Reaction to Grantland's Article on The Six Types of NFL Franchise Players - Joe Chacon's Blog

Arena Blog Dynasty Scores Sign Up ☰

Joe Chacon's Blog

Reaction to Grantland's Article on The Six Types of NFL Franchise Players Stuck

Posted on July 18, 2012 at 01:45 PM.

(3)

As society continues to migrate away from print publications to online sources there appears to be a consistent loss in what many would consider to be real journalism.

The average person scouring the web for news can't decipher between an article based entirely on speculation and one that is factual. Often time this leads to false rumors being spread around about a team or an athlete.

Even the perceived leader in sports, ESPN, has had a recent history of posting "breaking news" only to have to go back and take it down because the actual event fell through.

Journalism is an art. Most people can write but it's how the words are arranged onto the paper/screen that engages the reader that determines success. While this art has been deluded a bit with the transition to online media, there are still plenty of good sites out there that produce good material.

One of those sites is Grantland. Bill Simmons (ESPN) is the editor-in-chief of Grantland and has brought on a great staff of writers to go along with his excellent work.

One of those writers, Bill Barnwell, had an interesting column about the types of NFL franchise players. He broke them down into these six categories:

The "True" Franchise Player
The Expiration Date
The Trade Candidate
The Leverage Removal
The Leap Year
Not Worth the Hassle

Barnwell nailed "the true franchise player" portion on the head. His example for this year is Drew Brees. As a true franchise player Barnwell states the team should sign the player for as long as possible and for as much money as they can. New Orleans did both when they gave Brees a five-year, $100 million contract.

With everything the Saints have endured this offseason it makes sense for them to do everything possible to keep the face of their franchise on their team.

Barnwell was also spot-on in describing "the leverage removal" type of franchise player. He goes on to describe this type of franchise player as somebody who is coming to the end of their rookie contract and do not have the option of free agency. Typically these types of players will end up re-signing a long term deal with their current team.

The two players he brings up for this year are Matt Forte and Ray Rice. Sure enough, both players signed four and five year contracts respecitvely with their current teams shortly after the article was posted.

Perhaps we should have a brief refresher on what a franchise tag* is.

Basically, a franchise tag is what a team will slap on a player that is about to become an unrestricted free agent. If the team gives that player an "exclusive" tag then they have to pay that player the salary of the average of the top five salaried players at his position, or at a salary at least 120% of his previous year's salary, whichever of the two is the higher amount. The player may not negotiate with any other teams even though he is a free agent.

The non-exclusive tag is the same as the Exclusive player except the player is allowed to negotiate with other teams. Should the player agree in principle to a contract with another team, his present team is allowed to match the contract and keep his services. If his present team does not match the contract, the player becomes a member of the other team and the other team must 'pay' two first round draft choices as compensation to the player's now former team.

The franchise tag is beneficial for the owners because it prevents a key asset from heading out as a free agent for at least another year. Players don't like to be franchise tagged because they believe it's taking away one of the rights they've earned for the time they put into their current contract. Who can blame them?

I'm usually the guy who writes about how players need to tone down their taunting, I blast their showmanship, and I have a relative distain for many professional athletes because I feel they complain entirely too much for what they do.

When it comes to the franchise tag I'm completely in their corner. While it does compensate the player well for the additional year they have to stick with their current team, it doesn't allow them to become a free agent and relocate at the end of their initial contract.

Contracts are something I feel are very important in sports. Not the dollar figure, but what it represents. If you sign a contract, finish it out. On the flip side, if you give a player a contract for "x" amount of years, then he should be able to go where ever he wants at the end of his commitment.

What's your take on the Franchise Tag? Is it fair or unfair? Does the player ever benefit?

Joe Chacon is a staff writer for Operation Sports and a featured columnist for Bleacher Report. You can follow him on Twitter @JoeChacon.

*Rules and description of the Franchise Tag were taken from NFL.com.

Comments

# 1 chi_hawks @ Jul 18

Grantland has some great articles. Just re-read Simmons Big Book of Basketball this spring - amazing read, especially as an NBA fan.

Im a fan of the franchise tag. I think free agency has its place but in the world of todays mercenaries joining up for super teams (and destroying the foundation of their former teams), I like to see teams have some leverage when they can.

# 2 CujoMatty @ Jul 19

I hate the franchise tag. It's basically a slap in the face IMO. I was furious when Indianapolis slapped the franchise tag on edgerrin James. The guy only went to 5 pro bowls, has the franchise record for yards(over 9000), and touchdowns(64). In a league like the nfl where career ending injuries are only 1 hit away, forced 1 year contracts are a joke IMO.

# 3 brettford @ Jul 19

I don't really look at this from a players vs. owners perspective....there are numerous puts and takes as you mention.

I don't see certain players who get persistently screwed on not earning what they are worth...those things usually get corrected after 1-2 years.

Nor do I see owners losing money on their franchises.

I view it from a fan's perspective. As a fan, am I glad that KC can keep Dwayne Bowe in a Chiefs jersey for another year? Yes. Do I really care whether he or the owner is getting a raw deal? No, not really. They are both getting a pretty good deal.

The main way the player loses financially by being franchised is if he gets hurt and misses out on a long term deal. But in that event, he wouldn't have deserved all the guaranteed dollars from a long term deal anyway. Or maybe the player has a bad year once he is franchised and can't even get a long term offer the next year. Well so what? Is that worse than sucking in the first year of a long term deal?

I guess my point is, obviously a player WANTS a long term deal because it comes with huge guaranteed money, more than they would get from a 1 year deal. It locks in a huge windfall. But, they either outplay that contract or they underplay it. I don't think anyone is getting screwed by taking that huge windfall in year by year increments. You kind of earn it as you go.

They do lose out on playing for the team of their choice....I'm just thinking about the financial aspect.