Tiered Rookie Years? (Morphing into a Tagging Discusion)

[braven112]

In order to make a bid on a tagged player you have to have your original pick(s) or better. You can't trade down worth any of type picks and still make a bid. If you don't have a 2nd round pick, you could give a better pick just not worse.

[Poker in the Rear]

So I guess my offer to megatron is invalid because I own 2.11 and not 2.10(my original) and it's the only second I have? Crazy...

[braven112]

Just throwing this out there...
But if we're going to change around the tagging rules, why not give the option to the team that would be losing the player to be compensated with choosing whether they want to take the team's current year's draft pick or their future pick?

And some thoughts about the proposed change to the tagging structure:
I can see the RFA #2 tag being used more often then the transition tag. Not only is the salary lower, but you're at least compensated an alright draft pick for potentially losing that FA. If I'm tagging a player, is that added salary for the top 10 players enough to warrant me tagging them at transition and ward off any potential bidders? Or do I consider the difference in cost between the top 10 and 15 as a buffer for people to use for bidding and still get compensated with a future 2nd the following season if someone signs him away from me OR if no one signs them I get them for TWO years instead of ONE at a discounted top 15 cost!??! Seems like a no brainer to me to almost exclusively use the RFA2 tag over the transition tag.

I think having a difference between the tags is the point and you only can use one of each. So you may like one better but in order to keep more than one player you would have to choose between them.

The other piece to consider is that the rfa2 tag would be cheaper for everyone else to bid on to start and making it a future pick means everyone can bid on the player. Whearas now teams are ineligible if they traded away picks.

[bonesman]

So I guess my offer to megatron is invalid because I own 2.11 and not 2.10(my original) and it's the only second I have? Crazy...

That's pretty lame

[Wascawy Wabbits]

In order to make a bid on a trashed player you have to have your original pick(s) or better. You can't trade down worth any of type picks and still make a bid. If toot don't have a 2nd round pick, you could give a better pick just not worse.

Does this mean that with the current rules, if you were to bid on an RFA who has a 2nd round tender, but didn't own your own 2nd round pick, you'd need to use a 1st? Or if you owned a 2nd, but it's not your original draft pick, and that pick is worse then what yours would have been, you're not allowed to bid at all?

[braven112]

In order to make a bid on a trashed player you have to have your original pick(s) or better. You can't trade down worth any of type picks and still make a bid. If toot don't have a 2nd round pick, you could give a better pick just not worse.

Does this mean that with the current rules, if you were to bid on an RFA who has a 2nd round tender, but didn't own your own 2nd round pick, you'd need to use a 1st? Or if you owned a 2nd, but it's not your original draft pick, and that pick is worse then what yours would have been, you're not allowed to bid at all?

Yes that is correct.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

In order to make a bid on a trashed player you have to have your original pick(s) or better. You can't trade down worth any of type picks and still make a bid. If toot don't have a 2nd round pick, you could give a better pick just not worse.

Does this mean that with the current rules, if you were to bid on an RFA who has a 2nd round tender, but didn't own your own 2nd round pick, you'd need to use a 1st? Or if you owned a 2nd, but it's not your original draft pick, and that pick is worse then what yours would have been, you're not allowed to bid at all?

Yes that is correct.

*The compensatory draft picks must be the original draft picks or if the original pick is no longer owned, the next closest draft pick that is higher then the original or highest draft pick available if lower, of the team that signed the tagged player. (link)

The underlined is what what I am confused about.
In addition to the update that was posted when the rule was passed into the league where it talks about the underlined - http://forum.theleague.us/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=509#p1847

Does the underlined mean that the highest draft pick available that is lower then the team that put the tag on the player? Or the team that put the contract offer on the player? Or does the underlined part, as well as the link to where the underlined was mentioned, have a different interpretation?

Don't mean to derail the initial intention of this thread which was to discuss a new way of doing the tags, just kinda curious for future tagging purposes.

[Poker in the Rear]

You're not the only one confused by how this is worded and I'm curious as well.

If the goal is to create action on tagged players, at its core the current system is broken IMO. Tagged players are hardly bid on as it is due to the compensation and this limits the pool of owners even further. Heck, It even goes a step further to discourage the trading of picks because it very well could take you out of the tagged player bidding down the road. I'd like to officially propose that a new tag system is implemented and this is revisited. I find this portion of the rule very much a head scratcher.

[bocious]

*The compensatory draft picks must be the original draft picks or if the original pick is no longer owned, the next closest draft pick that is higher then the original or highest draft pick available if lower, of the team that signed the tagged player. (link)

The underlined is what what I am confused about.
In addition to the update that was posted when the rule was passed into the league where it talks about the underlined - http://forum.theleague.us/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=509#p1847

I was originally of the same understanding as Brandon, but reading that rule change and the conversation that Wascawy linked to seems to pretty clearly lend weight to Wascawy's and Poker's argument.

