Between the players and the owners, somebody needs to take some steps back and look at the big picture. Since free agency began, both sides have battled over those now-outdated franchise and transition tags.

	Jason Taylor had a $42 million deal coming his way before being franchised.

Annually, owners use the franchise tag like a club to bang over one of their most valuable players. Players grumble, agents threaten to file grievances and then, unless the player is traded, nothing happens until July 15 because the team is allowed to negotiate a long-term contract and then come back and use that tag again next year.

It's silly.

To explain, the franchise tag is one of the few lifelines the owners salvaged when they went kicking and screaming into free agency almost a decade ago. The concept made sense at the time. Owners needed to have ways to keep their quarterbacks or top players, so each side settled on the idea of restricting movement to one or two players on a team.

In giving the owners the franchise tag, they felt secure that they wouldn't lose their best player without compensation. A raiding team would have to plunk down two years of first-round draft choices to get that player, and the victimized team still had seven days to match the offer. To compensate the player, he would receive the average of the top five cap numbers at his position in the form of a one-year tender.

The transition was a hedge-your-bet option. The team could lower its one-year offer and save cap room and still have the ability to match any offer while the player received the average of the top-10 cap numbers at his position.

Let's fast-forward to today. Only six tags were used – four franchise and two transition. Representatives of defensive end Kevin Carter are considering filing a greviance against the Rams for not dealing in good faith since making him their franchise player. Last summer, Carter rejected a seven-year, $45 million deal that included a $12 million signing bonus.

Instead, the Rams rewarded receiver Isaac Bruce and ended their ability to re-sign top members of their Super Bowl XXXIV team. Carter's play suffered in 2000 and his relationship with coach Mike Martz was strained at times. Last week, the Rams franchised Carter and, instead of having some $13 million in his bank account, he has to wait until the season to get $5.39 million on a one-year deal. If the Rams can't work out a long-term deal, they might do it again. Carter might hold out, and the situation will get worse.

Franchise players can become franchise headaches. Two years ago, it was the same with Bengals receiver Carl Pickens. He was franchised and held out most of training camp. The Bengals rewarded him with a long-term deal a couple of weeks after his return, and before long, Pickens angered then-coach Bruce Coslett, leading to his release last year.

There has been so much sniping and bitterness through the years of these designations that logic has escaped the process.

For example, years ago the Bills found a neat way to franchise a player and get back the tag the next year. The original agreement was that the franchise tag could be used, but then the team wouldn't get it back until that player's contract ended. The Bills signed their player to a one-year tender, then a week or so later announced that a long-term deal was done.

That loophole, found by former Bills general manager John Butler, withstood legal challenges, but the players association protested vehemently. One Bills player screwed years of future franchise players by getting a deal he wanted.

	Instead of one franchise designation, give a team one transition tag every year and don't worry about how they use it. It gives the player the ability to go out on the market and get his contract. It gives the team the ability to match anything the player brings back.

Owners and players changed the collective bargaining agreement in a completely illogical way. Once the franchise or transition tag is given, a team can't negotiate a long-term deal until July 15, which on many teams is near the start of training camp. After that, you can sign the tender, wait some time and sign a contract extension.

Then the team can do the same as the Bills – screw the next guy with the franchise tag threat.

Owners counter that it's not ruining things for the next guy if he's making the top-five salary at his position. That's wrong. Look at the case of Jason Taylor, the Dolphins' franchise player this year.

Taylor was well on his way toward receiving a six-year, $42 million deal hours before the franchise designation. Included in the deal was a $9 million signing bonus. Knowing that deals are always done on deadlines, the Dolphins were ready to send the franchise tag paperwork to the league office so they wouldn't lose Taylor.

However, it was unlikely anyone was going to trade away two firsts for Taylor. A deal could have been struck, but time ran out. Instead of getting his $9 million check, Taylor has to wait until July and hope he's not angry enough to hold out. Then, each side can probably come back and resurrect the same deal as before unless the price of defensive ends soars about $7 million a year. Plus, the Dolphins are in position to lose the tag for six years if the players association challenges an extension Taylor might sign.

Already, franchising Taylor will cost the Dolphins more to keep kicker Olindo Mare because they would have franchised him.

Face it, this system has lived beyond its usefulness. At least, give Taylor and others a chance to get the long-term deal whenever they want. Why wait until July and have a team worry about losing the ability to franchise?

Of course, hasn't the luster of the franchise player been lost when teams use it on kickers. The Colts franchised their backup tight end, Marcus Pollard. Most fans in Chicago know that Bryan Robinson is a good, young defensive end, but until the Bears placed the transition tag on him, the rest of the NFL didn't know he was that good.

The solution to this is a trade-off. Instead of one franchise designation, give a team one transition tag every year and don't worry about how they use it. It gives the player the ability to go out on the market and get his contract. It gives the team the ability to match anything the player brings back. Face it, with half the teams over the salary cap before the start of every free-agency period, creative cap guys don't have enough room on their caps to structure too many poison pills.

As a backside protection to the player, once he's given the transition tag, he can't be transitioned by the same team again. The team now has a year to settle its contract differences, and if they can't in a year, then it's time to move on, anyway.

This "tag, you're it" concept is ridiculous.

John Clayton is the senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.