Ideas to improve the RFAA

[Macho Man]

Please post here if you have any ideas how to improve the Restricted Free Agent Auction!

[Beefcake]

We need to start with franchise players. I've been saying this for years, but I think you need to start with removing franchise tags completely. All these leagues are based on the Thrones league I started awhile ago, and I'll be the first admit that I dropped the ball on the franchise tag. You shouldn't be able to spend money, keep the player without competition and then resign them for as many years as you want. Even in the NFL all franchised players only get a 1 year deal. All the best players get franchised and then given a 5 or 6-year contract, which locks them down for the entirety of their career.

A few options:

1) Remove the franchise tag. This would force the best players into the 1st round comp tags. These are the actual players that are worth a 1st round tag. That would open them up to bidding. It would also then push down all 1st round tags players to round 2. Round 2 to 3. 3 to 4, etc... So it would expand on bidding across the compensation spectrum

2) While I believe franchise tags should absolutely be removed, if teams don't want that, the other option can be to: (a) increase their cost AND (b) only assign a 1 year deal to them. All franchise tags players get a 1 year deal. If they get tagged, they cannot be tagged again, and they are automatically put into the FA pool the following year. I supposed you could allow 2 years in a row of being franchised at double the cost or something. But basically, these players should only get a 1 year deal and then into the FA pool they go.

Outside of the franchise tag:

i) Remove the extension tag. This just extends players contract arbitrarily in order to not hit FA. It usually is used strategically to purposely spread players contracts out so that said teams can FRANCHISE tag their best players on different years and then slapping a brand new 5 year contract on them. It's just wrong, and it's just another way to spend chump change, and then abuse the franchise tag to keep players on their team, while other teams cannot bid on them. Remove it. You don't want to remove it, then increase the cost to like $100. And if it isn't remove you should NOT allow teams to use this tag on non-expired contracts. This would help reduce teams' abilities to spread out the years in which their best players' contracts expire in order to just slap a franchise tag on them.

ii)   Why not just remove all compensation for tagged players?  For most players, they just aren't worth a chunk of cash in addition to a draft pick. Most of the tagged players that are round 2 and beyond, similar players can be had in the UFAA without spending a draft pick.  Have different rounds, with different starting dollar amounts.  The starting dollar amount threshold, would prevent some teams from bidding.  But either  way this would definitely help with having teams actually bid on RFAA players. Of course, we could go hardcore and just remove RFAA completely.


But these first two rules are the biggest problems we have with contracts, teams hoarding money, and the decrease for teams to bid on players during RFAA.

[Macho Man]

While we could rework the tag system entirely. I’m not exactly concerned about team being able to use the tags to keep players, it is a dynasty league after all. Your last point is more towards the aim of the post, which is to create more activity and bidding in the RFAA. I don’t want to get rid of it, just improve it. I think reworking the compensation is the proper first step.

[Nature Boy]

Activity again depends on the strategy of the  owner and most owners seem to favor stockpiling rookies instead of going after vets. There needs to be some dynasty aspect of rosters like todd said but yes activity in RFAA needs to increase. I don't think removing tags is the answer either but to make the tags more competitive somehow. $120 is a fair price for the franchise tag I think. This will take some more brainstorming as well

[Beefcake]

The entire tagged system contributes to the problem. It's a top down problem. The problem with the franchise tag is you then assign them to a 5 year deal without any competition from other teams. You've already had them on your team for 3,4,5 years. That's potentially 10 years of a player's career. That's bullshit IMO. These are the best players. The ones that would garner bidding. The ones that make a difference. The intent was always to have a contract and then open to bidding to other teams. To allow another 5 years to a player is crap. And the extension tag makes it even worse because it gets used as a system to abuse the franchise tags by spreading out franchise tagged players. That means more studs that never get opened up to competition. The franchise tag needs to be 1 year and done or removed completely. These players need to trickle into the RFAA so other teams can bid on their value, and decrease the value of the other players in RFAA. The entire system needs a rework.

