Why do players dislike being franchised?

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

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.

True. They could get a multi-year deal.

I understand the idea of wanting stability. I also understand not wanting to have to work *too* hard to earn a contract every year. I don't understand them b***hing about the money though, as being paid as a top 5 player is nothing to sneeze at.

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

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.

True. They could get a multi-year deal.

I understand the idea of wanting stability. I also understand not wanting to have to work *too* hard to earn a contract every year. I don't understand them b***hing about the money though, as being paid as a top 5 player is nothing to sneeze at.

I agree, I don't understand them b***hing about the money either, but that's only because I will never even come close to making in my entire life what some of these bums make in one god damn season.

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

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

Yes but

signing bonus < 2 yr franchise salary.

No. A signing bonus is INSTANT money. That's what they want. Plus, they still get their base salaries on top of that.

Sure, their base salary will be higher for one year under a franchise tag, but not a whole lot. Plus, they don't get that huge signing bonus. Making slightly more base salary for a single season is hardly worth the risk of getting injured or having a down year and losing out on a large contract/bonus.

It's for the same reason that lottery winners take the 50% of their winnings in cash, rather than get it paid in full in annuities. People want their money... now.

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

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

Yes but

signing bonus < 2 yr franchise salary.

No. A signing bonus is INSTANT money. That's what they want. Plus, they still get their base salaries on top of that.

Sure, their base salary will be higher for one year under a franchise tag, but not a whole lot. Plus, they don't get that huge signing bonus. Making slightly more base salary for a single season is hardly worth the risk of getting injured or having a down year and losing out on a large contract/bonus.

It's for the same reason that lottery winners take the 50% of their winnings in cash, rather than get it paid in full in annuities. People want their money... now.

I've already discussed this above with respect to the 3 year deal that the Steelers' NT got. When a player gets a large signing bonus, their first few years' salary is typically minimal. So, 2 one year $7M deals are better than $11M up front and another $1M at the start of year 2 for the guy that gets injured early on in year 2.

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

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

Yes but

signing bonus < 2 yr franchise salary.

No. A signing bonus is INSTANT money. That's what they want. Plus, they still get their base salaries on top of that.

Sure, their base salary will be higher for one year under a franchise tag, but not a whole lot. Plus, they don't get that huge signing bonus. Making slightly more base salary for a single season is hardly worth the risk of getting injured or having a down year and losing out on a large contract/bonus.

It's for the same reason that lottery winners take the 50% of their winnings in cash, rather than get it paid in full in annuities. People want their money... now.

I've already discussed this above with respect to the 3 year deal that the Steelers' NT got. When a player gets a large signing bonus, their first few years' salary is typically minimal. So, 2 one year $7M deals are better than $11M up front and another $1M at the start of year 2 for the guy that gets injured early on in year 2.

Not if you never get the second $7M deal. Move the injury up from year 2 to year 1, and the player walks with 7M. The injury doesn't even have to be career ending. If the guy has a minor injury that affects his play all year, than that hurts his value.

A player that puts together a healthy season is one that has most likely maximized his value. Getting the tag means he has to repeat that season if he still wants a big contract. I wouldn't understand their position if all the factors that go into putting up a good season are in a player's control, but they clearly aren't.

Just look at Franklin. He put together a great season and now, thanks to the tag, he has to hope that his 30 year old body can stay healthy for the whole season or he loses big money. Few teams will outbid each other over a 31 year old FA coming off a down season with injury concerns. He'd be much better off signing a LT deal this year that can take him through retirement because, under that deal, the risk of injury has passed from him to the team he signed with.

Originally posted by Overkill:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

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

Yes but

signing bonus < 2 yr franchise salary.

No. A signing bonus is INSTANT money. That's what they want. Plus, they still get their base salaries on top of that.

Sure, their base salary will be higher for one year under a franchise tag, but not a whole lot. Plus, they don't get that huge signing bonus. Making slightly more base salary for a single season is hardly worth the risk of getting injured or having a down year and losing out on a large contract/bonus.

It's for the same reason that lottery winners take the 50% of their winnings in cash, rather than get it paid in full in annuities. People want their money... now.

I've already discussed this above with respect to the 3 year deal that the Steelers' NT got. When a player gets a large signing bonus, their first few years' salary is typically minimal. So, 2 one year $7M deals are better than $11M up front and another $1M at the start of year 2 for the guy that gets injured early on in year 2.

Not if you never get the second $7M deal. Move the injury up from year 2 to year 1, and the player walks with 7M. The injury doesn't even have to be career ending. If the guy has a minor injury that affects his play all year, than that hurts his value.

A player that puts together a healthy season is one that has most likely maximized his value. Getting the tag means he has to repeat that season if he still wants a big contract. I wouldn't understand their position if all the factors that go into putting up a good season are in a player's control, but they clearly aren't.