[braven112]

The part that you are asking about shouldn't be in the constitution. That was a suggestion on rewording that only makes it more confusing in hindsight. Here are our original threads.

http://theleague.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=415

http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=428

To add some background since we have new owners. Originally you had to have your original picks, period. The point of this was to allow you to make claims if you had your original picks, or better.

I do think it makes more sense to make some tweaks so I think we should concentrate our efforts there while keeping in mind some of the current painpoints.

Suggestions that help mirror the nfl's system but are simple for us to implement and follow are what we are shooting for.

[braven112]

Actually re-reading the first post by bonscott in the second link there is the example where a team had a lower pick than there original. The original thread is the one that stuck in my mind more. We've had multiple discussions on our tagging system over the years so thanks for asking for clarification.

As an owner this makes me happy because now Vit can be screwed over again

We also setup our original tagging system before we had 3 rounds in our draft so our current compensation needs to be overhauled imo.

[bonscott]

So it sounds like our current rules will allow the bid on Megatron as since a 2nd round pick is still owned that can be used, even if lower then the "original" pick. I apologize if I stirred anything up. It's confusing keeping this all straight.

Who wants to pay 15 mil for 3 yrs on one player...I won't comment.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

So it sounds like our current rules will allow the bid on Megatron as since a 2nd round pick is still owned that can be used, even if lower then the "original" pick. I apologize if I stirred anything up. It's confusing keeping this all straight.

Who wants to pay 15 mil for 3 yrs on one player...I won't comment.

That contract is going to make tagging AJ Green in a few years pretty rough

[Poker in the Rear]

So it sounds like our current rules will allow the bid on Megatron as since a 2nd round pick is still owned that can be used, even if lower then the "original" pick. I apologize if I stirred anything up. It's confusing keeping this all straight.

Who wants to pay 15 mil for 3 yrs on one player...I won't comment.

If nothing else this was a good exercise to get us all on the same page, and I think it can be simplified a bit to make it a little more clear moving forward. In addition to some of the changes going forward.

Now we'll have to wait and see what Vit does...

On a side note, having Jefferey for $1 million kind of helps Thanks brother

[yugimoto]

Whoa! Really good discussion as I completely missed the part about that I had to have my original draft picks in order to bid on tagged player (Completely my fault for missing that, not bagging on the rules at all). As someone who likes to make trades including draft picks, it would make me think differently in regards to making a trade.

But now it looks like that is no longer the case?

As an example, I do not have my original 1st round pick for 2014. However, I did win the 1.17 pick. So since I have a first round pick I could bid on a player that was tagged as a Transition Player like McCoy this year. Is that correct?

Apologies for the lack of understanding here.

DMOC

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Whoa! Really good discussion as I completely missed the part about that I had to have my original draft picks in order to bid on tagged player (Completely my fault for missing that, not bagging on the rules at all). As someone who likes to make trades including draft picks, it would make me think differently in regards to making a trade.

But now it looks like that is no longer the case?

As an example, I do not have my original 1st round pick for 2014. However, I did win the 1.17 pick. So since I have a first round pick I could bid on a player that was tagged as a Transition Player like McCoy this year. Is that correct?

Apologies for the lack of understanding here.

DMOC

I was wondering about that as well... Do picks that were won in the toilet bowl count as picks that can be used for bidding on tagged players?

[Poker in the Rear]

My opinion on tags is if you own picks in the designated rounds regardless of where they came from you should be able to place bids on tagged players. I also think it's as easy as if you bid on the player and you have multiple picks in that round you automatically give up your highest pick. We do this in the league I run and it has worked well.

[bonscott]

My opinion on tags is if you own picks in the designated rounds regardless of where they came from you should be able to place bids on tagged players. I also think it's as easy as if you bid on the player and you have multiple picks in that round you automatically give up your highest pick. We do this in the league I run and it has worked well.

I think your first part is pretty much how it is now, you just need to have at least 1 pick in the round needed. As for which one you give up, it will be your original pick and if you don't have your original then it will be the highest pick you have in the round.

So for example I bid on McCoy and have picks 1.08 and 1.11. 1.11 is my original pick and will be the one given up should I win the bidding. I'll still have 1.08 in the draft.

[bonscott]

On a side note, having Jefferey for $1 million kind of helps Thanks brother

As a Bears fan that was a really hard trade to make. But my team keeps going nowhere so I need to do something different or I'll keep getting what I'm getting which is crap.

[Poker in the Rear]

My opinion on tags is if you own picks in the designated rounds regardless of where they came from you should be able to place bids on tagged players. I also think it's as easy as if you bid on the player and you have multiple picks in that round you automatically give up your highest pick. We do this in the league I run and it has worked well.

I think your first part is pretty much how it is now, you just need to have at least 1 pick in the round needed. As for which one you give up, it will be your original pick and if you don't have your original then it will be the highest pick you have in the round.

