[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man. It's as current as it can be, not an artifact of an earlier agreement as you had suggested.

Current as it can be is not the same as current, pretty cut and dry. If it was five years ago I might say fairly current, but the last CBA is approaching ten years ago. I said the franchise tag was created over 20 years ago, which is true.

Originally Posted by Chaka

I kinda agree with you as to the purpose of the tag, but I think you're interpreting it incorrectly. While I'm not sure I agree with you that the tag was originally designed to put pressure on the team to sign their franchise player to a long term contract or to let them go, it has definitely moved in this direction in later versions of the CBA.

Why else would they have the tags escalate unless it was meant to resolve the situation? If they wanted the player tied up in perpetuity they would not put it in there. It is there to discourage teams from using it over and over again to tie up a player and to force a conclusion to the process. I believe the players union added that if memory serves.

Originally Posted by Chaka

More importantly, under the current rules, the pressure you're referring to is not from the initial tag itself, but rather from the escalator clauses that kick in if the team insists on re-tagging a player for multiple years.

Technically, it is a tender, not a tag. Each tender is its own entity, and the tenders escalate if used in conjunction.

Originally Posted by Chaka

This is what Cousins took advantage of, but what Bell balked at for some reason. I can virtually guarantee to you that no non-QB will ever be tagged for more than two years under the current system.

How do you know Bell balked at this? Maybe it was the intended heavy usage the Steelers had planned and he thought it would hurt his negotiations for a long-term contract the following season. At least that is what most media reported. Again, Cousins' situation is not the same as Bell's because Cousins took more money from the cap and has a potentially longer career. The factors for making a decision by each player are not the same.

You can't guarantee that. I guarantee Bell would have been tagged a third year if his production was consistent and their Superbowl window remained open. My statement has just as much relevancy and maybe more since mine has a pattern of behavior to back it up.

Two years is a long time for a player that is not a QB. QB's can wait for that escalation to force a front office's hand. A non-QB player may have missed his second contract window, or have the time shorten his next contract.

Originally Posted by Chaka

I think it was working as intended for Bell, and was keeping up with the "emerging importance" of the RBs you referred to (incidentally, not sure I agree that there's a new trend with RBs, but we'll see). Remember, under the escalator clause he was going to receive $14.5 million for 2018 - that's right behind the highest paid RB in the league. The salary is also fully guaranteed - not sure if Gurley's salary is. Also, the $14.5 million is not based on Gurley's salary as you suggested, but rather is solely based upon 120% of Bell's salary from the prior year (around $12 million).

It is working as it is currently designed, I never disputed that. It is not working as intended in this case.

I don't think it is a new trend to have a dual-threat RB. Dual-threat RB's have been around awhile, just lately more have come out of the draft. There has been a lack of talent at the position and the position was devalued in recent years by the committee approach. That led to lower contracts, money allocated to multiple RB's instead of one elite back. There has been a reemergence of good dual-threat RB's in recent years. They have also achieved more relevance in schemes. This has been reflected in the stats of these players and RB's being picked high in the draft again. Hence the market will adjust and pay these backs more money. Gurley's contract is the start of that and the difference between his contract and Freeman's illustrates the value placed on elite backs. Elliot will be next and he will start at 15 million using Gurley's contract as a base. However, the league is not filled with them, just like elite QB's, there are the elite backs and the average backs.

Originally Posted by Chaka

Lastly, you're explanation of the franchise tag adjustments is slightly off. The franchise tag amounts are not calculated based directly on old, outdated contracts as you suggest. Rather, the tag amount for each position is based upon the prior years' tag amounts for that position, relative to the overall cap amount for those years. It's a percentage that is then applied to the current cap - in other words, it adjusts the moment the current cap is increased so by design it will always keep pace. Simply put, if the franchise tag for RBs was previously $10M under a $100M cap, it will automatically become $20M under a $200M cap - it doesn't matter what older RBs contracts say. If you are right that we are in the middle of a some sort of RB revolution where they are becoming much more important and valuable than before, the nice thing is that the system will adjust on its own to capture this after a year or two.

Ok, your comprehending of what I was saying is off. Bell was tagged with the exclusive rights tag for a second time. They are using the 120% of the prior year's salary instead of the average because the 120% is greater. However, neither approaches what he is arguing is his market value. With Gurley signing at 15 million a year, Bell will argue he should have more based on his production. The tag does not fairly compensate for what his new contract would be, it will when the average grows, but it does not today. That is not usually the case with other positions. It is weighted down by lower-paid running backs. An adjustment in a year or two, unfortunately, will not do help Bell's negotiation today. So, therefore, the franchise tender is not working as intended in this case.

Originally Posted by Chaka

No question it's 100% my take on the situation

That's fine, I think it irrelevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Chaka

Actually, it's the QBs who are the most restricted under the tag. This is because the escalator clauses for the third tagged year are brutal - for a QB, its a 44% increase over their prior year's salary (which itself has been jacked up by the prior tag amounts and escalator clauses). Hence, you get a $34 million tag for Cousins as I mentioned.

For teams considering a third tag on a non-QB, however, the tag price will in all likelihood be based upon the top QB salaries (NOT the salaries of the position involved). I won't go into the painful details, but to take an extreme example, a punter tagged for three straight years would be paid like a top-five QB. So that will never happen and, as a practical matter, a non-QB will never be tagged for more than two years under the current system.

Don't you mean the tag is more restrictive for teams trying to keep a QB? Seems this would be beneficial to the QB, allowing him to become a FA sooner, not restrict his movement. The higher salaries of QB's allowed Cousins to become a FA sooner than a non-QB under the same system.

Yes, the next escalation will be expensive. Bell could make 25 million with another one year tender. The team will have to decide if it is worth it to them. If you thought you could win another Superbowl would you pay that 25 million? It is difficult to measure how much a Superbowl win gains a franchise, but I would think it is more than 25 million. I think you would make that back if you won. It also depends on if the team can afford it, the Colts could as they are currently constructed. So no, I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility if the money and opportunity is there.