No players resist the franchise tag to be forced to play on a one year deal, with no long term financial security.
Originally Posted by: lolleren
IMO, That is the mask they hide behind, yes.
But reality of the NFL is no contract is guaranteed, so a long term deal really means little in the big scheme of it all.
The reason they want to hit the market, is that signing bonus, which once paid is "guaranteed" money unless the player refuses to play. If the team after one year, see Cullen Jenkins, decides to cut or rework the deal, the player keeps that upfront money. Generally deals are structured so that the player won't be on a one and done, but for the player if it is they hit the market again and have a shot at the Bonus money again.
It is all about cash in the pocket now. It is also why players "forget" a couple years into the deal that the bonus money is amortized over the term of the deal from the clubs perspective.
From a players perspective, if they are a highly sought after commodity, they are going to collect those bonus (single check) payments.
"A dollar in hand is better than two in the bush" type logic.
However, if one sat back and looked at it, year to year franchise tags is a much more lucrative deal. You always remain in leverage, and as long as you perform, your golden.
Yes there is the injury concern, but most of the time, club "repairs" you and passes you physically, then are free to release but must suffer and "cap hit".
But most clubs, see GB, have become very proficient at managing the cap that it really isn't a huge deal.
Additionally, a player can insure themselves against injury and loss of earning potential. Much as collegiate players
can .
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"