So for example I bid on McCoy and have picks 1.08 and 1.11. 1.11 is my original pick and will be the one given up should I win the bidding. I'll still have 1.08 in the draft.

So is your thought the 1.17 works as well or is that different because of its acquired?

[braven112]

The 1.17 pick is fine, no reason to make it any more complicated. Now that that is settled, lets steer the conversation back to what we should do moving forward.

Are their any concerns about the proposal I posted earlier? Specifically regarding the RFA tag options since those are quite a bit different than what we've done in the past. I'd like to compare the two versions of the RFA tags to see what everyone's thoughts are and get to a point where either option would be considered.

[Poker in the Rear]

The 1.17 pick is fine, no reason to make it any more complicated. Now that that is settled, lets steer the conversation back to what we should do moving forward.

Are their any concerns about the proposal I posted earlier? Specifically regarding the RFA tag options since those are quite a bit different than what we've done in the past. I'd like to compare the two versions of the RFA tags to see what everyone's thoughts are and get to a point where either option would be considered.

Completely agree on the first part...

I think more and more i can get on board with the changes to the transition/restricted tags. On the franchise piece, to maybe help create more action, what if we keep it at the top 5 salaries, but lower the compensation to a 1st rounder? The original owner still has the avenue to keep the player but maybe this will stir things up a bit too.

[bonscott]

My first question would be on the RFA options...can you use both tags or is it you still get 1 RFA tag but you can choose between the two options? I believe as posted it was just 1 RFA tag but choose between the two options but just wanted to clarify since I've been "off" already in this thread. LOL

Discussion on the tags. I've kinda posted some of this before we went off on a tangent.

Franchise - Top 3 salary average/20%, 1st and 2nd round compensation.

Sounds like the change is to top 3 vs. top 5. I'd say leave it at top 5, won't be much different and keeps consistency with what we have now. Other then that I'd say all is good here. There won't be much movement in terms of bids because it's expensive to do so, but then it's very expensive to actually tag said player even with no bids. Gives teams an option to keep a player but really pay for it. Probably only happens for teams that are in it for another playoff run.

Transition - Top 10 avg/20%, no compensation

In a way gives teams a way to keep a player BUT there should be a lot of competition for said player. This should encourage both player movement and increased salary. May be quite a bit of these tags tossed out every year with a lot of bidding. If that's what we want then this is a good way to do it. This will also be similar to what I've seen in some auction leagues where players like this would actually just be back in the auction draft, however the tagging team retains the right to match the highest bid and keep the player.

Restricted Free Agent (RFA)- Top 20 avg/20%, 3rd round compensation OR Top 15 avg/20%, future 2nd compensation

First thought here is to simplify and make the salary increase the same for both. Top 15 or top 20 will be very similar either way so just choose one or the other and make is the same. Then the only choice I have is if I want a 3rd this year or a 2nd next year. Either way this should also encourage more bids and movement of players.

[bocious]

Restricted Free Agent (RFA)- Top 20 avg/20%, 3rd round compensation OR Top 15 avg/20%, future 2nd compensation

First thought here is to simplify and make the salary increase the same for both. Top 15 or top 20 will be very similar either way so just choose one or the other and make is the same. Then the only choice I have is if I want a 3rd this year or a 2nd next year. Either way this should also encourage more bids and movement of players.

I like this idea. I like top-20 and either 3rd this year or 2nd next year, which the owner declares during the tagging period. I also like just leaving Franchise tags as-is, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.

Addressing Poker's question about the Franchise tag, the idea is have the transition and RFA tags generate movement while the franchise tag is more likely to lock up the player but at a very high price. That's why Brandon was looking at tightening up the salaries for the franchise tags.

And to confirm, bonscott's understanding of the proposal is the same as mine, which I think is the same as Brandon's. Just stating that since you wanted confirmation.

[Poker in the Rear]

Restricted Free Agent (RFA)- Top 20 avg/20%, 3rd round compensation OR Top 15 avg/20%, future 2nd compensation

First thought here is to simplify and make the salary increase the same for both. Top 15 or top 20 will be very similar either way so just choose one or the other and make is the same. Then the only choice I have is if I want a 3rd this year or a 2nd next year. Either way this should also encourage more bids and movement of players.

I like this idea. I like top-20 and either 3rd this year or 2nd next year, which the owner declares during the tagging period. I also like just leaving Franchise tags as-is, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.

Addressing Poker's question about the Franchise tag, the idea is have the transition and RFA tags generate movement while the franchise tag is more likely to lock up the player but at a very high price. That's why Brandon was looking at tightening up the salaries for the franchise tags.

And to confirm, bonscott's understanding of the proposal is the same as mine, which I think is the same as Brandon's. Just stating that since you wanted confirmation.

Yeah, I know....i just personally like the idea of creating the possibility of more movement. And by doing this it also provides the original owner with potentially more than a one year contract like it is now.

The franchise tag really has just become nothing more than one year contact extension given the premium placed on picks.