+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Giants 'probably' won't use franchise tag -- report

  1. #1

    Giants 'probably' won't use franchise tag -- report

    http://www.bigblueview.com/2013/2/19...kenny-phillips

    Ian Rapoport of NFL.com tweeted Tuesday afternoon that the New York Giants would "probably not" use the franchise tag on any player, according to owner John Mara.
    Last edited by Broadway Blue; 02-19-2013 at 12:55 PM.

  2. #2
    Moderator RoanokeFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    97,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadway Blue View Post
    http://www.bigblueview.com/2013/2/19...kenny-phillips

    Ian Rapoport of NFL.com tweeted Tuesday afternoon that the New York Giants would "probably not" use the franchise tag on any player, according to owner John Mara.
    They are very reluctant to use it.
    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” MB Rule # 1


  3. #3
    All-Pro jomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    19,211
    I agree with the article's statement that the salaries attached to franchising Beatty, Bennett and Phillips are too rich.
    They will all need to be re-signed at lower numbers or move on.
    No one remembers who came in second.

  4. #4
    All-Pro G-Men Surg.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Down south In Cowturd country
    Posts
    10,455
    Quote Originally Posted by RoanokeFan View Post
    They are very reluctant to use it.
    And still very expensive in some cases.

  5. #5
    i brought up this topic a couple days ago, but can never find my old posts when i log back in here. kind of not a fan of this board, but that's another topic.

    i truly wonder if the franchise tag actually helps in negotiations with a player. i believe the giants are often reluctant to use it because it basically tells the player that the team does view him as top five in his position, meriting that he deserves a long term deal that is in correlation with an annual salary of the top five players. if you are willing to pay the man once that much, then the player and agent has a serious case in asking why you can't do it repeatedly every year over the duration of his contract.

    Lots of teams use the tag as way to just keep the guy on the team for another year (San Diego Chargers, ie: Darren Sproles, Vincent Jackson). I believe the Giants only use it when they truly believe that player is warranted top five pay in relation to his position. Otherwise, if they slap it on them, there is no way to lower the asking price for the guy. They already let it be known that their services, and role on the team, is worthy of a certain amount of money. I believe this is why we see the Giants actually end up signing the players they franchise. Jacobs was franchised and signed to a 4 year/25 million dollar contract. And most recently, Weatherford signed his five year/13 million contract days after being slapped with the tag last year (which I believe is the biggest contract for a punter?).

    I don't see how a player such as Cliff Avril can be warranted a top-five salary at the defensive end position. This only gives the player false ambitions as to how much he should be paid on the open market. If any team is willing to pay that guy a top five salary over the duration of a long term contract, than they are morons. If the Giants don't use the franchise tag on one of their players, than they do not view him as a top five player at his position and are more willing to just draft or sign his heir-apparent and get on with the team, rather than pay him an undeserving amount of money to just be a stop gap.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by greenca190 View Post
    i brought up this topic a couple days ago, but can never find my old posts when i log back in here. kind of not a fan of this board, but that's another topic.

    i truly wonder if the franchise tag actually helps in negotiations with a player. i believe the giants are often reluctant to use it because it basically tells the player that the team does view him as top five in his position, meriting that he deserves a long term deal that is in correlation with an annual salary of the top five players. if you are willing to pay the man once that much, then the player and agent has a serious case in asking why you can't do it repeatedly every year over the duration of his contract.

    Lots of teams use the tag as way to just keep the guy on the team for another year (San Diego Chargers, ie: Darren Sproles, Vincent Jackson). I believe the Giants only use it when they truly believe that player is warranted top five pay in relation to his position. Otherwise, if they slap it on them, there is no way to lower the asking price for the guy. They already let it be known that their services, and role on the team, is worthy of a certain amount of money. I believe this is why we see the Giants actually end up signing the players they franchise. Jacobs was franchised and signed to a 4 year/25 million dollar contract. And most recently, Weatherford signed his five year/13 million contract days after being slapped with the tag last year (which I believe is the biggest contract for a punter?).

    I don't see how a player such as Cliff Avril can be warranted a top-five salary at the defensive end position. This only gives the player false ambitions as to how much he should be paid on the open market. If any team is willing to pay that guy a top five salary over the duration of a long term contract, than they are morons. If the Giants don't use the franchise tag on one of their players, than they do not view him as a top five player at his position and are more willing to just draft or sign his heir-apparent and get on with the team, rather than pay him an undeserving amount of money to just be a stop gap.
    Look at the top of the page, see where it says Welcome greenca190, you will see My Profile nearby, click that and then click Find Posts, its on the left under your avatar.

