Franchise Tag

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
1,265
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.
 

Fredrik87

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
339
Reaction score
47
Location
Indiana
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.
 
OP
OP
gopkrs

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
1,265
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.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
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.
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 by a moderator:
OP
OP
gopkrs

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
1,265
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.
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.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
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.
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 by a moderator:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Finley did. He received $10 mil from insurance by retiring from his injury.
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.
 
OP
OP
gopkrs

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
1,265
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.
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.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
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.
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 by a moderator:
OP
OP
gopkrs

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
1,265
OK, so we have Zak Prescott. He is turning down $100 million guaranteed and I guess a lot more and is willing to play on the tag. Is this a smart move on his part?
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
OK, so we have Zak Prescott. He is turning down $100 million guaranteed and I guess a lot more and is willing to play on the tag. Is this a smart move on his part?
I guess we’ll maybe find out if they actually play this year. I have serious doubts it actually happens.

I think it’s a mistake. He probably thinks MM will make him even better and he’ll cash in. But I don’t think he’s particularly good. He looks better than he is because of the Oline they’ve had and Zeke and a solid TE.

I don’t think Dak makes it happen, he’s just a part. When you’re paying that much for a QB he better be the one that makes it happen. Guys like Brady, Rodgers, etc are still pretty good even with poor supporting casts.
They’re not superstars in this situations but they’re still pretty good.

Inthink guys like Dak will quickly fall to bottom half of the league quickly if they’re forced to make the offense work rather than just be a part of one that is driven by someone else.
 
OP
OP
gopkrs

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
1,265
I guess we’ll maybe find out if they actually play this year. I have serious doubts it actually happens.

I think it’s a mistake. He probably thinks MM will make him even better and he’ll cash in. But I don’t think he’s particularly good. He looks better than he is because of the Oline they’ve had and Zeke and a solid TE.

I don’t think Dak makes it happen, he’s just a part. When you’re paying that much for a QB he better be the one that makes it happen. Guys like Brady, Rodgers, etc are still pretty good even with poor supporting casts.
They’re not superstars in this situations but they’re still pretty good.

Inthink guys like Dak will quickly fall to bottom half of the league quickly if they’re forced to make the offense work rather than just be a part of one that is driven by someone else.
You could be right. He may want more than he is worth. He's made some very good plays though.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
I didn’t see the game nor do I know much about his injury, but the way I’ve seen it described, I’m wondering about more than the season.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
I didn’t see the game nor do I know much about his injury, but the way I’ve seen it described, I’m wondering about more than the season.

It was bad. Real bad. His ankle was bent in a direction the human ankle is not supposed to go
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
If he's out for the season, it'd impact his value big time.

Prescott suffered a compound fracture with a dislocated ankle, he's definitely out for the season. That injury might even be career threatening.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top