The term “franchise player” is one used in the context of the NFL. In 1993, the NFL and the NFL Players’ Association concluded a collective bargaining agreement that first used that term. \nThe 1993 CBA creates categories unrestrictive free agency, restrictive free agency for players who have played for a certain number of seasons. \nTo prevent a situation whereby the very best players could be bought by other teams, The “franchise player” was created. Regardless of player’s status as an unrestrictive free agent (which applies after four years of playing) each team can designate a franchise player for each season. The player may then only negotiate with the club for that season and the club must pay him the average of the five largest prior year salaries for players at that position he played the most games, or a salary of 120 percent of his prior year salary, whichever is greater.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This might work better than restricted free agency (although it would not be preferred by me over restricted free agency) because now it is only one person who has to stay with the team, and not only that, but he is paid rather an exorbitant amount. The only problem here is that franchising a player always results in whining by the player. Can you imagine Pedro Martinez about to bolt to the Mets, but wait, here are the Red Sox, franchising Pedro for a year! Since you can continually franchise Pedro, instead of signing him to a four year deal, you can continually sign him to one-year contracts. The only problem is that last year, Pedro was the highest-paid pitcher, so he would have been paid 120% of what he had made. Nonetheless, we would have had him for one more year. And if we know Pedro, we know he wouldn’t have been happy about that! \nEither way, in my opinion, free agency is one of the weaknesses of the game. Before free agency, and even slightly after, remaining with your team was the norm. What with the money explosion in the mid-late ’90s, now people leave for other teams with regularity – too much regularity. While I do not want baseball to become like the NFL with their parity and no guaranteed contracts and salary cap (that’s right, no salary cap – I love it the way it is) I do think the NFL has the right concept in restricted free agency and being able to franchise a player. While having both of these options for the MLB might be good, I think that would be pushing the Player’s Union. When the Collective Bargaining Agreement expires after 2006, I think baseball should put out feelers for restricted free agency, giving concessions elsewhere to make it work. As I said before, it’s a win-win-win situation. One thing is for sure, though. When Roberto Alomar retires and goes into the Hall of Fame, it’s going to be a shame to see “San Diego Padres, Toronto Blue Jays, Baltimore Orioles, Cleveland Indians, New York Mets, Chicago White Sox, Arizona Diamondbacks, Tampa Bay Devil Rays” on his plaque, and that’s not even counting later teams he could play for, considering he is only 36 (and will enter the season at 37). When players like Cal Ripken, Jr. start becoming rare (he spent his entire career with the Orioles) then you know something is wrong.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
What I hate about the game today is probably not what Curt Flood invisioned happening. He just wanted a way…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39750301],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
How can we fix Free Agency in Baseball? - The Sports Daily<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n