- Thread starter
- #1
News Bot
News Bot
- Messages
- 28,366
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
As the annual deadline for franchise-tagged players signing multi-year deal contracts arrives, it's a good time to address a couple of interesting wrinkles regarding what comes next. One is potentially relevant to this year's franchise-tagged players. One is not, but could have been. And there's a third one to file away for future reference, possibly.
First, a reader asked last week whether a team could rescind the franchise tag after the mid-July deadline and then sign the player to a long-term deal. That cannot happen; the Collective Bargaining Agreement addresses it with this sentence in Article 10, Section 2(k): "After [July 15], the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year."
Although there's no specific prohibition on: (1) removing the franchise tag; (2) allowing the player to become a free agent; and (3) signing him to a multi-year deal as a free agent, we're told that it would be interpreted and applied that way. This prevents, for example, a wink-nod arrangement between player and team after July 15 (July 17 this year, since July 15 was a Saturday) that the franchise tender will be rescinded and the player and team will then sign a long-term contract. If the tender is removed, the player can sign a long-term contract only with another team.
This seals off any path for a potentially creative outcome for Saquon Barkley and the Giants or Josh Jacobs and the Raiders. If the franchise tag is removed after 4:00 p.m. ET on Monday, they can sign only a one-year deal with the team that tagged them.
Second, what happens if another team signs the franchise-tagged player to a multi-year offer sheet after the mid-July deadline? That's not expressly addressed in the CBA. Per a league source, the NFL's Management Council would interpret it to prevent another team signing the player to a multi-year offer sheet after July 15. Because the player's current team must have a right to match the offer sheet and because the current team cannot match a multi-year offer sheet, it can't happen after the mid-July deadline.
That would have been relevant this year if Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson had not signed in April a long-term contract to stay in Baltimore. And it could be relevant if/when a future franchise-tagged player for whom a team would give up two first-round picks (usually, a quarterback) remains unsigned to a long-term deal with his current team as July 15 approaches.
These two dynamics underscore the strength of the franchise tag from the team's perspective. They're stuck with a one-year deal, with no ability to negotiate a multi-year contract until the regular season ends.
That least to the third point. The window for doing a long-term deal doesn't re-open after the postseason ends, but after the regular season ends.
A franchise-tagged player on a team that makes the playoffs could threaten to not play another game without a long-term deal. It would be unprecedented and controversial, but it's something that a player like Barkley should keep in his back pocket, if he ultimately signs the $10.1 million franchise tender, completes his 17-game obligation, and if he wants financial security before taking any additional physical risks in one or more postseason games.
Giants fans would be livid. But consider it from the player's perspective. He's fulfilled his commitment under the tag. If he gets injured in the playoffs, he becomes potentially undesirable to the Giants or to anyone else.
Why shouldn't he take a stand at that point? The CBA contains plenty of rules the teams don't hesitate to use to their advantage. The ability to sign a long-term deal after conclusion of the regular season works to the franchise-tagged players advantage. The franchise-tagged player shouldn't think twice about taking full advantage of the restoration of the right to execute a multi-year contract.
Continue reading...
First, a reader asked last week whether a team could rescind the franchise tag after the mid-July deadline and then sign the player to a long-term deal. That cannot happen; the Collective Bargaining Agreement addresses it with this sentence in Article 10, Section 2(k): "After [July 15], the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year."
Although there's no specific prohibition on: (1) removing the franchise tag; (2) allowing the player to become a free agent; and (3) signing him to a multi-year deal as a free agent, we're told that it would be interpreted and applied that way. This prevents, for example, a wink-nod arrangement between player and team after July 15 (July 17 this year, since July 15 was a Saturday) that the franchise tender will be rescinded and the player and team will then sign a long-term contract. If the tender is removed, the player can sign a long-term contract only with another team.
This seals off any path for a potentially creative outcome for Saquon Barkley and the Giants or Josh Jacobs and the Raiders. If the franchise tag is removed after 4:00 p.m. ET on Monday, they can sign only a one-year deal with the team that tagged them.
Second, what happens if another team signs the franchise-tagged player to a multi-year offer sheet after the mid-July deadline? That's not expressly addressed in the CBA. Per a league source, the NFL's Management Council would interpret it to prevent another team signing the player to a multi-year offer sheet after July 15. Because the player's current team must have a right to match the offer sheet and because the current team cannot match a multi-year offer sheet, it can't happen after the mid-July deadline.
That would have been relevant this year if Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson had not signed in April a long-term contract to stay in Baltimore. And it could be relevant if/when a future franchise-tagged player for whom a team would give up two first-round picks (usually, a quarterback) remains unsigned to a long-term deal with his current team as July 15 approaches.
These two dynamics underscore the strength of the franchise tag from the team's perspective. They're stuck with a one-year deal, with no ability to negotiate a multi-year contract until the regular season ends.
That least to the third point. The window for doing a long-term deal doesn't re-open after the postseason ends, but after the regular season ends.
A franchise-tagged player on a team that makes the playoffs could threaten to not play another game without a long-term deal. It would be unprecedented and controversial, but it's something that a player like Barkley should keep in his back pocket, if he ultimately signs the $10.1 million franchise tender, completes his 17-game obligation, and if he wants financial security before taking any additional physical risks in one or more postseason games.
Giants fans would be livid. But consider it from the player's perspective. He's fulfilled his commitment under the tag. If he gets injured in the playoffs, he becomes potentially undesirable to the Giants or to anyone else.
Why shouldn't he take a stand at that point? The CBA contains plenty of rules the teams don't hesitate to use to their advantage. The ability to sign a long-term deal after conclusion of the regular season works to the franchise-tagged players advantage. The franchise-tagged player shouldn't think twice about taking full advantage of the restoration of the right to execute a multi-year contract.
Continue reading...
