Seahawks want 2nd round pick for Earl Thomas; Update: Thomas out for the year with broken leg

[TheKillerNacho]

On 10/4/2018 at 3:57 PM, Nabbs4u said:

Franchise Tag will never, ever be gone! Adjusted, Limited with consecutive years possibly but it will always be at the Organization's disposal moving forward.

I personally think you're wrong about this. I think the franchise tag is as good as toast. If it does exist beyond the next CBA, all it will be is the right for the team to match a contract offer the player receives in free agency. That's it. No limiting on who you can negotiate with, no picks surrendered if the player signs elsewhere, and most importantly: the tag isn't a 1-year deal at all, merely the right of the home team to match offers. The franchise tag is extremely unpopular among players.

[Nabbs4u]

5 hours ago, TheKillerNacho said:

I personally think you're wrong about this. I think the franchise tag is as good as toast. If it does exist beyond the next CBA, all it will be is the right for the team to match a contract offer the player receives in free agency. That's it. No limiting on who you can negotiate with, no picks surrendered if the player signs elsewhere, and most importantly: the tag isn't a 1-year deal at all, merely the right of the home team to match offers. The franchise tag is extremely unpopular among players.

Only way and I mean only way I can see those things remotely happening is if the Players give in to a 18 game season.

Tag is the only way for Franchises not to lose "top tier" drafted talent. 

No disrespect intended but if Money is the same is a player choosing a Buffalo Winter or California's? Florida /Texas with no state tax or Cleveland? Organizations deserve compensation if they can't retain said players.

[Flounch]

18 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

Died way before that. That was just the final piece left. It died the minute Sherman and Chancellor stop suiting up for Seattle.

In many ways the real LOB was gone after Browner left too. They were just filling his spot  (very well mind you)  with variation's like the Temptations! 

They died when Caroll decided to call a pass instead of a run in the superbowl. 

[TheKillerNacho]

2 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

Only way and I mean only way I can see those things remotely happening is if the Players give in to a 18 game season.

Tag is the only way for Franchises not to lose "top tier" drafted talent. 

No disrespect intended but if Money is the same is a player choosing a Buffalo Winter or California's? Florida /Texas with no state tax or Cleveland? Organizations deserve compensation if they can't retain said players.

Being able to match an offer on a particular player as I suggested allows them to do that, though. It does however force them to:

a) Extend that player before free agency begins, or,

b) Pay them fair market value for their services

Neither a nor b are bad things. Moreover, the compensatory pick system already compensates teams for losing players in free agency.

There's 0% chance the players are going to allow a 18 game season. And the next negotiation is going to be brutal. Owners arguably have more to lose than players if games are canceled, so I sort of expect the players to do better this time around than they did last time.

Also you don't have to worry. Disagreement and disrespect aren't the same thing.

[Nabbs4u]

1 hour ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Being able to match an offer on a particular player as I suggested allows them to do that, though. It does however force them to:

a) Extend that player before free agency begins, or,

b) Pay them fair market value for their services

Neither a nor b are bad things. Moreover, the compensatory pick system already compensates teams for losing players in free agency.

There's 0% chance the players are going to allow a 18 game season. And the next negotiation is going to be brutal. Owners arguably have more to lose than players if games are canceled, so I sort of expect the players to do better this time around than they did last time.

Also you don't have to worry. Disagreement and disrespect aren't the same thing.

First my "disrespect" comment was for the Bills/Browns Fans , not or discussion. ? 

The problem with A and B is the Assumption said player wants to stay in that city or Franchise. Can't extend someone who wants out. 

I think there's just as much chance the Owners give up the Tag as the Players playing 18. Hence the eventual Strike I believe is coming. That's all.

[TheKillerNacho]

41 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

First my "disrespect" comment was for the Bills/Browns Fans , not or discussion. ? 

The problem with A and B is the Assumption said player wants to stay in that city or Franchise. Can't extend someone who wants out. 

I think there's just as much chance the Owners give up the Tag as the Players playing 18. Hence the eventual Strike I believe is coming. That's all.

Very few players simply "want out". They mostly want to test the market to maximize their earning potential. The franchise tag puts them in an even harder position. If you think about it, in every other field it is kind of ludicrous to force someone to work in a place they don't want to be or not work in their profession. It's probably illegal but the NFL operates in a gray area. So the fact a franchise tag exists at all is kind of messed up.

The players would definitely not trade the tag being gone for 18 game seasons. For one thing, the tag only affects at a maxmium of 32 players per season. 18 games affects all the players for the worse. There's no way an 18 game season is happening unless the players (all of the players) are compensated a lot.

And yes, there will be a strike. That much is likely.

[AlexGreen#20]

I'm not sure the Franchise Tag really matters all that much to the majority of players. There's almost 2000 players being represented in these negotiations. Maybe 100 of them will ever have the Franchise Tag ever matter to them. 

[Nabbs4u]

5 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

The players would definitely not trade the tag being gone for 18 game seasons. For one thing, the tag only affects at a maxmium of 32 players per season. 18 games affects all the players for the worse. There's no way an 18 game season is happening unless the players (all of the players) are compensated a lot.

And yes, there will be a strike. That much is likely.