  7. #7
    It's my understanding that if the use a "non-exclusive" franchise tag, they can resign the guy for one year at 120% of his current salary. If Bennett looks ready to bolt, or they can't agree to a contract yet, why wouldn't they use that? I'd prefer Bennett; but the same goes for anyone of the Bennett, Beatty, Phillips group, maybe even Boothe. Just seems like a cheap way to buy time for one position. It might give Robinson time to develop at TE for instance, or let you have longer to negotiate with a player for a long term deal. Seems like a slam dunk that you'd do that to keep somebody around you'd otherwise lose.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by greenca190 View Post
    i brought up this topic a couple days ago, but can never find my old posts when i log back in here. kind of not a fan of this board, but that's another topic.

    i truly wonder if the franchise tag actually helps in negotiations with a player. i believe the giants are often reluctant to use it because it basically tells the player that the team does view him as top five in his position, meriting that he deserves a long term deal that is in correlation with an annual salary of the top five players. if you are willing to pay the man once that much, then the player and agent has a serious case in asking why you can't do it repeatedly every year over the duration of his contract.

    Lots of teams use the tag as way to just keep the guy on the team for another year (San Diego Chargers, ie: Darren Sproles, Vincent Jackson). I believe the Giants only use it when they truly believe that player is warranted top five pay in relation to his position. Otherwise, if they slap it on them, there is no way to lower the asking price for the guy. They already let it be known that their services, and role on the team, is worthy of a certain amount of money. I believe this is why we see the Giants actually end up signing the players they franchise. Jacobs was franchised and signed to a 4 year/25 million dollar contract. And most recently, Weatherford signed his five year/13 million contract days after being slapped with the tag last year (which I believe is the biggest contract for a punter?).

    I don't see how a player such as Cliff Avril can be warranted a top-five salary at the defensive end position. This only gives the player false ambitions as to how much he should be paid on the open market. If any team is willing to pay that guy a top five salary over the duration of a long term contract, than they are morons. If the Giants don't use the franchise tag on one of their players, than they do not view him as a top five player at his position and are more willing to just draft or sign his heir-apparent and get on with the team, rather than pay him an undeserving amount of money to just be a stop gap.
    Not tagging someone doesn't necessarily mean they don't view him as a top 5. It could very well mean they just don't want to pay him that much this year. Take Beatty for instance, he is clearly a priority but if they tag him, it would be very unfriendly to this years cap. They would rather give him a cap friendly long term deal.

  9. #9
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    7,093
    I prefer tendering a player rather than franchising them... it gives the team the option to match any offer they receive and retain them or receive compensation should they choose not to match. That's a much better option than being forced to pay someone top 5 money, IMO.
    My goal had been to win a championship, work toward the Hall of Fame, have my jersey retired by the team and I`d go in as a lifelong New York Giant, but I`m now resigned to the fact that this won`t happen. -- Michael Strahan, just when you think you're down...

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by NorwoodBlue View Post
    It's my understanding that if the use a "non-exclusive" franchise tag, they can resign the guy for one year at 120% of his current salary. If Bennett looks ready to bolt, or they can't agree to a contract yet, why wouldn't they use that? I'd prefer Bennett; but the same goes for anyone of the Bennett, Beatty, Phillips group, maybe even Boothe. Just seems like a cheap way to buy time for one position. It might give Robinson time to develop at TE for instance, or let you have longer to negotiate with a player for a long term deal. Seems like a slam dunk that you'd do that to keep somebody around you'd otherwise lose.
    I'm guessing you looked up wikipedia or maybe some other source about the non-exclusive franchise tag. I just want to let you know that wikipedia is wrong with the "whichever is less." part. Someone can go tell them there's a mistake on their wiki page.

    According to the actual CBA document itself, under Article 10 Section 2 Part (a) subsection (i), it's "whichever is greater" like the exclusive tag.
    Page 44, http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/...-2011-2020.pdf
    It's not going to be 120% of his previous salary. It's going to be the $5-$6 million price tag. The 120% only applies if the player was franchised the previous season or his previous season's salary is greater than the franchise tag price. There's no lowballing.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts