Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Franchise Tag
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 877688"><p>My quibble was with the words "intimidated" and "gamble".</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 877688"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Capitol 8805
gopkrs
Latest posts
Post Draft/UDFA/Off-Season Signings - Each Position Trade Block
Latest: gopkrs
8 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Is it time?
Latest: Heyjoe4
38 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
NFC North Predictions
Latest: Heyjoe4
45 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2025 NFL Schedule Release
Latest: milani
Today at 7:09 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2025 Roster - Semi Live Thread
Latest: tynimiller
Today at 5:28 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Franchise Tag
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
