Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 4Adam13. Show 4Adam13's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]Mankins played out his contract for 5 years then was restricted FA when his deal was up. The guy played by the rules when he was underpaid for his performance for 5 years and still wasn't allowed to seek another employer when his contract was up. .
    Posted by paparui[/QUOTE]

    Be careful about calling people underpaid when they willfully signed a contract. If it was too low to begin with, they shouldn't have signed it. Was Adalius Thomas underpaid?

    When people work under a contract and they sign that contract to a specific terms, salary, and conditions, they do so willfully. They don't have to sign it. I work under a union. We are currently without a contract. The membership is going to be voting on the latest offer. If people vote yes, then they are comfortable enough with terms. Plain and simple.

    People working under a contract are neither over paid or under paid....they are paid what they believed was a fair deal. If they didn't think it was fair when they signed it, they shouldn't have signed it. Blaming the CBA for their mistake is their mistake alone.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : Be careful about calling people underpaid when they willfully signed a contract. If it was too low to begin with, they shouldn't have signed it. Was Adalius Thomas underpaid? When people work under a contract and they sign that contract to a specific terms, salary, and conditions, they do so willfully. They don't have to sign it. I work under a union. We are currently without a contract. The membership is going to be voting on the latest offer. If people vote yes, then they are comfortable enough with terms. Plain and simple. People working under a contract are neither over paid or under paid....they are paid what they believed was a fair deal. If they didn't think it was fair when they signed it, they shouldn't have signed it. Blaming the CBA for their mistake is their mistake alone.
    Posted by 4Adam13[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure we're disagreeing all that much. I think players should play out their contracts. But we're talking about what should be in the new CBA.  I think the new CBA should be changed to make rookie contracts shorter (in exchange for a rookie pay scale) and to get rid of things like restricted free agency and franchise tags which get in the way of players negotiating.  In my opinion, the major problem with the current system (and the primary reasons for holdouts) are long rookie contracts that prevent guys from testing the market once they've proved their skills.  When a rookie is signed, no one knows how good he'll play. The problem with the current system is it makes big winners out of top draft picks who play poorly and losers out of lower draft picks who play great. That's just stupid.  Shorter rookie contracts would allow pay to be reset after a few years when it's clear how good or bad a player is.  This would mean smaller windfalls for the bad performers and a chance to get a bigger pay day for the good performers. To me that's much fairer for everyone than what we have now, where guys like Mankins play six or seven years on relatively low value rookie contracts, while guys like Ryan Leaf get big money to do nothing. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 4Adam13. Show 4Adam13's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : I'm not sure we're disagreeing all that much. I think players should play out their contracts. But we're talking about what should be in the new CBA.  I think the new CBA should be changed to make rookie contracts shorter (in exchange for a rookie pay scale) and to get rid of things like restricted free agency and franchise tags which get in the way of players negotiating.  In my opinion, the major problem with the current system (and the primary reasons for holdouts) are long rookie contracts that prevent guys from testing the market once they've proved their skills.  When a rookie is signed, no one knows how good he'll play. The problem with the current system is it makes big winners out of top draft picks who play poorly and losers out of lower draft picks who play great. That's just stupid.  Shorter rookie contracts would allow pay to be reset after a few years when it's clear how good or bad a player is.  This would mean smaller windfalls for the bad performers and a chance to get a bigger pay day for the good performers. To me that's much fairer for everyone than what we have now, where guys like Mankins play six or seven years on relatively low value rookie contracts, while guys like Ryan Leaf get big money to do nothing. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. And I guess that brings us to where we are now with RFA. Teams looked for bargaining chip for players who did sign a short deal and out performed their expected value. Not sure where we go from here. If there is limit on lengths of rookie contracts, I still think teams need to be compensated somehow if the player walks after the "set" period. Otherwise bottow dwellers stay on the bottom. Who wants to play for Detroit?

    What do you think the overall solution to protect both the player and the franchise?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : Agreed. And I guess that brings us to where we are now with RFA. Teams looked for bargaining chip for players who did sign a short deal and out performed their expected value. Not sure where we go from here. If there is limit on lengths of rookie contracts, I still think teams need to be compensated somehow if the player walks after the "set" period. Otherwise bottow dwellers stay on the bottom. Who wants to play for Detroit? What do you think the overall solution to protect both the player and the franchise?
    Posted by 4Adam13[/QUOTE]


    One fair way might be to give the teams that drafted a player right of first refusal.  That way a player can negotiate freely with other teams, but the drafting (or, for players not on rookie contracts, even the current) team has the right to match the offer and keep the player.  

    (With salary floors and caps and revenue sharing all teams have roughly the same amount of money to spend on players, so bad teams aren't handicapped by lack of cash--this is one of the good things about the NFL CBA compared to some other league's bargaining agreements. So with a right of first refusal, keeping a player really just requires a team to match what other teams offer for that player. And given that everyone is working with the same budget, no team is going to be able to buy up all the talent as happens in baseball.)

