Franchise Tag questions

[QuikSand]

In many of my FOF careers, I restrict myself from using certain functions -- often the renegotiation proecss and the franchise tag. As a result, I think I understand these processes a bit less than I might otherwise.

A couple of questions, if someone might be able to help:

-I am aware that if you use the tag on a player for more than one year, he will become angry -- and will not sign a long term deal with your team due to "past injustices." I understand how this works, and I presume it happens to every player who gets tagged twice.

My question is -- what if you tag a player, he plays out that one season under the tag contract, and then the next year you do not tag him? Will he be willing to negotiate a new deal, or will the single season under the tag be enough to count as a "past injustice?"


-It also seems that from time to time, even the first use of the tag will be enough to anger the player. I haven't seen this before -- maybe it was an addition somewhere in the 5.x chain of patching... but it's new to me, at least. In any event -- if you have a player who has been tagged for the first time, is there *anything* you can do about it to re-sign him long term? Basically, i'm wondering if the same strategy above would get out from this -- if he plays on year under the franchie tender, and then becomes a UFA - would your team have a shot to sign him as a free agent the following season? Or would you have the "past injustices" kick in, and be shut out?


Thanks to anyone who has a better handle on this than I do...

[AlexB]

Not too sure about the first query, but the only time I've used the franchise tag was for Paddy Surtain - after I tagged him he signed a 5 year deal as soon as FA started: if I remember correctly the first three years were a lower cap cost than the Franchise tag, and the last two were only just over this level. But there was a large bonus involved, and he had high loyalty and a non-stubborn agent... Maybe these had an effect?

[QuikSand]

Yes, generally the player you tag will re-sign with you, but at least sometiems he won't, period. In my second question, it's those unusual cases I'm interested in.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm going from memory so this might be wrong, but I think that the loyalty rating goes down 20 points or so each time you use the franchise tag. So, if the guy had a low loyalty rating before the first franchising, he won't sign with you after the application of the franchise tag. However, if a guy has a high loyalty rating before franchising him, then he will still sign.

[Bee]

I believe the "past injustices" kicks in during training camp of the first season you franchise a player. I've never had a player willing to renegotiate after playing a season under the franchise tag even if I didn't tag him the following season.

[WSUCougar]

Could also be a function of Loyalty, perhaps?

[QuikSand]

Sounds like I need to do some experimenting of my own...

[SackAttack]

Using the Franchise Tag does, in fact, result in a loyalty reduction. Quik, if you'll forgive an IHOF example, Bradley Keil had loyalty in the high 90s during the 2005 season, but this was prior to the patch that fixed the renegotiation logic. He would not settle for anything less than a 3 year contract with $7m in bonus money and salaries of about $800k, $6m, $8m. Nothing I could do would get him to budge from that, so I franchised him. His loyalty went from the high 90s to the mid 60s, if memory serves, and I continued to try and renegotiate with him during that season, to no avail - he wanted what he wanted, and that was all there was to it. I didn't tag him this year, and while he listened to my offers, he ultimately signed with North Plainfield.

I suspect that where the 'past injustices' thing kicks in is with players you've previously cut, and with players whose loyalty to you has steadily dropped during their tenure on your team. If it's in the 0-30 range, and you've previously used the franchise tag, you probably aren't going to have any luck keeping the player absent a reapplication of the tag.

[QuikSand]

To try to be specific, I am talking (in my second instance above) about a player who has gotten plenty of playing time, and who has been tagged for the first time, and immediately will not even listen to any contract offer, on the "past injustices" rationale. There's nothing incremental about it (though I don't have the game handy to check his loyalty rating) in this case -- things have not gotten harder, they have gotten impossible.

[SackAttack]

Quik,

I tend to think that he probably had low loyalty to begin with, and that using the tag probably dropped him to 0. If that's not the case....then I'm at a loss.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

To try to be specific, I am talking (in my second instance above) about a player who has gotten plenty of playing time, and who has been tagged for the first time, and immediately will not even listen to any contract offer, on the "past injustices" rationale. There's nothing incremental about it (though I don't have the game handy to check his loyalty rating) in this case -- things have not gotten harder, they have gotten impossible.

My experience is that sometimes they'll sign, and sometimes they won't. I haven't tested it, but at this point I'd say that decreasing loyalty is the most likely culprit.

[Maple Leafs]

Not sure if this adds to the discussion, but: I had an excellent DE who I tagged several years in a row. Eventually he played the "past injustice card" and I let him walk to FA. He'd show up occasionally as a UFA over the years and I'd always try to bring him home. He would not listen to any offer, no matter how ridiculous.

He kept his grudge for several seasons, but did eventually agree to talk to me. So the "past injustices" grudge, at least due to franchising, does eventually disappear.

[stevew]

Speaking of franchising, sometimes certain players, namely runningbacks and QB's get so freaking rediculous in their contract demands that you gotta franchise them for multiple seasons. I had to franchise my stud qb 12 straight seasons cause franchising was still 10-15 million a season cheaper than his demands on average. Is it possible to keep a stud(90's overall type) QB around for multiple seasons without doing this? Cause basically they want contracts out of touch with reality(cap hits of approximately 30% of the cap).

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

My experience is that sometimes they'll sign, and sometimes they won't. I haven't tested it, but at this point I'd say that decreasing loyalty is the most likely culprit.

I've seen the same thing. My guess is also loyalty, if what SackAttack said is true (and no reason to believe it isn't, of course). I wonder if there is some magical number where if the loyalty drops somewhere below it the "past injustices" kicks in.

[Raiders Army]

Up until yesterday I disagreed with you, KWhit. Then when I had to sign a CB because I had two on the IR, I signed a CB that I released from his contract in the preseason. I didn't think that I could and that I would get the "past injustices", but it didn't pop up. I'm not at home right now to check, but I will check his loyalty.

Although it's been discussed as to the franchise tag decreasing loyalty, are there things that can increase it as well? I'm thinking that perhaps signing a new contract will help.

[KWhit]

Good question. I have never really paid that much attention to the loyalty rating. Sometimes I'll give it a look-see to determine if I think I can low-ball a guy on a contract offer, but I've never explored it in depth.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

So does this mean the player's Loyatly rating is specific to your team? I always assumed it was how loyal he was in general, but now it sounds like it's specific to one team.

I, too, assumed that. In my mind, I thought the more you screwed with a guy and tagged him, the less likely he would be loyal to anyone else as a result. (i.e. your paperboy fails to deliver your newspapers on time or at all, so when the new paperboy shows up, you have an immediate distrust of him)

[Maple Leafs]

So does this mean the player's Loyatly rating is specific to your team? I always assumed it was how loyal he was in general, but now it sounds like it's specific to one team.

[Ben E Lou]

Ok. I just franchised a guy and he dropped from 33 loyalty to 18 right that moment, but he did sign a 5-year deal immediately.

[stevew]

I am willing to bet that if you didnt give him a favorable contract, he may have told you to f'off. It seems that if you dont deal immediately, the player hates you.

[Ben E Lou]

Just saw another guy go from 80 to 45 loyalty upon receiving the tag.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Just saw another guy go from 80 to 45 loyalty upon receiving the tag.

Franchise = 45% drop in loyalty?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Franchise = 45% drop in loyalty?

No. Just ran a few checks. There may be other factors that go into it, but so far, everything I've seen has been a multiple of five:

88-->48
63-->23
77-->37
71-->56
28-->13
98-->83
80-->45
17-->2

Interesting....