[Undertaker]

Maybe we should get rid of the first round tags and make the highest compensation a 2nd. That would shift everyone down and def make things more interesting. But more importantly We have to make sure that we correctly identity what the problem is and then create a solution. I agree with the previous point that the best players being locked up for their whole career dilutes the Free agents. Additionally the mildly interesting players that make it too FA are tagged with a first which is overpriced imo for a lot of them. My solution doesn’t deal with the dilution problem but instead makes the weaker FA players more affordable. You can either increase supply by getting rid of the franchise tag or decrease the cost.

[The Rock]

I see a lot of interesting ideas and discussion. My question would be for starters, what are we trying to accomplish?

1) We want more "action" in the RFA ? I think we had more action the first two years because many of us were new to contract leagues and didn't know how to properly manage our years and it left us with a lot of players we couldn't protect or ones we had to tag with low price tags. I think as a league we have all wised up a little and started using the franchise tag and extension tag to exploit that part of the system. It's like a Geico commercial, that's what we do :shrugs: Also, the draft classes have been getting better and better and those picks, which you can draft and assign a 5-6 year contract, have increased. So people are less willing to give up a 1st or 2nd or even a 3rd for a veteran. This is more NFL like than ever, if that's what we are going for.

2) We want more premier players hitting the RFA so they can get bid on? Well for starters the owner who loses a top player in RFA gets A single pick for compensation. He doesn't get much from the PD's bid on the player as most of it goes to the turnbuckle. So he just matches and matches because the pick is just OK compensation. Then if he wins his player back by using the tag and overpaying in PD's, he gets to extend that player for another 3-5 years. So from a value standpoint, most guys are not going to accept the compensation and are just going to match until they get to keep their guy. So maybe a tweak to PD's is a better answer or a reward for a guy losing a player that is based off that players production? Like a top 5 NFL DE gets a contract based on the market and demand for him. Sometimes the team gets no compensation for the guy. Currently in our league a guy with an expiring contract is damn near worthless in trade. So maybe we explore compensation for lost guys more to encourage more activity.

3) We did join this league knowing this rule set and we did plan accordingly. It IS a DYNASTY league so what the hell is wrong with drafting or trading for an elite guy and expecting to keep him forever? This league mixes it up unlike other dynasty leagues. For me it is a nice blend of true dynasty where you can keep your players forever and a redraft where you keep no one. We have other leagues like Blockchain if you feel the need to tinker all the time. Now we have Emporium for even more tweaks in between. My point is, I think we are tweaking this league to try to make it more like those leagues and this league is what it is. I'm not saying it couldn't use any improvement but we don't need wholesale change. The franchise tag is a powerful tool that many guys have used and get to use once a year. It isn't a cheap tag though or I we would franchise someone every year. Look how few guys got the franchise tag this season.

[Macho Man]

I love the discussion and hope more owners chime in as well. I'm going to consider all the thoughts that are posted here in creating a new RFAA system.

As I stated before and to the Rock's point, this is a dynasty league, and I don't think it's necessary for the elite of the elite to be changing teams in order to have a better RFAA experience. In Blockchain and Emporium we use a raid to increase player mobility, but the top tier guys will never be available to change hands. I don't see anything wrong with that as it's purposely designed that way. The raid moves mid-level talent around which still has a big impact on the quality of a team. Here, I'd like to see the mid-level guys (e.g., RB2's and WR2-3's) being bid on and right now they are not, and it's likely due to the high cost/compensation.

Ultimately, I want the RFAA to be an event that everyone can participate in and something people look forward to - like the raid or even the UFAA, which has a lot more activity even though the players are not as good.

I think what I'll end up doing is drafting new rules for the RFAA and then post it for feedback. Then if any good points are made we can adjust accordingly.

[The Rock]

Ultimately, whatever you do to RFA most of us will adjust to and try to circumvent that as well So if we are losing too many players in RFA we will just assign them longer contracts from day one and have smaller rosters. We will trade for more rookie picks and use the taxi squad more. We will find a way to keep our top players rather them lose them with little compensation

[Beefcake]

To Mike's point that the franchise tag isn't cheap; I would say that it is. Dirt cheap actually. I just paid over $150 and a 2nd round pick for Matt Ryan. What do you think an actual elite player would go for? Imagine if CMC has 1st or 2nd round tag on him. Or Adams. Or any elite player. You're like talking over $300 plus compensation.  I mean there's really no reason to spend money in this league other than the franchise and extension tags.  But those players will never make it to said tag because they will be franchised and then the extension tag will be used as a tool to abuse the system.

