DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Wilfork says franchise tag "slap in face"

Quote:

---

The more I think about this, the more one sided this seems. This is a one sided deal in favor of the franchise.

In the US, we pride ourselves on the concept of a free and fair market. - For almost all of us the employment market isn't a concept, rather it's a reality. We get paid for what we are qualified to do - pure and simple. If we don't like what we are getting paid, then we have the choice to go elsewhere - pure and simple. - That's what makes this country great. We have millions of people striving to improve themselves so that they are able to find a sought after position on the market.
I noted a moment ago that if we don't like what we are getting paid, we can go elsewhere - unless there is a contract in place. Fair enough, Wilfork signed a contract and lived up to his end of the bargain. The contract has expired and he should be allowed to test the market - just like any of us are able to do. However, he is not able to do so because the Patriots are able to essentially kill Wilfork's options by offering him market value for one year - but he could get market value for 4-6 years somewhere else. That isn't fair or American.

This franchise tag system isn't fair. It needs to change so that the player is given market value for a set amount of years. - The player should have a say in the amount of years he can be tagged - from the start. If the Patriots have the option of tagging him, then the tag should have a fair amount of years attached - something fair for the player - 5 maybe 6 years seems to be fair. This would discourage teams from using the franchise tag and would deliver a fair market.

---

Quote:

---

Plyers sure don't complain about the fairness of the draft when they are in the top 10. We can talk about slotting all day long and incremental increases as well.

---