Maybe I'm the only one, but I am having difficulty undertanding the tie between the signing bonus issue and a franchise player. The only connection I see is that they are both NFL inspired. Other than that, I don't see why one goes with the other.
Regardless, I am against the franchise player tag. As far as I can see, it would only be used on players dramatically underpriced, or by a team with enough cap room to pay a premium to retain a player. If a team has a player dramatically underpriced (say they drafted a RB in the 3rd round, and he turned out to be a stud), that team should have received enough benifit from having that player for a certain number of years at the cheap contrac that they don't need another way to capitalize on that player. If the team has enough cap room to pay a premium, I'd rather see the league market determine the players price in RFA or FA. If the team has the cap room, they can still match the price.
If the majority of the league favors the idea, I have a few suggestions to make it more palatable to me. First, I'd say if we have a franchise player tag, I'd like to see the price as the average of the top three players at that position from the previous season. I believe the NFL does top 5, but we have far fewer teams and players. There is also a big dropoff at some positions after the first 3. That way, the team HAS to pay a premium to retain the player, as they are paying top dollar for him.
I think the franchise tag should only be allowed to retain a player at a premium price, not with some low level that would allow a previously underpaid player to continue to be underpaid.
With the franchise tag as proposed, I think the game becomes more a matter of who can manage their salary and roster cap rather than who is a good judge of talent.
Just my opinion though, of course.
|