Even if you like the franchise tag...fine. Just make it a 1 year extension. The fact that you can slap them with another max contract is ludicrous.

And get rid of the $20 extension tag. It's chump change and is used for the wrong reason. At the very least make a rule that any player that gets extended, can never be franchised. At least that way they are forced into the RFAA where other teams get a shot.

I get that it's a dynasty league. But part of the dynasty league experience is managing contracts effectively. There is no skill in managing contracts in this league. The best players are kept for free (franchise tags). The good players get tagged at a compensation level that is overpriced. It can still be a dynasty league where you have to fight to retain the players you want.

And keep in mind that all of this is coming from the person that made the original rules.  I created them in Thrones.  And over the years, I've realized that I was wrong and that there are flaws. Would be great to fix them. 

[The Rock]

Ok. Let's use CMC as an example then since he is on my team. Your argument suggests it isn't right/fair/cool for me to keep him forever (ish). That not enough premium talent guys like him change teams or can be "bought" with PD's. Even if I didn't franchise him and I only had the ability to use a 1st rounder on him.  Or even if 1st round tags were not available and only 2nd's were, I would NEVER LET HIM WALK. I would just change my strategy and get all the PD"s I could afford and you would never outbid me for him. You would just run me up to be a dick  

Now If you bid 300 PD's AND I got all 300 of those PD's plus a 1st, then maybe I actually consider it.  If the PD's had more value and IF I got something in compensation for him.

Next question regarding this. If we all agreed or a majority vote happened and we did away with franchise tags and 1st round tags. What  do you think that would do to the value of CMC? He would go from breaking the bank MVP talent to nearly worthless. What do you think it does for the top tier guys in trades? They become fairly worthless. It diminishes draft picks value too. If you draft Saquan and know you can only keep him 5-6 years, you will automatically sign him to the max contract and hope you aren't wrong, otherwise you get stuck with a 6 year turd contract. 

So, is this your goal? All to get more activity in RFA? 

I think investigating the PD's is a better angle. Makes those more valuable somehow and maybe that accomplishes what you are trying to do. Maybe do away with the turnbuckle and get all the bid money to the team that loses the player? Maybe allow a team to offer more than just a single pick in RFA ? It takes away from the original intent of the RFA but maybe you even allow players and picks to be offered in RFA? Nah, that's getting crazy. 

Bottom line is any change you make is going to have ripple effects. Some bigger than others. Any change you make, we will find an angle, a loophole and we will adapt. It's what we do if we want to win and build DYNASTY teams. I want to be the New England Patriots of the league. 

This doesn't mean I don't support any change. I just think much consideration needs to happen before and we need a lot of feedback. These changes are not small and they will have lasting effects. 

[Beefcake]

In response:

1) I would just change my strategy and get all the PD"s I could afford and you would never outbid me for him---------->>>> Well, that sounds good, but probably not realistic. That would mean that you would never bid on any other player. Remember there are now elite players available. You would never pay PD's to tag your guys, etc... And remember you would still be getting 1st round compensation for him.

2) Now If you bid 300 PD's AND I got all 300 of those PD's plus a 1st, then maybe I actually consider it--------->>>I'm sure. But that's a solution that can't be done, because all it takes is 1 moron team to overvalue a player and now the original team is flush with money. What you can do is give the original team a discount off the winning cost, So say a player went for $300, maybe the original owning team gets a 20% discount. This allows you to essentially be willing to spend 20% more than the high bid.

3) What do you think that would do to the value of CMC? He would go from breaking the bank MVP talent to nearly worthless. What do you think it does for the top tier guys in trades? They become fairly worthless. It diminishes draft picks value too.---------->>> Nearly worthless? lol. You had him for 5 years and you franchised him (assuming we only allow 1 year extenstion on franchise tag). That's 6 years. 6 years! Most leagues don't even last 6 years. Players' values decline on an expiring contract. That's what happens in every contract league (except for this league beause we stupidly allow a max contract on a franchise tag). So after those 6 years, you tag him with a 1st round tag and let the bidding begin.

