Eagles use Franchise and Transition Tags

[YourPalChrisMal]

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2...year#storyjump

Is The Franchise Tag Even Valid This Year?

by JasonB on Feb 22, 2011 12:35 PM EST in Philadelphia Eagles News

One of the issues Joe Banner brought up in his offseason press conference was that the team wasn't even entirely sure whether the tags they used on Michael Vick and David Akers are even valid. Banner says they did so just to be safe and protect their interests. The problem is that the "franchise tag" is something that exists as part of the current collective bargaining agreement. That agreement will of course expire on March 4th. So if the CBA doesn't exist, wouldn't it stand to reason that the franchise tag doesn't exist either?

David Akers' agent doesn't think so.

"I just don't think the tag is valid," said Jerrold Colton, agent for Akers. "We are in an unknown territory right now but I just don't think it's valid and I do believe the players association will challenge the usage of this tag. And then we'll see where all this falls down the road."

There's a few issues at work here. For one, the tag is absolutely valid at this moment. It's part of the CBA which is still in effect for a couple weeks and right there's nothing the players can do to change that. As Akers' agent says maybe something could be done "down the road." What exactly does he mean? Certainly, the NFLPA isn't going to bother challenging anything about the tag before a labor agreement is reached. That would be pointless. Since players can't be signed while there's no CBA, it really makes no difference.

Where it could become an issue is when the new CBA is finally finished. If the franchise tag exists in the new CBA, does it just carry over franchise tagged players from the previous agreement? If no tag exists, are the franchised players under the current agreement free agents? My guess is that this is something that will have to be worked out in the negotiations. NFL owners aren't going to leave this one ambiguous and they aren't going to want to let the likes of Peyton Manning hit unrestricted free agency.
Still, it's an interesting argument and frankly I would fall on the side of the tag not really meaning anything when the CBA expires. I do however, think that the owners will make sure that at least the players who were tagged in the previous CBA, remain property of their respective teams under the new agreement.

[YourPalChrisMal]

Well, apparently the tag WILL be valid this year.

Steelers signed franchise player OLB LaMarr Woodley to a one-year, $10.091 million tender.


The NFL Players Association has apparently moved on from their position that teams don't have the right to use the tag this year. Consider it a leverage play that went nowhere. The league has not yet released official franchise tag numbers, but NFL Network's Albert Breer puts the linebacker at $10.91 million for 2011. The Steelers will work to lock him up long term once a new CBA is reached.

[YourPalChrisMal]

I guess the jist of this is that if you don't think a player will perform as one of the Top 5 players, it doesn't make sense to PAY him like a Top 5 player. That seems a little bit of a simplistic way to look at it.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insid...3fid%3d6146692

Tagging Michael Vick was a mistake

Tagging Michael Vick was a mistake

Philadelphia Eagles quarterback likely won't play at last season's level

• Email

By Bill Barnwell
Football Outsiders
Archive


When NFL teams yank a free agent off the market by tagging him as their franchise player, they make what amounts to a financial trade-off. Without having to sign the player to a long-term contract or expose him to the open market, the organization can just about ensure that they will have that player on their roster for the upcoming season.


On the other hand, there's a tradeoff: namely, a boatload of cash. Franchise players get a salary equivalent to that of the average compensation of the top five players at their position or 120 percent of their previous salary, whichever is greater. That can be a pretty hefty raise. Michael Vick made about $4.5 million in 2010, but after receiving the exclusive rights franchise tag from the Philadelphia Eagles his 2011 compensation could hit $20 million -- guaranteed the moment he signs his tender.


We know that teams place the franchise tag on players for a variety of reasons, like gaining leverage in negotiating a potential long-term contract or ensuring the presence of a stopgap while a younger player develops. The uncertain future of the league's contractual system also plays a unique role this offseason. Even with all those options, there were still some curious choices for franchise tags this year. While nobody doubts the choice by the Indianapolis Colts to lock up Peyton Manning, we're going to examine some of those borderline choices by teams. We know they're paying top-five money, but are they really locking up top-five talent?


Michael Vick, Eagles

There were times in 2010 when Vick looked like one of the five best players in NFL history, let alone a top-five quarterback. And Andy Reid might have been run out of town if he had let Vick leave in free agency without acquiring any compensation in return. But when it comes to playing as a top-five quarterback in 2011, the odds -- and the numbers -- are against Vick.

To read the rest of Football Outsiders' analysis on the best and worst uses of the franchise tag this offseason, including why it wasn't wise for the Eagles to tag Michael Vick, you must be an ESPN Insider.