FanGM

Going back on some free agency discussions at the time last year, one of the free agency possible changes I mentioned then and was going to bring up would be going with the reality of having two different types of franchise tags (exclusive and non-exclusive - see below).

We've essentially done non-exclusive tags always where everybody was still on the market to get offers. And if no offers, then we allowed teams to extend the contract of that player at those pre-determined franchise prices.

We could possibly also have the Exclusive franchise tag option where the player wouldn't hit the market but immediately be signed to a higher 1-year deal at exclusive franchise tag prices, and maybe have those same options of extending the player's contract at those high prices. We may also look at increasing those extension options, and possibly especially if you don't allow the player to hit the market to field offers.

There are two types of franchise tag designations: the exclusive rights franchise tag, and non-exclusive rights franchise tag:

- An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams.

- A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position in the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.

I think we need to define the word "really" Are we talking 10% or are we talking double? I think 10-15% would make sense, if we were going to go that direction. The long term deals are already toward the top of their position, so it doesn't make sense to tax the home team a ton more.

soonertf wrote:I think we need to define the word "really" Are we talking 10% or are we talking double? I think 10-15% would make sense, if we were going to go that direction. The long term deals are already toward the top of their position, so it doesn't make sense to tax the home team a ton more.

Yeah, we will have to if that's where most are headed.

Before we get into the extensions, there's the issue of calculating the number for the Exclusive franchise tag. There was one in the NFL this year...

As an exclusive free agent, Seymour will receive a minimum of $12.398 million for the season. The exclusive designation gives the player the average of the top five salaries at his position in 2009 (the $12.398 figure), the average of the top five salaries as of April 15, 2010 [end of restricted free agency I believe], or 120 percent of their salary the previous year, whichever figure is greater... If Julius Peppers lands a monster contract during free agency, it could drive Seymour’s 2010 price up.

Although we normally start our free agency later than the NFL's because of rules discussions and time to get things ready for the new season, we'd probably always start ours before the final 2010 numbers are known and exclusive tag numbers published sometimes.

Do we just put in the regular non-exclusive franchise tag amount for the time being, and change it later in the off-season if exclusive figure ends up higher because teams paying a little more to keep someone off the market? Or do we forget what the real exclusive tag figure will be (if even published some years if not applicable to anyone as not frequently used) and just add 5% or 10% to the non-exclusive always before free agency starts? I could do a poll on that but not sure it needs to rise above further discussion within this topic first.

Or maybe have the default exclusive franchise tender amount be equal to the non-exclusive for that position plus 5% or 10%, and then if a real exclusive figure published later that off-season we can reduce it to the real published amount.

Or we could ignore NFL amounts and just go off our own calcuations for top 5/10 for these figues, but that would also involve a delay in knowning the exclusive amount as it involves knowing what the current year salaries would be (not usually known until after free agency).

I just say forget the "exclusive" tag prices, and just keep it the same.


JMHO....

We used to have just one type of franchise tag (non-exclusive where the player could get bids from all teams still), but now we'll also add an exclusive franchise tag as an option. I want to flesh out the details of that in a couple different options in a new poll.

didnt the 12 no's tie the most of the yeses, cant we just keep it as is! ahhh!

Dustin S. wrote:didnt the 12 no's tie the most of the yeses, cant we just keep it as is! ahhh!

26 voted for yes (of some kind), 12 for no.

How the franchise tags played out in previous off-seasons also seemed like some changes needed (and most GMs voted that way). This brings in a real tag in the NFL, at a likely higher cost to the team using it like the NFL. Often we had a lot of franchise guys (maybe some undeserving) that didn't get any bids, or later got a minimum bid against no other competition with two teams working together to get as low a contract as they could, or teams had no intention of letting the player go and I always felt that wasn't working quite as well as it should and that if a team had no intention of letting a player go and wanted to sign to a top 5 salary we should maybe try to use a real franchise tag to just get that done directly and cut out some of the delay and perhaps games involved in that.

Like everything, though, we'll have to see what works and what doesn't and maybe most GMs view that addition as a bad thing and we re-evaluate and remove it for next year. But something to try and see, and fits in with trying to keep our rules based in NFL rules that have an exclusive tag option.