Quote:
Originally posted by Philadelphia Freedom
I think structuring with the greater of 1.2 times last years salary or $1,200 for a QB, $1,500 for a RB, $1,100 for a WR, $550 for a TE and $450 for a K will cause teams to think hard before using the tag.
|
First of all, I don't think these price salaries will make anyone think twice about using the tag. The QB price is accurate, the RB price is market value for a lsightly above average starting running back (let us not forget that Lamont Jordan has garnered a $1400 contract), the WR salary is the going price for a good but not great receiver. TE and Ks are not an issue for me.
If you have a Shaun Alexander at under $500 for x number of years, you've been able to overpay approximately $1500-2000 for the rest of your talent for those years, since Shaun is really a $2000-$2500 (or more) running back. That I believe is fair enough compensation for getting a steal out of either drafting him late, or deftly signing him (Shaun is only a hypothetical example, and I am ignoring the real reason he is currently underpriced). If we now have the franchise tag to use, and the owner gets to resign him for only $1500, he's still geting a $500 to $1000 savings off his market salary, and can overpay for talent by that much. Will the owner have to cut talent to keep him? Yes, but that's not really the issue. Theoretically, he's overpaid for talent due to his large suplus of cash the previous year, or if he's spent wisely, he has far more talent then most teams already, and by cutting talent, things are only being evened out.
I'd rather see a Shaun Alexander go to the RFA route, and have the market set the players value, then have the opportunity for an owner to resign a player uncontestedly to another under market contract.
Now, going to an average of the top three salaries aleviates this, as the owner is guaranteed to pay a premium, but the set scale needs serious adjusting at the very least in my eyes.