Thread: The Franchise Tag

With the pending release of Matt Birk and Sharper as URFA, I questioned why we don't use the Franchise tag more effectivly. Many teams use it as a way to dangle their players leaving as trade bait. I could see a team trading a 4th or 5th rounder for Birk is the franchise tag is used.

I would even like to see us franchise the Birk as a way to keep him for 1 more year as his replacement( i guess Sullivan) takes over.

My question is, Why don't we sue the franchise tag more often?

"kevoncox" wrote:

With the pending release of Matt Birk and Sharper as URFA, I questioned why we don't use the Franchise tag more effectivly. Many teams use it as a way to dangle their players leaving as trade bait. I could see a team trading a 4th or 5th rounder for Birk is the franchise tag is used.

I would even like to see us franchise the Birk as a way to keep him for 1 more year as his replacement( i guess Sullivan) takes over.

My question is, Why don't we sue the franchise tag more often?

Cuz it takes the average of the top 5 salaries at that position and at most positions that salary is pretty high, at least much higher than the talent we are trying to resign.
Not to mention, alot of the players hate it cuz they worked their ass off the past year to do well in Free Agency and they get stuck with a 1 year deal and have to have another great year to hopefully get a longterm deal the next season.

LoL, the franchise tag on Birk or Sharper? I guess this simply comes down to how good you think those players are, I for one know that I would not trade for either one at this point in their carears. We would then be stuck with a highly overpayed salary.

We don't need to use the Franchise tag because players that are apart of our future team are signed before it even comes to that.

"VikingsTw" wrote:

LoL, the franchise tag on Birk or Sharper? I guess this simply comes down to how good you think those players are, I for one know that I would not trade for either one at this point in their carears. We would then be stuck with a highly overpayed salary.

We don't need to use the Franchise tag because players that are apart of our future team are signed before it even comes to that.

+1

Especially Sharper.
He is not worth that kind of money.
I would like to see Birk stay, but I am at odds as to whether he is worth that money as well.

But Sharper?
LMFAO!

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"VikingsTw" wrote:

LoL, the franchise tag on Birk or Sharper? I guess this simply comes down to how good you think those players are, I for one know that I would not trade for either one at this point in their carears. We would then be stuck with a highly overpayed salary.

We don't need to use the Franchise tag because players that are apart of our future team are signed before it even comes to that.

+1

Especially Sharper.
He is not worth that kind of money.
I would like to see Birk stay, but I am at odds as to whether he is worth that money as well.

But Sharper?
LMFAO!

I never said to use the franchise tag on Sharper, I mentioned him because he is 1 of our top FAs and many people want him
to stay. However, my post clearly only mentions
Birk!

"kevoncox" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"VikingsTw" wrote:

LoL, the franchise tag on Birk or Sharper? I guess this simply comes down to how good you think those players are, I for one know that I would not trade for either one at this point in their carears. We would then be stuck with a highly overpayed salary.

We don't need to use the Franchise tag because players that are apart of our future team are signed before it even comes to that.

+1

Especially Sharper.
He is not worth that kind of money.
I would like to see Birk stay, but I am at odds as to whether he is worth that money as well.

But Sharper?
LMFAO!

I never said to use the franchise tag on Sharper, I mentioned him because he is 1 of our top FAs and many people want him
to stay. However, my post clearly only mentions
Birk!

They've been good to us, and deserve the freedom to pursue other options this off season if they so choose.

We'd be overpaying two players at the end of their careers if we tagged them.

Is that something you guys think we would use on Taylor after next year? Winfield is also a FA next year.

"Mr" wrote:

"kevoncox" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"VikingsTw" wrote:

LoL, the franchise tag on Birk or Sharper? I guess this simply comes down to how good you think those players are, I for one know that I would not trade for either one at this point in their carears. We would then be stuck with a highly overpayed salary.

We don't need to use the Franchise tag because players that are apart of our future team are signed before it even comes to that.

+1

Especially Sharper.
He is not worth that kind of money.
I would like to see Birk stay, but I am at odds as to whether he is worth that money as well.

But Sharper?
LMFAO!

I never said to use the franchise tag on Sharper, I mentioned him because he is 1 of our top FAs and many people want him
to stay. However, my post clearly only mentions
Birk!

They've been good to us, and deserve the freedom to pursue other options this off season if they so choose.

We'd be overpaying two players at the end of their careers if we tagged them.

I think Birk will get 20 million over 3 season.
Sharper will command a 3 million a year salary 16 guareenteed.

I thnk we would be over paying for Birk slightly...but we would still have a darn good center on roster.

"marstc09" wrote:

Is that something you guys think we would use on Taylor after next year? Winfield is also a FA next year.

I actually think Taylor will stay a Viking. He seems to like it here and his role... Hopefully he and Peterson have a 65-35 split in carries and touches.

The franchise tender for a safety is relatively cheap, cheapest on defense anyways, but I highly doubt the team is dying for Sharper back.