Franchising philosophy

[pizzaddict]

What is everyones philosophies when it comes to franchising players? Do you franchise the best player? The player who maybe isn't the best, but is the starter in a position you're not deep in? Is there a certain age of player you won't franchise?

[RedKingGold]

I play with the house rule of limiting renegotiations until the player is in the final year of their contract. However, I still find myself able to identify and re-sign most key players before their contract is up, so I pretty much never use the franchise tag.

Ironically, the closest I came was in my most recent season in my SP dynasty. I had a QB whom was one of the favorite players on my team. However, he was in his 16th season, and I had a the "QB of the Future" getting agitated sitting on the bench. When the old QB's contract expired, I debated using the franchise tag on him for one more run at glory. However, I thought better of it, and decided to let him go to greener pastures.

In short, I pretty much only use the franchise tag when there is a player who is probably a year or two away from retiring and don't want to risk the cap hit should he retire with a large bonus on the books. Other than that, I never use the franchise tag.

[JetsIn06]

I don't think that age is a factor at all...if anything, the tag is good for players that want a longer deal, but are to old to give a long-term, bonus heavy deal to.

Also, say you have a young player that is good but doesn't fit your system. You can tag-n'-trade him to get some value.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I used the tag in a variety of ways. It ends up being whoever is out of contract and wouldn't sign for anything less than ridiculous money the year before.

[perez24]

I obviously don't put as much thought into things as 90% of the board but I very rarely franchise players unless they are at least Fan Favorites in terms of popularity. Most of my teams are comprised of starters in the 35-50 range so I don't typically have a lot of superstars...or Solecismic Bowl rings for that matter.

[MrDNA]

Same as with Vinatieri - if the guy won't listen to reason as far as a multi-year deal goes, he gets the tag. Then he either gets traded, renegs to a better contract, or flies the coop the next season. Ironically, the only time I've had to go with option three was with my 50/50 fullback. Good luck cashing in on Free Agency, bubba ;)

[Subby]

I'll franchise really old guys that still have skill - guys that I thought were a danger the previous season of signing a long term deal and retiring.

[Lonnie]

When I have a player that gets a 'serious' injury in the last year of his contract I tag him to see if he retains form the next year and then usually sign or cut him then.

[jbergey22]

In short, I pretty much only use the franchise tag when there is a player who is probably a year or two away from retiring and don't want to risk the cap hit should he retire with a large bonus on the books. Other than that, I never use the franchise tag.


This is interesting. Doesnt a team in RL get to recover some of the signing bonus if a player retires? It shows how much I pay attention I never even thought of the fact I was losing signing bonus money when players retire.

[Anthony]

i will do it for what i call my "2nd tier" players. anyone on my O-line, DT's, safeties, LBs TE's. i won't do it for QB's, Pro Bowl calibre WR's, RB's, DE's or CBs - there isn't a scenario where i would allow players in those positions to go into the last season of their contract. QB's i want get locked up the season before. if i can't, then i have one season to trade the guy. players in my 2nd tier also don't carry a huge franchise salary cuz those positions don't normally have high average salaries. so anyone i wouldn't ever want to lose isn't ever in a position where i would need to franchise them. i either sign them or trade them. anyone else i can stand to lose - but would rather not have a cohesion hit or would rather not have to be bothered with replacing them - are the ones i franchise.

[DolphinFan1]

When I have a player that gets a 'serious' injury in the last year of his contract I tag him to see if he retains form the next year and then usually sign or cut him then.

I do this also.

[Synovia]

This is interesting. Doesnt a team in RL get to recover some of the signing bonus if a player retires? It shows how much I pay attention I never even thought of the fact I was losing signing bonus money when players retire.

Yes, its like that in real life. It depends on the team and the bonus money. If you've got 350K hanging over, the team might not bother going after you, but if you've got 6M hanging, the team most likely will tell you to return the signing bonus, or they'll go after you in court.

[stevew]

I usually just franchise RB's. The dropoff for them can be quite steep, and i hate having a huge bonus guy fall apart 2 seasons into a 5 year big money deal. Normally I don't use the tag at all, though. If I'm tight against the cap a previous year, I may break it out for some guy I couldn't otherwise find a way to keep.

I suppose I have tagged n traded a few stud T's or DE's once in awhile. Those guys are usually way too expensive for my tastes.

[QuikSand]

Yes, its like that in real life. It depends on the team and the bonus money. If you've got 350K hanging over, the team might not bother going after you, but if you've got 6M hanging, the team most likely will tell you to return the signing bonus, or they'll go after you in court.

Do you have any information about how often this is successful? I know the Barry Sanders case -- a pretty unexpected retirement early into a newish deal -- yielded a refund to the team (or at least that's what I recall). But I don't have the sense that this happens with much frequency.

[Synovia]

Do you have any information about how often this is successful? I know the Barry Sanders case -- a pretty unexpected retirement early into a newish deal -- yielded a refund to the team (or at least that's what I recall). But I don't have the sense that this happens with much frequency.

Most of the time the player just returns the cash rather than trying to fight for it. He's violated the terms of the contract by retiring.


Tarik Glenn returned a couple million to the colts last year. Most of the time older players don't retire with bonus money left... they just suck, and get cut.

[ZootMurph]

Please correct me in these assumptions if I am wrong...

I thought that it would be best to give older players 1 year deals. Mostly because their ratings seem to drop like a rock all of a sudden, so giving a multi year deal to a 60/60 could mean you are paying a 35/35 or worse as though he were a 60/60 for several years.

The only exception I can think of is a HoF type player who is a mentor in the process of mentor his future replacement.

[Ben E Lou]

Zoot, I'd say it's "safer" to give them one-year deals, for the reason you mention.

As far as franchise "philosophy," I don't really have one. (Maybe I should.) I usually just plan to use it on the guy who is in the final year of his contract and is hardest to renegotiate: usually a good first or second round pick in the final year of his contract who wants a massive raise for a long-term deal. If for some reason I can't afford it that particular season, I plan to franchise-and-renegotiate (or in MP, franchise-and-trade) him in the following year.

[mbarry55]

I had a 13 year 78/78 LT who I felt was on the "verge" of retiring, or having a huge ratings drop who was asking for a 3 year deal worth 25mil or so annually. rather than give him a 3 year deal not knowing how he'd drop ratings wise, or how many years he had left, I gave him the tag. Dropped his loyalty from 100 to 65 instantly.