Matt's Franchise Tag Proposal

[Preds]

Last year, Matt (Philly) brought up an intersting proposal regarding adding a franchise tag to the league. Here it is:

Originally posted by Philadelphia Freedom
I am fine with increasing roster size (voted on the board) for 2003. I am wondering if with the increase in roster size and cap space if it might be possible to discuss some sort of Franchise Tag that could be used? I am not dead sure how it would work, but maybe like the tender offers it would be the option to offer a deal to a player (one per team, per year) once his contract expires (but before the RFA begins). Here is my first stab at how this could work:

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 . I am not sure how many teams would take advantage of this but it might make for another interesting option, especially since a lot of guys were signed to deals before we made all of these changes. Some teams might figure that the cost is too high but for a lot of young guys that were signed for like $100 this presents them with the option of resigning one of their own players. This could work well since we are looking to increase the contract years and cap space anyway.

The other twist that may be worth thinking about, again not trying to make the management end anymore complicated, but maybe these guys salaries also increase by 20% instead of 10% and the tag cannot be used on the same player more than once with the same team.

For example Corey Dillon currently has a one year deal for $1,772. If the Predators wanted to "Franchise" him he would get a 2003 deal for $2,126 since it would be higher than $1,500. Using the 20% escalator his 2004 salary would be $2,552 and his 2005 salary would be $3,062. This would offer the option of signing him before he hits the market but there is a price to pay for utilizing this option.

Another example would be Duece McCallister who has a one year deal for $110 in 2002. If the Freedom want to "Franchise" him he would get $1,500 in 2003 since it would be much higher than the 20% increase. Using the 20% escalator his 2004 salary would be $1,800 and his 2005 salary would be $2,160. Again, it is not a cheap option but it would allow teams to retain one of their own. In some cases the player may not be worth it and the team would not want to use option however with the possibility of more years and cap space this would allow teams to retain talent.

Sorry, I am kind of thinking on the fly, but it might add another dimension to the decision making process. Please feel free to post your thoughts.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I'm not sure if it was in the thinking or not, but we'd have to include that you cannot have more than one franchise player under contract at a time. IE, say the Predators frachise Corey Dillon as in Matt's example, and they sign him to a 5 year contract. Mike cannot use the franchise designation then again until Corey's contract run out.

Again, maybe that is assumed, but I wouldn't support this if we got to use one franchise designation per year. I like the idea of having all players face the market. Some RBs could never face the free market with this system. If someone drafted a steal RB in the second round, assigned them a 5 year contrac, then had the franchise tag available when they came up, they could tag them and keep them until the end of their career (since most RBs are done by ten years time). I'm not crazy about that.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
I'm not sure if it was in the thinking or not, but we'd have to include that you cannot have more than one franchise player under contract at a time. IE, say the Predators frachise Corey Dillon as in Matt's example, and they sign him to a 5 year contract. Mike cannot use the franchise designation then again until Corey's contract run out.

Again, maybe that is assumed, but I wouldn't support this if we got to use one franchise designation per year. I like the idea of having all players face the market. Some RBs could never face the free market with this system. If someone drafted a steal RB in the second round, assigned them a 5 year contrac, then had the franchise tag available when they came up, they could tag them and keep them until the end of their career (since most RBs are done by ten years time). I'm not crazy about that.

I'd agree with Brian here, just like the NFL does it... although NFL teams get around this by signing Franchise players to 1 year deals and then extend their contracts later.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

My vote should be read as: implement the rule in 2004, incoroporating the limitation specified above.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I'm going to vote against this... I think with the RFA tag, that's sufficient opportunity to "keep" a player.

Until the original year contracts expire (and I admit, I'm a beneficiary of what happened before last year), this league is NOT going to have parity. Anything to make the playing field more level works for me.

I say let everyone get back into the mix as soon as their contracts allow!

[Flaxwless]

I'm with Jim here.

I will not consider a franchise tag until ALL the orginal contracts have expired.

Once that occurs we can talk about Franchise tags.

[Nittany Dodgers]

This one doesn't have enough votes to carry this year. We can look at this again in the future.