4) I think investigating the PD's is a better angle. Makes those more valuable somehow------------------>>>>That's the problem. There is absolutely nothing that can make those PD's be worth more without having quality players up for bidding. Nothing. You can putz around the edges, but it's not going to do much of anything. Who is going to get into a bidding war over some 3rd round tagged guy? No one.

5) Bottom line is any change you make is going to have ripple effects. Some bigger than others. Any change you make, we will find an angle, a loophole and we will adapt. It's what we do if we want to win and build DYNASTY teams. I want to be the New England Patriots of the league. --------------->>>>> That's fine. Removing the extension tag, allowing 1 year extensions to franchise tags and allowing teams owning players a 20% discount to the final matched bid; there won't be any loopholes to circumvent. The New England Patriots didn't build a dynasty by forcing all their players to stay with the team and spent wildly in FA. If anything, they did the opposite. Those players that demanded top dollar, they sent packing and rotated other players in.

[The Rock]

Apr 9, 2020 21:10:11 GMT Beefcake said:

In response:

1) I would just change my strategy and get all the PD"s I could afford and you would never outbid me for him---------->>>> Well, that sounds good, but probably not realistic. That would mean that you would never bid on any other player. Remember there are now elite players available. You would never pay PD's to tag your guys, etc... And remember you would still be getting 1st round compensation for him.

2) Now If you bid 300 PD's AND I got all 300 of those PD's plus a 1st, then maybe I actually consider it--------->>>I'm sure. But that's a solution that can't be done, because all it takes is 1 moron team to overvalue a player and now the original team is flush with money. What you can do is give the original team a discount off the winning cost, So say a player went for $300, maybe the original owning team gets a 20% discount. This allows you to essentially be willing to spend 20% more than the high bid.

3) What do you think that would do to the value of CMC? He would go from breaking the bank MVP talent to nearly worthless. What do you think it does for the top tier guys in trades? They become fairly worthless. It diminishes draft picks value too.---------->>> Nearly worthless? lol. You had him for 5 years and you franchised him (assuming we only allow 1 year extenstion on franchise tag). That's 6 years. 6 years! Most leagues don't even last 6 years. Players' values decline on an expiring contract. That's what happens in every contract league (except for this league beause we stupidly allow a max contract on a franchise tag). So after those 6 years, you tag him with a 1st round tag and let the bidding begin.

4) I think investigating the PD's is a better angle. Makes those more valuable somehow------------------>>>>That's the problem. There is absolutely nothing that can make those PD's be worth more without having quality players up for bidding. Nothing. You can putz around the edges, but it's not going to do much of anything. Who is going to get into a bidding war over some 3rd round tagged guy? No one.

5) Bottom line is any change you make is going to have ripple effects. Some bigger than others. Any change you make, we will find an angle, a loophole and we will adapt. It's what we do if we want to win and build DYNASTY teams. I want to be the New England Patriots of the league. --------------->>>>> That's fine. Removing the extension tag, allowing 1 year extensions to franchise tags and allowing teams owning players a 20% discount to the final matched bid; there won't be any loopholes to circumvent. The New England Patriots didn't build a dynasty by forcing all their players to stay with the team and spent wildly in FA. If anything, they did the opposite. Those players that demanded top dollar, they sent packing and rotated other players in.

They kept the GOAT for nearly 20 years   In your solution they would have been back to the Bledsoe days in year 6 and sucked ass for the last 13 years. 

[Beefcake]

So your response to everything I posted has to do with the exception of a player being with the same team for 20 years, rather than the rule? If you're wanting NFL policies then I'm glad that you agree with me that the franchise tag should more closely mimic the real NFL and make it a 1 year extension.

[The Rock]

Apr 9, 2020 22:51:31 GMT Beefcake said:

So your response to everything I posted has to do with the exception of a player being with the same team for 20 years, rather than the rule? If you're wanting NFL policies then I'm glad that you agree with me that the franchise tag should more closely mimic the real NFL and make it a 1 year extension.

No that’s just what I had time for. Brady is a perfect example though of building a dynasty around. He was never available for steal until they let him expire.