1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Franchise Tag

Discussion in 'Green Bay Packers Fan Forum' started by gopkrs, May 24, 2020.

  1. gopkrs

    gopkrs Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    84
    Joined:
    May 12, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    Just thought it might be interesting to discuss related to a number of players who seem not to be intimidated to play under it. It is most definitely true that QBs are protected a lot more and so injury probability is less. But it aint zero. Talking about a lot of money. I'm always reminded of (baseball) Mark "The Bird" Fidrich (sp.).
    So we have the Dallas QB. and now maybe the TE Hunter Henry. Question: When you are on the Franchise Tag; how much of the money is guaranteed? Seems to me to be quite a gamble.
    Also, don't think Cousins should be giving out advice to go on it even if it worked out for him.
     
  2. Fredrik87

    Fredrik87 Cheesehead

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    25
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Location:
    Indiana
    Packer Fan Since:
    1919
    So with the new CBA I'm not certain but I believe once a player signs the franchise tag all the money becomes guaranteed unless the player fails a physical.
     
  3. gopkrs

    gopkrs Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    84
    Joined:
    May 12, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    Thanx Fredrik. Still a lot of money on the table. I guess that is why the guaranteed money has gone up so much. I wonder if these big money players get insurance also. For the rest of their contract.
     
  4. Packer Fan in SD

    Packer Fan in SD Cheesehead

    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    125
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1965
    Finley did. He received $10 mil from insurance by retiring from his injury.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  5. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,167
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    I wouldn't call it "intimidated". More like a matter of economics, risk mitigation and perceived market value. The same applies to players under the 5th. year option.

    Since you mentioned Henry lets go with that example. The TE franchise tag this season is $10,607,000. That money becomes guaranteed at the time he signs the tender.

    A comparable is Austin Hooper who recently signed a 4 year / $42 mil contract with Cleveland, including $23 mil guaranteed. $10 mil of the guarantee is signing bonus. Unlike Henry, he doesn't even have to wait for game day checks to start seeing that $10 mil show up in his bank account. His first year take with salary is $11.5 mil.

    While one can argue Henry does not have the career productivity to date of Hooper and has a more checkered injury history, his agent can point to his ascension over the final 12 games last season and might argue for a comparable prospectus over the next 4 years.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
  6. gopkrs

    gopkrs Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    84
    Joined:
    May 12, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    Your comparable shows how much money is a stake. $23 million vs 10. I guess a lot comes down to what kind of insurance is available and how much it costs. Maybe anyone can get insurance against future earnings but there is probably a big difference in cost for a person with a contract. Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say. I posed the question as to what is better for the player. Injury is the thing. Cousins really had no choice because the Redskins did not really want him long term. It worked out for him but other positions are probably more vulnerable to injury these days. With your example, I would think Henry would be better off with a contract since he is at the higher end of the pay scale. Of course that could change. But it seems a big gamble.
     
  7. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,167
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    My quibble was with the words "intimidated" and "gamble".

    Obviously players want the security of more guaranteed money over multiple years. That requires no discussion. However, whether it's a franchise tag or 5th. year option, the player is under contract for the coming season and does not have much of a choice in the matter if the team is not willing to pay up.

    The player's only option other than playing on that contract if the team balks at his demands is to ask for a trade and/or, hold out, get suspended, not get paid at all, and go into the red if the team demands collection of the no-show fines. It's rare for a player to pull a Le'Veon Bell and sit out an entire season for those obvious reasons along with the less obvious reason that hanging his team out to dry is a black mark on the resume as a consequence. Bell ended up signing with the Jets for less than what the Steelers offered as a result of that black mark, while foregoing a year of pay. I don't know if the Steelers collected those fines.

    So, unless the player wants to make the injudicous move of a hold out there isn't any "gamble" on the player's part. There's only a negotiation. If the player knows he'll be playing one way or another, I doubt "intimidation" is the overriding emotion. Being p*ssed off is what it's about and the team risk is he starts stirring up sh*t in the locker room as was reported with Sitton when he didn't get an extension.

    Now, is it possible a player on a franchise tag or 5th. year option will make business decisions on the field to the detriment of performance? I suppose that's possible, but you would expect the player to fight that inclination since it is cutting off his nose to spite his face, diminishing his value going into the next negotiation. He's playing in a contract year.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2020
  8. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,167
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    What do think the insurance premium might be on a policy like that? A lot. And the higher the insured value the higher the premium. And you can bet there are pretty strict criteria as to what constitutes "career ending". Finley had a spinal cord injury. A repeat injury presented the risk of paralysis or worse. I doubt these policies will pay on a typical ACL injury while the player's prospects for the next contract are dimimished.

    These kinds of policies should be viewed as a catastophic coverage, not something that puts a players mind at ease in a contract year. Having to pay the premium wouldn't sit well regardless.
     
  9. gopkrs

    gopkrs Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,729
    Likes Received:
    84
    Joined:
    May 12, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    I get the feeling you misunderstood how I used intimidation. I only said that players don't seem to be intimidated to take on the franchise tag. Whereas, I think it is a gamble. It is pretty much a figure of speech. Also, you just kind of miss the point to the whole thread which was to have a discussion on the pros and cons of the franchise tag to the individual players. I was thinking that it seems to be a more accepted possibility to the players. A discussion on the cost/benefit of insurance is definitely one factor. But I guess you are an expert on that also from your statements above.
     
  10. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,167
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    My point is it's neither a matter of intimidation or a gamble since the player does not have veto power over having to play on a one year contract. If the team does not want to pay up to a player's line in the sand he doesn't have an option other than going the Bell route which is obviously extremely unappealing. It's a matter of negotiation, weighing risks, the economics. Figures of speech have meanings and you want to pick the right ones.

    Now, with respect to Clark, people say, "pay the man" without knowing how big that amount might need to be for him to sign on the dotted line while not considering who might not get paid as a result shortly down the line. My sense is the Packers will come to terms with Clark eventually if only because Gutekunst stated early in the offseason that it would be a priority. I would not consider it a lock, however. Clark's demands may be beyond Gutekunst's pain point. Without knowing Clark's demands we cannot say. What we do know is it is not an easy matter because it hasn't gotten done.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page

-->