Why do players dislike being franchised?

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Because players like the security of a long-term contract, plus the fact that longer contracts almost always equal more guaranteed money.

I think the players' logic in that situation can be flawed. Again:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by valrod33:
Financial Security

if they get hurt during a year they are franchised they are afraid they wont get that big payday

I don't buy it.

If Hampton and Franklin each get injured this year and cut, they make $11 and $7M respectively. OTOH, if they get injured NEXT year and cut, Franklin likely ends up with more money - $14M v. $11M or so.

A long term contract is not totally about financial security. I would suspect that many players like to know that they're going to be in the same city for a long time, so that they and their families can settle down and integrate into the community.

That makes sense to me. But at the same time, once that tag is slapped on there is a year to work on the new long term deal while the player is making top 5 money. In other words, the player's family gets to stay where they already were (continuity), make more money and still have another year to work out a long term solution.

But what if, let's say the player is franchised in a place like Detroit, and the player is in the last few years of his career. Money sometimes will take a backseat considering he actually wants a championship/ring. Money is the driving force, no doubt, but in the twillight of one's career, and let's say he already made mucho dinero, one could be thinking about the legacy instead of of the financial aspect...

- 98

^^ That, too, is a valid reason in my mind.

symbolically speaking players getting that mega contract is a Triumph of talent over management. Being franchised is perceived as a victory for Management. I think these Athletes have a fear of their peers thinking they got played or something

A long term contract will guarantee you X-amount of $$ and it would be a significant amount greater than the tag. You get hurt, you still see your $. With the tag, you're gambling. If you get hurt, you can kiss a longterm contract good-bye. You might see 1, but the guaranteed $, on top of the prev yr tag, would prob still be less.. You stay healthy though, and it could end up being a huge payday. If someone offered me 15 guaranteed over 5yrs or say, $7mil for this year and maybe more later, id take the guaranteed any day

[ Edited by Jordache49 on Feb 25, 2010 at 15:10:47 ]

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by valrod33:
Financial Security

if they get hurt during a year they are franchised they are afraid they wont get that big payday

I don't buy it.

If Hampton and Franklin each get injured this year and cut, they make $11 and $7M respectively. OTOH, if they get injured NEXT year and cut, Franklin likely ends up wiht more money - $14M v. $11M or so.

I am on mu phone.



But you are forgetting the salary the long term player would be getting. Even if it 3 mil a year. Said player in year 2 is up 17-14.

Originally posted by jdt84_2:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by valrod33:
Financial Security

if they get hurt during a year they are franchised they are afraid they wont get that big payday

I don't buy it.

If Hampton and Franklin each get injured this year and cut, they make $11 and $7M respectively. OTOH, if they get injured NEXT year and cut, Franklin likely ends up wiht more money - $14M v. $11M or so.

I am on mu phone.



But you are forgetting the salary the long term player would be getting. Even if it 3 mil a year. Said player in year 2 is up 17-14.

Not necessarily. Typically, the player's guaranteed $ is the bulk of the first year salary (second year, too) in a multi year deal. The extra $$ isminimal. If those two players each get injured early on in year 2, the franchised player could make more money.

C, I expected so much more from you...

A player tears it up for one year, boosts his apparent value, and hopes to get his "dream" contract. Once the "dream" contract is in hand, the player can half-ass it because he got his guaranteed monies. There are countless examples of this, but Shaun Alexander comes to mind.

By being franchised, the franchisee has to perform, again, to have any hope of getting his "dream" contract and that pisses them off, hence the disdain for the franchise tag.

You know, cause playing for multiple millions of dollars is such a drag.

Originally posted by horsecore:
C, I expected so much more from you...

A player tears it up for one year, boosts his apparent value, and hopes to get his "dream" contract. Once the "dream" contract is in hand, the player can half-ass it because he got his guaranteed monies. There are countless examples of this, but Shaun Alexander comes to mind.

By being franchised, the franchisee has to perform, again, to have any hope of getting his "dream" contract and that pisses them off, hence the disdain for the franchise tag.

You know, cause playing for multiple millions of dollars is such a drag.

Now THAT makes sense!

/thread.

players are greedy, that's why. they make way more than players did 20 years ago (even accounting for inflation), but they still want to max out their millions while the getting is good. plus, with a long term deal, even if they don't get injured, they can pocket the signing bonus and play lazy and be one year and done if they like (like Ahmed Plummer did to us).

Originally posted by Shaj:
players are greedy, that's why. they make way more than players did 20 years ago (even accounting for inflation), but they still want to max out their millions while the getting is good. plus, with a long term deal, even if they don't get injured, they can pocket the signing bonus and play lazy and be one year and done if they like (like Ahmed Plummer did to us).

What kind of argument is that? The owners also make way more today. The coaches and trainers too. Cable companies as well. Why is this such a double-standard against players. LT was cut this past week, I don't see anyone on ESPN b***h about how a NFL team should honor the contract. But, if a player wants out of a deal - "he is selfish and greedy" - wtf? Makes no sense at all.

Most players know their career lasts about 7-8 years in the league, so it makes perfect sense for them to try to make as much money as possible. Most of them have already played 5 years of football (without pay) in school and college. So, I don't blame them one bit if they are "greedy" by the time they reach NFL.

...and Antonio Bryant is a perfect example of why players hate being franchised.

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by Shaj:
players are greedy, that's why. they make way more than players did 20 years ago (even accounting for inflation), but they still want to max out their millions while the getting is good. plus, with a long term deal, even if they don't get injured, they can pocket the signing bonus and play lazy and be one year and done if they like (like Ahmed Plummer did to us).

What kind of argument is that? The owners also make way more today. The coaches and trainers too. Cable companies as well. Why is this such a double-standard against players. LT was cut this past week, I don't see anyone on ESPN b***h about how a NFL team should honor the contract. But, if a player wants out of a deal - "he is selfish and greedy" - wtf? Makes no sense at all.

Most players know their career lasts about 7-8 years in the league, so it makes perfect sense for them to try to make as much money as possible. Most of them have already played 5 years of football (without pay) in school and college. So, I don't blame them one bit if they are "greedy" by the time they reach NFL.

...and Antonio Bryant is a perfect example of why players hate being franchised.

this. also, being tagged nullifies their ability to negotiate. Even if the franchise and transition amounts are big $$ would anyone else be happy if they were negotiating a 4-5 year contract and your boss just said, "Well, instead of that, you're getting a one year contract at a pre-determined rate. TS."

There are several reasons. One is to play where they want to play. A winning team, team closer to home, or simply another team cause current management ticked them off.

The other is bonus money and security. If they get a big bonus it is unlikely teams will cut them until the letter part of the contract where they won't suffer a hit to the cap. Thus if they are not cut, they also have their annual salary which also escaltes.

Another factor is the longer you stay on a team the better your pension etc. There have many times don't cut a guy even though they want to because they don't want to take an accelrated hit on the cap before. Which may also mean cutting someone you want to keep.

signing bonus > 1 yr franchise salary

Originally posted by blizzuntz:
signing bonus > 1 yr franchise salary

Yes but

signing bonus < 2 yr franchise salary.

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:
signing bonus > 1 yr franchise salary

Yes but

signing bonus < 2 yr franchise salary.

There's also no guarantee that a player will get the franchise tag for more than one season.