|
|
Post by Steamboat on Apr 10, 2020 0:18:12 GMT
I agree with Beefcake we should do something about the extension tag. Either eliminate it or make it so once it's used that player cannot be tagged again and must go to UFA.
I do not, however, agree with completely eliminating the franchise and/or 1st round tags, unless you add in a different type of compensation system. Here are a few other not-so-well-developed ideas:
- Make the franchise a two first round pick tag, similar to a taxi squad poach of a first round player.
- Increase the price of the franchise tag and double its price if it's used in consecutive seasons (1x for year one, 2x for year two if used two years in a row, 4x for year three if used three years in a row, etc.).
- When bidding, all picks used to bid are future picks instead of this year's picks. I realize this is not ideal, but maybe you're more likely to use a pick on a player if you believe that player will improve your position so much that your pick will be lower next year. Right now, it's just too hard to stomach losing a top ten pick in any round for the players with a first or second round tag. For example, if we had a lower second round pick for 2019, we would have continued bidding on Matt Ryan. But, to us, the 2.05 was worth more than a 35 year old QB once the bidding jumped above $100 PDs (roughly 17% of our available PDs). If we believed Matt Ryan would have improved our team enough to get us to the 2.10 or later in 2020 and we could use only 2020 or 2021 picks for the bid, we probably continue bidding on him up to maybe $200 PDs.
- Eliminate RFA altogether and add compensation designations to a limited number of UFA players. If that player leaves your team, you get a comp pick between two rounds or in the middle of a round. You would determine that player's comp value based on his prior year's performance or, if he was injured, you could use his stats from two years ago. Something like that. For example, if CMC scored 400 points in 2019 and he was the top RB, he would be given a comp value of 1.08 (as an example). The owner who wins him, assuming the owner is different from the original owner, would lose nothing but PDs and the original owner would receive the comp pick.
I also agree PDs are problematic. I don't think we should go with a use them or lose them system, like in Blockchain. But, maybe a hard cap at $500 or $700. Or, increase the value of the tags by the total increase in cash in the system. So, if all the cash in the system in year 1 is $5,000, tags would cost $120, $75, $35, $25, and $20. If you double the cash in the system in year 2, tags double in price. Beefcake is right that the tags cost almost nothing at this point. Part of the problem is we have so much money. Alternatively, maybe our annual allotment drops to $150. Whatever the solution is, the price of the tag should be a percent of the total PDs in the system.
Just a few thoughts. Happy to discuss further.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steamboat on Apr 10, 2020 0:21:21 GMT
Another option would be to implement the changes to the extension tag I mentioned above and make the franchise tag unavailable in consecutive seasons or make it so you can use it only once every three years (I think Beefcake offered this solution earlier in the discussion).
|
|
|
|
Post by Macho Man on Apr 10, 2020 0:47:00 GMT
Just few comments:
I agree with the discussion of eliminating or altering the extension in some way, but I’m not in favor of removing the franchise tag (or some means of resigning a player without a bidding war).
I like the idea that tag prices are related to the amount of PDs in play. I don’t like the idea of creating a mathematical formula or chart for comp picks based on performance the previous year. Not only does that seem like a lot of work, but what do you do if that player gets hurt, suspended, etc. now you have to adjust for that. Too much of a headache.
|
|
Beefcake
Fan Favorite
Sleeper Hold
Posts: 133
|
Post by Beefcake on Apr 10, 2020 15:39:28 GMT
I'm glad we are having this conversation because it truly needs an overhaul.
Why don't we try to mimic the NFL with the franchise tag. The FT can be used to extend the player for 1 year and can be used for 2 consecutive years, at an escalated cost. Raise the cost to maybe $150 for year 1. And then double it to $300 for year 2. After that, they go to UFAA. That's essentially allowing a 7-year contract on a guy like CMC or something. Honestly, that is plenty of time. Even after that amount of time, you can still win CMC in the UFAA. Many players may not be worth a 2nd FT, but just like the NFL, only the most elite players get tagged twice with the FT tag, as it's cost-prohibitive (the way it should be).
Since this would be a 1 year extension, please for the love of God remove the extension tag (as it is redundant and shouldn't be used in the manner I've previously expressed (spacing your franchise players out). Use strategy in making the contract length in the first place.
I do REALLY like Steamboats idea of using future picks to bid on players. I actually think that's genius. Originally tagging teams may be more willing to lose a player if they are getting a known pick in this years draft (thusly depressing value). Since they may not want some mystery pick in the future, they likely will be more willing to match bids. Thusly increasing the number of bids, the price of players and the participation of owners (isn't that what we are trying to achieve afterall)?
I think PD's overall are fine, but the system we have in place doesn't promote willingness to spend them. I only spent the PD's and the draft pick on Ryan because (a) I only had 1 QB and (b) there's literally nothing else to spend the money on. So I was like fuck it, who gives a crap how much he is, as I'll just get more money next year.
