Seymour franchised

Ray O'Hara

unread,

Feb 25, 2010, 10:56:13 PM2/25/10

to

The Raiders freanchised Seymour
he's guaranteed close to 12.4 mill.
players hate that rule.
teams should have to guarantee 2 years at the price per.

CalC

unread,

Feb 27, 2010, 8:56:03 AM2/27/10

to

They'd hate that more. Why do you think they froth at the mouth after
being franchised a second year? It's all about guaranteed money not
guaranteed years.

StanTheMan_Stasiak

unread,

Feb 28, 2010, 10:31:01 AM2/28/10

to

"Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hm7gp0$lul$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

It should be a guaranteed 2-year deal; the first year is the franchise
designation amount and the second is that franchise plus 50%. Then make it
so that the tag cannot be removed, and any long-term deal needs to be in
addition to that -- so for Seymour, the franchise tag would, in effect, give
him a guaranteed 2-year deal for $30 million. He wouldn't mind that at all,
and if the Raiders are willing to pay it, then fine.

The second change is that the franchise amount should be for ALL players,
not just players at that position. So if you want to franchise a kicker,
fine -- but you're going to be paying him Peyton Manning money.

Ray O'Hara

unread,

Feb 28, 2010, 10:59:06 AM2/28/10

to

"StanTheMan_Stasiak" <ssta...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:87WdnSS7TqCmERfW...@giganews.com...

I disagree with the "all players" thing.
and a 50% 2nd year increase is too much. 30% would be more than enough.

Galen Boyer

unread,

Feb 28, 2010, 1:08:38 PM2/28/10

to

"StanTheMan_Stasiak" <ssta...@aol.com> writes:

Then only Peyton Manning and those paid at his level would get franchised.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

Ray O'Hara

unread,

Feb 28, 2010, 3:05:53 PM2/28/10

to

"Galen Boyer" <galen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uocj9f...@www.yahoo.com...

that would suit many players. they hate the franchise tag.

AllYou!

unread,

Mar 1, 2010, 7:12:52 AM3/1/10

to

In news:87WdnSS7TqCmERfW...@giganews.com,
StanTheMan_Stasiak <ssta...@aol.com> mused:

> "Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hm7gp0$lul$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> The Raiders freanchised Seymour
>> he's guaranteed close to 12.4 mill.
>> players hate that rule.
>> teams should have to guarantee 2 years at the price per.
>>
>
> It should be a guaranteed 2-year deal; the first year is the
> franchise designation amount and the second is that franchise
> plus 50%. Then make it so that the tag cannot be removed, and
> any long-term deal needs to be in addition to that -- so for
> Seymour, the franchise tag would, in effect, give him a
> guaranteed 2-year deal for $30 million. He wouldn't mind that
> at all, and if the Raiders are willing to pay it, then fine.

Obviously, the point of this change would be to effectively remove
the franchise tag altogether. So what not just do that, and get it
over with? But what would you propose that the players give up in
return?

> The second change is that the franchise amount should be for ALL
> players, not just players at that position. So if you want to
> franchise a kicker, fine -- but you're going to be paying him
> Peyton Manning money.

What would be the point of that?

AllYou!

unread,

Mar 1, 2010, 7:13:30 AM3/1/10

to

In news:hme3sd$epb$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
Ray O'Hara <raymon...@hotmail.com> mused:

What should the players give up in order to get this concession from
the owners?