Just look at Franklin. He put together a great season and now, thanks to the tag, he has to hope that his 30 year old body can stay healthy for the whole season or he loses big money. Few teams will outbid each other over a 31 year old FA coming off a down season with injury concerns. He'd be much better off signing a LT deal this year that can take him through retirement because, under that deal, the risk of injury has passed from him to the team he signed with.

Exactly.

Isnt the average NFL career less than 3 years? Every year that a player gets older, the less his long term contract will be worth, usually.

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by Overkill:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

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

Yes but

signing bonus < 2 yr franchise salary.

No. A signing bonus is INSTANT money. That's what they want. Plus, they still get their base salaries on top of that.

Sure, their base salary will be higher for one year under a franchise tag, but not a whole lot. Plus, they don't get that huge signing bonus. Making slightly more base salary for a single season is hardly worth the risk of getting injured or having a down year and losing out on a large contract/bonus.

It's for the same reason that lottery winners take the 50% of their winnings in cash, rather than get it paid in full in annuities. People want their money... now.

I've already discussed this above with respect to the 3 year deal that the Steelers' NT got. When a player gets a large signing bonus, their first few years' salary is typically minimal. So, 2 one year $7M deals are better than $11M up front and another $1M at the start of year 2 for the guy that gets injured early on in year 2.

Not if you never get the second $7M deal. Move the injury up from year 2 to year 1, and the player walks with 7M. The injury doesn't even have to be career ending. If the guy has a minor injury that affects his play all year, than that hurts his value.

A player that puts together a healthy season is one that has most likely maximized his value. Getting the tag means he has to repeat that season if he still wants a big contract. I wouldn't understand their position if all the factors that go into putting up a good season are in a player's control, but they clearly aren't.

Just look at Franklin. He put together a great season and now, thanks to the tag, he has to hope that his 30 year old body can stay healthy for the whole season or he loses big money. Few teams will outbid each other over a 31 year old FA coming off a down season with injury concerns. He'd be much better off signing a LT deal this year that can take him through retirement because, under that deal, the risk of injury has passed from him to the team he signed with.

Exactly.

Isnt the average NFL career less than 3 years? Every year that a player gets older, the less his long term contract will be worth, usually.

2 points here:

1. The example above assumes that the guaranteed amount will exceed the 1 year franchise tender. That is not necessarily true.

2. No one who gets franchised is going to have a 3 year career; they are typically already coming off their first or second contract.

My bottom line - I think that the stigma of the franchise tag is overplayed. The player gets a TOP END contract for only 1 year of work.

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by Overkill:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

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

Yes but

signing bonus < 2 yr franchise salary.

No. A signing bonus is INSTANT money. That's what they want. Plus, they still get their base salaries on top of that.

Sure, their base salary will be higher for one year under a franchise tag, but not a whole lot. Plus, they don't get that huge signing bonus. Making slightly more base salary for a single season is hardly worth the risk of getting injured or having a down year and losing out on a large contract/bonus.

It's for the same reason that lottery winners take the 50% of their winnings in cash, rather than get it paid in full in annuities. People want their money... now.

I've already discussed this above with respect to the 3 year deal that the Steelers' NT got. When a player gets a large signing bonus, their first few years' salary is typically minimal. So, 2 one year $7M deals are better than $11M up front and another $1M at the start of year 2 for the guy that gets injured early on in year 2.

Not if you never get the second $7M deal. Move the injury up from year 2 to year 1, and the player walks with 7M. The injury doesn't even have to be career ending. If the guy has a minor injury that affects his play all year, than that hurts his value.

A player that puts together a healthy season is one that has most likely maximized his value. Getting the tag means he has to repeat that season if he still wants a big contract. I wouldn't understand their position if all the factors that go into putting up a good season are in a player's control, but they clearly aren't.

Just look at Franklin. He put together a great season and now, thanks to the tag, he has to hope that his 30 year old body can stay healthy for the whole season or he loses big money. Few teams will outbid each other over a 31 year old FA coming off a down season with injury concerns. He'd be much better off signing a LT deal this year that can take him through retirement because, under that deal, the risk of injury has passed from him to the team he signed with.

Exactly.

Isnt the average NFL career less than 3 years? Every year that a player gets older, the less his long term contract will be worth, usually.

2 points here:

1. The example above assumes that the guaranteed amount will exceed the 1 year franchise tender. That is not necessarily true.

2. No one who gets franchised is going to have a 3 year career; they are typically already coming off their first or second contract.

My bottom line - I think that the stigma of the franchise tag is overplayed. The player gets a TOP END contract for only 1 year of work.

A player worthy of being franchised is certainly going to get a signing bonus that exceeds that one year's franchise tag value.

I agree that it's overplayed sometimes, but it is risky for the player. They are delaying a huge payday. All it takes is a simple ACL sprain at the end of the season to scare teams off, which could cause these guys could miss out on a truck load of money.

Because you get 1 year guaranteed. They want a long term contract. Football is a violent sport. Your career can change forever or end at any moment. A long term contract with a large amount of guaranteed money is what they want.