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : Agreed. And I guess that brings us to where we are now with RFA. Teams looked for bargaining chip for players who did sign a short deal and out performed their expected value. Not sure where we go from here. If there is limit on lengths of rookie contracts, I still think teams need to be compensated somehow if the player walks after the "set" period. Otherwise bottow dwellers stay on the bottom. Who wants to play for Detroit? What do you think the overall solution to protect both the player and the franchise?
    Posted by 4Adam13[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure if there is a perfect solution to both problems but I might have a general solution that could work.

    As I mentioned earlier with a rookie pay scale there should also be a contract length limit. 3 years seems to be about the point where you can tell if most players will make it or not. It's very rare that players greatly outperform their rookie contracts in 3 years. So a solution would be having a 4yr system. How it could work is depending on negotiations you can take 2 roads. One being a straight 4yr contract without a RFA where barring injury the player must make a full effort to play the entire contract and if a player chooses to sit out under contract dispute the owners hold the right to extend that contract for the average salary for another year (so basically if player X after 3 years refuses to participate in mandatory workouts or games because they want another contract the owners have the right to protect themselves by adding an additional year of service at the yearly average for the original contract). The other being a 3yr contract with a 4th year RFA which an arbitrator can rule on an appropriate salary for that 4th year. However, They do have the right to protest the RFA by sitting out of practices and the first 2 games of the season without it being counted as a lost season.

    With the franchise tag you can make it so that you can't use it right after their rookie contracts. The franchise tag can only be placed on a players who's in his second contract and has been with the franchise for longer then 3 years. It can only be used on the player once in his career with that specific team. This way it protects the rooks and vets but gives teams the opportunity to keep their top players.

    Instead of a franchise tag for rookies you can have a rookie tag. Now this rookie tag would work different then the franchise tag in simply that it's similar to the RFA system but structured to make it easier for the rookie to be signed else where. How it would work is that you would be given 4 tags total. 1 at 2nd round area, 1 at 3rd round, and 2 at 4-7 rounds. These picks would be like comp picks in that they come in the bottom of the round. If another team wants to sign the player to a contract then the pick they need to give up would be dependent on the location of their draft. If they put the 2nd tag on them then the team signing the player would give up their pick between 85-126. In other words if you weren't in the playoffs you'd give up a 4th if you were in the playoffs you give up a 3rd. If you don't have your pick then you must give up a pick in that range. If you cannot acquire a pick in that range you cannot sign that player or you can try to work out a deal for that player with the controlling team. You can figure it out from there a 3rd you give up between 127-158 and so on and so on. For the 6th tag it is just simply worth a 7th pick and the 7th tag is worth the 7th next year. This way the team losing the player gets a decent pick and the team getting the player doesn't have to give up as much which should make it easier to sign other players. I know it seems confusing but as an example say the Pats place the 2nd round tag on Mankins and say a team like GB wants to sign him then the Pats would get a 2nd round rookie comp pick and GB would give up pick #96 (it would essentially disappear). The rookie comp picks would come before the FA comp picks for rounds 3-7 and the position of the rookie comp pick is dependant on the value of the pick given up to get the player. So if Pitt signed a 2nd round tagged player that belonged to Ari then Ari's rookie comp pick would be ahead of the Pats. Now this rookie tag can only be used the year after the rookie contract expires. Also if the rookie tag is used the automatic offer is that if it was a 2nd round tag the salary is triple what the players salary was the year before with a minimum of what the #15 pick average yearly salary was from the previous draft. The 3rd round tag is worth double the previous years salary with a minimum of what the #47 pick average yearly salary was from the previous draft. Any tag from 4-7 is worth 1.5 times the salary for the year before with no minimum.

    I know it seems complicated but it would be a system that would protect owners rights on a player while also make it much much easier for another team to sign the player which should increase contract offers and free up rookies to get better contracts after their rookie contract.

    There fair solution found but I'm only an engineer so it seems a lot simpler to me then it really would end up being. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer, they make it way to complicated
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    Nope, no issues at all.  I pay attention to my own situation and everybody else should too.  You'll be better off if you do.  Who in their right minds doesn't want a raise?  When you want a raise, do you ask for it?  You should if you feel you done the job well and you deserve it.  Why should it be different for football players?  I thought we all supported the idea of meritocracy.  Those of you who irrationally hate unions should support the idea of pay for merit, as it is the anti-union solution but you don't, you just say they make too much.  Who says?  The fans, who never play a single violent down in the NFL?  I don't think so.

    BTW, I am not a union member and I am very corporate but I'm not stupid, I know who gets in this society and who doesn't and the reasons why that is so.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share