Re: Franchaise Tags, Long term contracts and Current Cap Status

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:58:36 -0500, "MZ" <mark@xxxxxxxxxx> quacked:

"testy" <mikfaitnospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iwEHh.21130$as.2241@xxxxxxxxxxx

"McDuck" <wallymcduckDELETEME@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4d1uu2h4fargkqpqk73fr449n7ovfhp3fo@xxxxxxxxxx

The Briggs reaction illustrates the anger some players have at the
perceived injustice of having to play 5 years as stars for relatively
low wages. I think the Patriots underestimated Branch's anger at the
prospect of being tagged.

Anyway, I think it would be good for the game to get rid of the
franchise rule. Its main function is to allow teams to underpay their
players --- or at least shift risks unfairly to the players.. Why is
that good?

Who knows that Briggs will do. He can't get free just from sitting out
--- to get free, he has to come back for game 10. Buthe says he'll
never play again for the Bears.

Good points but I disagree that the main function of the franchise tag is
so teams can underpay their players. The union would have never gone for
that.

The union goes for it because we're talking about the minority of players
(the richest ones!). Most unions are like that. The guys at the top of the
totem pole usually get screwed by unions. The guys at the bottom love the
union.


The NFL union is weak and purchased. I think you would have trouble
naming a single union that screws the guys at the top, never mind
provide evidence that it is the usual pattern. Well, I'd concede that
some union combinations --- AFL-CIO was an example --- used the
bargaining power of the skill guys to force a bargain for everyone.
So, in that sense, I can agree in some cases. But it is not a general
pattern in my experience and unfair to say the top guys got screwed.

Now, it is true that the top guys often have less need for the union.
But in baseball, to take the example of a strong union, the average
player salary was $6,000 when Miller took over as the head of the
union. The top guys were around $100,000. Maybe the bottom guys
benefitted more, but the top guys did pretty well.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bargaining leverage
    ... So the players refused to play and get paid for a deal that was not ... The players refused to accept a contract as proposed by the owners ... their union would be broken. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: The rebirth of McCarthyism
    ... against players. ... Are you seriuously suggesting that the owners get together to ... I'm saying what clubs could do. ... Come to the union with a serious "no PEDs" policy that put ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: Union implies collusion on A-Rod
    ... Union worried Selig, teams might collude to keep A-Rod's price down ... and many mentioned what players ... press reports coming out of the general ... IMO there's no one worth spending a lot of money on in this free agent ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: OF Lou Merloni
    ... The union made baseball players rich, ... You can't blame the replacement players ... them with respect to loss of union membership. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: The rebirth of McCarthyism
    ... I don't have any sympathy for any baseball players who've been caught ... up in Mitchell's report. ... The union has resisted drug testing ever ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)