Three
Sticky Situations Created by the Controversial Franchise Tag rule
By: Paul M. Banks
7/23/07
On Monday July 16th,
neither New England cornerback Asante Samuel nor Chicago weak-side
linebacker Lance Briggs was able to reach a contract agreement before the 4
p.m. ET deadline for franchise players to sign multi-year deals. Now, the
two star defensive players on Super Bowl contenders are limited by league
rules to signing a one-year tender. Earlier that day, Detroit defensive
tackle Cory Redding beat the deadline, agreeing to a seven-year, $49 million
contract that made him the NFL's highest-paid DT. There were seven NFL
veterans designated as franchise players this year. Three of those players
-- Indianapolis defensive end Dwight Freeney (six years, $72 million), New
Orleans defensive end Charles Grant (seven years, $63 million) and Redding
-- signed long-term contracts. Cincinnati defensive end Justin Smith ($8.64
million) and Seattle
kicker Josh Brown ($2.078 million) signed the one-year tenders for their
respective positions. For more on the specifics of the Franchise Tag rule
see:
Parity is one reason the NFL is currently
America’s game. In the NFL, the economic system gives everyone (well, maybe
not the hopeless Arizona Cardinals) a better chance to remain competitive
and losing teams have a shorter window for turning things around. Can you
imagine what would happen if a similar salary cap were imposed on the New
York Yankees and Boston Red Sox? The NFL, more than any other league, has
appealed to the American economic ideals of ‘pure competition’ mandating an
equal playing field. They’ve done it by embracing concepts from an economic
philosophy unpopular in America: socialism. The salary cap often dictates
that teams spread their core investments around the depth chart. The NFL as
a whole spreads the wealth around more evenly with every April the weakest
link receiving the highest overall draft pick, without a goofy lottery
skewing the chances for equal opportunity. The concept is similar to our
nation’s traditionally progressive tax structure. The more money you make,
the higher the tax rate. This was the democratic ideal until the Reagan
Republicans prioritized tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This is being
taken even further by the current administration and is one of the main
reasons our nation’s at a record deficit and the wealth gap is wider than
ever. The class war may deepen every year, but in the NFL, the rich and poor
are on equal footing. Some of the measures created by collective bargaining
agreements ensure economic equality, but also incite a backlash. The
franchise tag is one of those measures. As this site’s New England Patriots
columnist and a Chicago Bears fan since childhood, this controversial rule
has consequence on the two teams I follow most.
Questioning their Patriotism: Asante Samuel
and Deion Branch
In Boston, two Samuels: Adams and Asante are
often praised. With Nate Clements receiving $29 million for the first three
years of his contract, Asante Samuel and his agent have become New England’s
biggest problem this off-season. Sticking the franchise tag (a designation
that signified the right to match any offer or receive two first round draft
picks as compensation) inspired Samuel to say he will hold out until week
ten. He’s looking for guaranteed money on the same level as Clements (about
$9.5 million per year.) Samuel’s ten interceptions last season led the NFL,
and Clements had only three. Like the Deion
Branch ugliness a year before, you can find fault on both sides. However,
it’s very difficult to side with a player when reading dollar figures like
these. Samuel can choose to sign a one-year, $7.79
million guaranteed contract any time he wants, but so far he conveys no
intention of playing under that deal, instead seeking a contract for more
guaranteed money. The reason he would report in the 10th week is that a
player who skips more than 10 weeks of the season is not considered to have
accrued a year of service, which can affect everything from his pension
benefits to future free agency. The Jets have expressed an interest in
Samuel, but there is still a ways to go before any deals can be closed.
The Patriots could use a top
notch corner like Samuel, but they will move on without him; just like they
did with Deion Branch. Samuel has been offered about 8 million reasons to
not miss all of training camp and more than half the season. Also, he should
want to stay in game shape because it augments his value in the ‘free
market.’ Last season, breaking up with Deion Branch was hard for the
Patriots to do. I recall NBC using U2’s ‘With or Without You’ for a Branch
montage during the Denver-New England game last fall. They could have used
just about any breakup song to convey the emotions many Pats fans felt
towards the ugly departure of the former Super Bowl MVP that week. However,
all those cheesy clichés (“when one door closes, another opens,” “it all
works out in the end,” “everything happens for a reason” etc.) all came to
fruition on draft day when the Pats used their picks acquired from Seattle
for him as part of a blockbuster deal landing star wide receiver Randy Moss.
Not a Bear Market for Lance Briggs
Like Samuel, Lance
Briggs has indicated at various times this off-season that he will wait
until the 10th week of the season to sign the one-year tender of $7.206
million. Once a player signs the tender, the money becomes guaranteed. Both
the Patriots and Bears remained hard-liners during negotiations with their
franchise players. While there were some discussions between New England and
Samuel's representation for a long-term contract, the two sides never came
close on the dollar amount. The Bears offered Briggs a seven-year deal worth
$33 million, but Briggs turned it down. Today, GM Jerry Angelo has made it
clear that deal is no longer on the table. There is a popular misperception
(partially because of things Briggs has said publicly) that the Bears were
never interested in offering Briggs a long term deal. That is clearly false.
Chicago pitched a
Briggs trade to Washington back in March; and the Redskins came close to
dealing their first round draft pick. However, a deal was never closed and a
new deal does not look likely today. One potential concession in both the
Briggs and Samuel situations would be for the Bears and Patriots to agree
not to invoke the franchise tag again in ’08 should the players sign the
one-year tender. However, it would likely take much more than that to
resolve these situations. It’s hard to side with
Briggs knowing his agent is the polarizing Drew Rosenhaus; a contract
negotiator almost as feared/hated as Scott Boras. In the Bears standoff,
Rosenhaus reportedly blinked first and now Briggs is the member of their
camp with the harder stance. The best solution could be a long-term deal
worth more than the one Briggs rejected in ’06, but less than the $20
million Briggs was supposedly demanding last winter. The nature of football
makes players more likely to sustain serious injuries than any other sport;
making long term contracts and the type of job security Briggs seeks much
harder to attain.
Cornering the
Market?
What makes these
situations harder to watch than Dick Cheney’s smirk is the concept of ‘fair
market value.’ If a convenience store in your neighborhood started buying
Wonderbread at $10,000 a loaf, and charged $50,000 does that mean ‘fair
market value’ is now set at 10 grand for wholesalers and 50 grand for
consumers because one moron jacked up the price? Maybe San Francisco made a
stupid deal with Clements or maybe they were the team most desperate for a
corner? Maybe the Denver Broncos simply over-payed for Dre Bly? Why should
one entity be allowed to set a precedent of fair market value that
should be applied to ALL teams? What the cases of Asante Samuel, Deion
Branch and Lance Briggs teach us is that the spirit of Gordon Gekko, from
the 1987 film Wall Street, is alive and well: “greed is, for lack of
a better word, good. Greed clarifies. Greed cuts through to the essence.”
