners will put up massive resistance to everything in negotiations.    One thing they learned watching MLB waste chips in the 1970's and 1980's.....long before the NFL even had UFA......was not to give up ANYTHING without "massive resistance".    The ONLY reason players are still getting suspended for positive marijuana tests is because it's a bargaining chip.    If THAT seemingly mutually beneficial matter is worth to owners what it costs their teams in player time lost and acrimony(and possible health issues related to pain killers) then the franchise tag would be worth A LOT in trade,  IMO.

 

But I agree that I could see it altered in exchange for something.........."highest paid for one year" in itself would be a big concession.    I just don't think the teams will give up that "tag" leverage though.   They are going to want to keep that,  IMO.

 

A lot of very good, and politely presented points in there. Really. 

 

 

?

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Come on, stop being niaeve. There's around 32 majority owners over a 5 year span and what 3000 players probably over that span.  A suspension is a massive percentage of a contract for a player. The Colts owner got fined a bunch a bit back, did that hurt his wealth in any real way? No, didn't touch it. NFL player gets suspended a week, that's a crazy big percentage of his contract. 

 

The 'poor' owners are scamming you man, all of us actually. They get so many tax breaks, so many, and pass it forward by squeezing your opportunity by all the hand outs they get. And we complain about a dude literally killing himself trying to make it so they damn owners don't keep them in their place through arbitrary crap that they themselves do consistently. Please, wake up.

Yeah typical small thinking.  OO know lose a game check.  300K.  but to change that suspension stuff players give up 1% of the total revenue pie. or 450M (in 2018).  

 

So yeah the NFLPA needs to focus on one thing.  Increasing their % of the total revenue pie

 

You know what increases those Players contracts???  More % of the revenue split.  So the players gave up 3% of total revenue in last CBA.  Or 450M a year.  so since 2011 the players have Lost 2.7558B Dollars About 919k Per player (when divided by your 3000 number).  Hmmm good thing they got relaxed practice schedules etc...

 

So who is naïve?

 

 

If the players are going into these negotiations with anything else on their mind other than the total % split of the revenue pie they already lost.

Capture.PNG

Edited by MAJBobby
Posted
3 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Yeah typical small thinking.  OO know lose a game check.  300K.  but to change that suspension stuff players give up 1% of the total revenue pie. or 450M (in 2018).  

 

So yeah the NFLPA needs to focus on one thing.  Increasing their % of the total revenue pie

 

You know what increases those Players contracts???  More % of the revenue split.  So the players gave up 3% of total revenue in last CBA.  Or 450M a year.  so since 2011 the players have Lost 2.7558B Dollars About 919k Per player (when divided by your 3000 number).  Hmmm good thing they got relaxed practice schedules etc...

 

So who is naïve?

 

 

If the players are going into these negotiations with anything else on their mind other than the total % split of the revenue pie they already lost.

Capture.PNG

 

Good rebuttal, and valid point to an extent on the slice of 1% certainly seems like it is more than the tiny relative amount I thought it was (though still minuscule compared to an owners take of 1%).

 

The one piece you're missing is that the majority of the increse of the pie would go to the top players, so most of the members of the union would not see a near $1m bump in salary (using my random 3000 number). I would be interested if they raised the minimum salaries across the board (including practice squad and camp players) how that would look.

 

I think where I really struggle is two players do the exact same thing (hit a defensless receiver for example) and they get fined the same amount. One player makes $10m a year, the other $500k, the punishment is much stronger on the less valuable player. I think they should focus on making fines based on % of salary, and that would be a good first step on getting the lower salaried players to buy into fixing the franchise tag (which is basically the same argument I'm making flipped to just players...why the heck would the lower valued players, who will never get tagged, vote for giving up something to help the stars avoid getting tagged).

 

Anyway, I think this is an interesting conversation, looks like I was wrong most likely on the small amount the players would get of they increased the revenue a tiny but, so I am wrong on my assumption of your though process, my bad on that. I think we potentially align on this pretty closely actually, but would still want to see assurances that lower level players are seeing a fair share of the increase, and it doesn't just go to raise the salary cap allowing for more huge contracts offset by rookie deals and low minimum vetran contracts.

Posted
8 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Good rebuttal, and valid point to an extent on the slice of 1% certainly seems like it is more than the tiny relative amount I thought it was (though still minuscule compared to an owners take of 1%).

 

The one piece you're missing is that the majority of the increse of the pie would go to the top players, so most of the members of the union would not see a near $1m bump in salary (using my random 3000 number). I would be interested if they raised the minimum salaries across the board (including practice squad and camp players) how that would look.

 

I think where I really struggle is two players do the exact same thing (hit a defensless receiver for example) and they get fined the same amount. One player makes $10m a year, the other $500k, the punishment is much stronger on the less valuable player. I think they should focus on making fines based on % of salary, and that would be a good first step on getting the lower salaried players to buy into fixing the franchise tag (which is basically the same argument I'm making flipped to just players...why the heck would the lower valued players, who will never get tagged, vote for giving up something to help the stars avoid getting tagged).

 

Anyway, I think this is an interesting conversation, looks like I was wrong most likely on the small amount the players would get of they increased the revenue a tiny but, so I am wrong on my assumption of your though process, my bad on that. I think we potentially align on this pretty closely actually, but would still want to see assurances that lower level players are seeing a fair share of the increase, and it doesn't just go to raise the salary cap allowing for more huge contracts offset by rookie deals and low minimum vetran contracts.

I hear you on the protections or base fines on the contract of the player, but that is an argument for concession on something like Owners want more Practice time back.  Fine we want fines tide to a % of the game check.  

 

at the end of the day the main goal of the players though should be to get back the 3% that they lost in the last CBA an to actually try and flip the revenue Pie.  The easy way to do that is talk games.  Owners you want 17 games ok we want 50/50% revenue split.  You want 18 games we want 60/40 split.  point should be though to come out better than they did with the % of the pie.  Without that they lost.  just like thy did in 2011, no matter how much they will prop up the little wins like the franchise tag cap. 

Posted
On 4/18/2019 at 6:58 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that the NBA system is SO much better when it comes to star players. Teams are rewarded for drafting well with things like Bird Rights as @Ethan in Portland alluded to. There are some solutions in the NFL to fix this broken franchise player model.

 

What if it were a 2 year commitment that escalated in year 2? Why is it only a 1 year-commitment? Teams would be more reluctant to slap the tag on just about anyone and players plus be more likely to sign it with a multi-year commitment. It seems like a win-win to me.

 

Another option is to start introducing elements of a soft cap. This COULD be a slippery slope if not done correctly but could also be a HR. You COULD be allowed to exceed the cap by a certain percentage to sign 1 player, drafted by that team, that meets certain criteria. In some ways it would be similar to the Super-max in the NBA. Each team can only have 1 guy on this type of deal, etc... it would have to be hashed out but it would protect a team that drafts Russell Wilson from having to tear down the rest of their team BECAUSE they drafted Russell Wilson. Maybe a super-max contract allows that team to exceed the cap by 2.5% or something like that? 

When the 2 year commitment ends, can there be another 2 year tag applied ?

×
×
  • Create New...