Since we are talking about ways to spend money....increase the cost of buying out a contract. $5 per year is not effective and allows teams to get out of a bad contract too easily. Make it $50 per year.. Make it hurt. Take it one step further and prevent free drops if they are NFL free agents. They bid on the player. They ignorantly gave a 5 year deal to a bad player. They should feel the contract year crunch or spend a ton of money to make up for that mistake. Right now, people give just slap 4 and 5 year deals on players they aren't sure of. Why? Because if they hit, then they are genius'. And if they suck, they just release them for free or pay a pittance of $5/year to get of it. There is virtually no down side. Make it $50/year to get out of ANY contract regardless if they are NFL FA's or not. Only way to get out of a contract for free is if the player dies. Otherwise, they live with the consequences of their managerial decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rock on Apr 10, 2020 16:01:02 GMT
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. First rounder is peanuts for a premium player. So you don't agree the PD's and their value or lack thereof is part of the problem here? 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. So now taking advantage of the moron's of the league is frowned upon also? Someone inform Todd he needs a new strategy then  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. We only get to tag 1 guy. I guy out of 50 plus. Granted it's 1 guy per season if we have the PD's to do it. I just think the original team who own's that player should have a leg up on getting him "resigned" just like the NFL. If you let a guy get to free agency, then it's your fault for not working out a long term contract. We just need to figure out if that is what we are trying to do as a league. Are we trying to be more like NFL? Are we trying to make more premium players available? Are we trying to have more "good players" available and changing teams? There is plenty of talent in free agency and UFA so I thought the original intent of this particular thread was to increase activity in RFA ? 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. |
|
|
|
Post by The Rock on Apr 10, 2020 16:08:20 GMT
I agree with Beefcake we should do something about the extension tag. Either eliminate it or make it so once it's used that player cannot be tagged again and must go to UFA. I do not, however, agree with completely eliminating the franchise and/or 1st round tags, unless you add in a different type of compensation system. Here are a few other not-so-well-developed ideas: - Make the franchise a two first round pick tag, similar to a taxi squad poach of a first round player. - Increase the price of the franchise tag and double its price if it's used in consecutive seasons (1x for year one, 2x for year two if used two years in a row, 4x for year three if used three years in a row, etc.). - When bidding, all picks used to bid are future picks instead of this year's picks. I realize this is not ideal, but maybe you're more likely to use a pick on a player if you believe that player will improve your position so much that your pick will be lower next year. Right now, it's just too hard to stomach losing a top ten pick in any round for the players with a first or second round tag. For example, if we had a lower second round pick for 2019, we would have continued bidding on Matt Ryan. But, to us, the 2.05 was worth more than a 35 year old QB once the bidding jumped above $100 PDs (roughly 17% of our available PDs). If we believed Matt Ryan would have improved our team enough to get us to the 2.10 or later in 2020 and we could use only 2020 or 2021 picks for the bid, we probably continue bidding on him up to maybe $200 PDs. - Eliminate RFA altogether and add compensation designations to a limited number of UFA players. If that player leaves your team, you get a comp pick between two rounds or in the middle of a round. You would determine that player's comp value based on his prior year's performance or, if he was injured, you could use his stats from two years ago. Something like that. For example, if CMC scored 400 points in 2019 and he was the top RB, he would be given a comp value of 1.08 (as an example). The owner who wins him, assuming the owner is different from the original owner, would lose nothing but PDs and the original owner would receive the comp pick. I also agree PDs are problematic. I don't think we should go with a use them or lose them system, like in Blockchain. But, maybe a hard cap at $500 or $700. Or, increase the value of the tags by the total increase in cash in the system. So, if all the cash in the system in year 1 is $5,000, tags would cost $120, $75, $35, $25, and $20. If you double the cash in the system in year 2, tags double in price. Beefcake is right that the tags cost almost nothing at this point. Part of the problem is we have so much money. Alternatively, maybe our annual allotment drops to $150. Whatever the solution is, the price of the tag should be a percent of the total PDs in the system. Just a few thoughts. Happy to discuss further. Definitely like some of the ideas here. |
|
|
|
Post by Macho Man on Apr 10, 2020 17:29:35 GMT
The downside to using the following years draft picks as compensation is that then money is due for the future season and now people won't bid because they don't want to front extra money. I can't allow people to trade away picks in future seasons without a commitment, which would not be wise.
Regarding the franchise tag, which seems to be an issue of contention here, I don't see the concept of the franchise tag going away. It may be renamed or reworked, but as I stated previously I want owners to be able to secure their elite players for a long period of time. NFL teams don't often let their elite talent walk after a first contract. Nearly every franchise quality QB stays on roster of the NFL team that drafted them for almost their entire career (Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Manning, etc.). Other positions do change more frequently but the elite of the elite typically get at least a second contract. Also, not every player that gets franchised tagged was given a 6-year contract from the start, so they all won't get 7-8 years on a team.
Again, the improvements I'm looking to make are primarily to increase bidding and activity on the next tier of guys, not necessarily the CMC's of the league and I think that is were the focus should be.
I'm going to be working on this a bit this weekend and I hope to have an outline of ideas by next weekend and then you can give me your feedback. Ultimately, I won't appease everyone, that's for sure!
|
|
Beefcake
Fan Favorite
Sleeper Hold
Posts: 133
|
Post by Beefcake on Apr 10, 2020 17:56:02 GMT
A max contract plus 1 to 2 years isn't "a long period of time". Come on now.
|
|
In your solution they would have been back to the Bledsoe days in year 6 and sucked ass for the last 13 years.