Hence why I don't believe the Tag is going anywhere. Adjusted, possibly. Gone ,not happening unless the above occurs IMO.

[TheKillerNacho]

1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said:

Hence why I don't believe the Tag is going anywhere. Adjusted, possibly. Gone ,not happening unless the above occurs IMO.

 

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I'm not sure the Franchise Tag really matters all that much to the majority of players. There's almost 2000 players being represented in these negotiations. Maybe 100 of them will ever have the Franchise Tag ever matter to them. 

It does affect all players in terms of setting market value, though. Most of the players who get tagged are the ones that would be driving up those huge FA deals.

Plus, let's face it. It's straight up unfair. No other field is this sort of thing happens in the United States nor would it be legal. Imagine if I am a contractor for my development company. I complete my contract, and they offer me a new contract. Ultimately however I decide I want to move on and become an employee at a great company I'm really excited about, who is willing to pay me top dollar.  Then I find out my previous job put an "workers tag" on me so I can't go. It's ludicrous. Then you add the fact that football players are under constant threat of their careers ending early and that playing on a 1-year deal can end your chances at getting a big contract ever again... it really is pretty messed up.

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, TheKillerNacho said:

 

It does affect all players in terms of setting market value, though. Most of the players who get tagged are the ones that would be driving up those huge FA deals.

Plus, let's face it. It's straight up unfair. No other field is this sort of thing happens in the United States nor would it be legal. Imagine if I am a contractor for my development company. I complete my contract, and they offer me a new contract. Ultimately however I decide I want to move on and become an employee at a great company I'm really excited about, who is willing to pay me top dollar.  Then I find out my previous job put an "workers tag" on me so I can't go. It's ludicrous. Then you add the fact that football players are under constant threat of their careers ending early and that playing on a 1-year deal can end your chances at getting a big contract ever again... it really is pretty messed up.

Everything about the NFL will look messed up if you compare to corporate America. 

By design.

The NFL is profitable because they try to make it as likely as possible that every team can be competitive.

That's not how the rest of America works.

[ET80]

11 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Everything about the NFL will look messed up if you compare to corporate America. 

This. All arguments need to keep this in mind.

[TheKillerNacho]

On 10/6/2018 at 11:19 PM, incognito_man said:

Everything about the NFL will look messed up if you compare to corporate America. 

By design.

The NFL is profitable because they try to make it as likely as possible that every team can be competitive.

That's not how the rest of America works.

Does the franchise tag actually make every team competitive though? What does large hold outs like Bell's do to make the Steelers more competitive? How would it simply not existing hurt teams from being competitive since every team would no longer have this as an option? If you want to retain "homegrown" players, pay them. But no one who has faithfully played out their contract (least of all those who in all likelihood outplayed that contract) should be essentially blackballed into having to sign another one with the same team, least of all one with no long-term guarantees, when there are several teams willing to give him those long-term guarantees.

Being fair to the teams and trying to create an even playing field is one thing. But one should also be fair to the players. How is removing the current tag and replacing it with a tag that merely allows the old team to match a contract offer going to hurt overall competitiveness? All it does is remove the ability of all 32 teams to essentially short-change one of their best players each year. They still have an avenue to retain that player.

[CWood21]

On 10/8/2018 at 9:28 AM, TheKillerNacho said:

Being fair to the teams and trying to create an even playing field is one thing. But one should also be fair to the players. How is removing the current tag and replacing it with a tag that merely allows the old team to match a contract offer going to hurt overall competitiveness? All it does is remove the ability of all 32 teams to essentially short-change one of their best players each year. They still have an avenue to retain that player

I think something that doesn't get discussed enough is how early players reach UFA especially in comparison to other leagues.  In MLB, you're talking about a minimum of 6 years before you reach FA, and it's often 7 years due to roster manipulation.  In NBA, you have four years on your rookie contract before you hit RFA, so at a minimum you're talking about 5 years of team control at minimum.  But more often than not, we're talking about some sort of extension or long-term deal after the initial contract expires.

[Nabbs4u]

12 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I think something that doesn't get discussed enough is how early players reach UFA especially in comparison to other leagues.  In MLB, you're talking about a minimum of 6 years before you reach FA, and it's often 7 years due to roster manipulation.  In NBA, you have four years on your rookie contract before you hit RFA, so at a minimum you're talking about 5 years of team control at minimum.  But more often than not, we're talking about some sort of extension or long-term deal after the initial contract expires.

None of those Sports have the average career length of a NFL Player or risk for injury. If anything Players should hit FA earlier in the NFL because of it. 

Won't ever happen, but should.

[Broncofan]

12 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

None of those Sports have the average career length of a NFL Player or risk for injury. If anything Players should hit FA earlier in the NFL because of it. 

Won't ever happen, but should.

Plus, they also hit arbitration in MLB after 3+ years of service time, or if they are in the top 22 percent of those between 2 and 3 years (super-2).   And then they get a REALLY nice raise if they are playing well - like, from 500K to 20M for the very best (and often, 8-10M for just "decent" players).   

I get there are 25 players per team, and it's a 162 game season, with different TV $ - but comparing just overall time to FA is very misleading.  Baseball also has the greatest longevity of careers, especially if you are a position player.   It's just not even close how league/team-friendly the NFL CBA is compared to the other sports.