Draft of Revamped RFAA Rules

[Macho Man]

Alright guys, I've taken everything you've said into account and here is what I've come up with to improve the new RFAA. I have written my thought process/rational for each tag and tender so you can understand what I'm trying to accomplish and how each tag/tender works. 

Please keep in mind this is a draft meant for constructive commentary. If you do not agree with something please specifically state why you think its a bad idea or how it could be improved, do not just say "this sucks" or "this is bullshit." Instead say, I think this could cause problems because...

Also, I ask that you take the time to think through the elements for each tag and envision how that would help or hurt the goals of improving the RFAA for activity and player mobility while still keeping this league a dynasty league. 

Please excuse any typos!

Without further ado...

NEW RULES:
(1) Existing PD's depreciate 20% at the end of each season;
(2) Trading of PD's and Picks is now allowed during the RFAA; and
(3) Bid Increments are a minimum of 5 PD's.

NEW TAGS:
(1) Non-Exclusive Franchise Tag
- Cost of Tag = 2% of PD's in play after stipend is awarded each season.
- Can only be used on expiring contract.
- Can only be used once in career (notation will be given and never removed even if traded).
- Player goes up for bid in RFAA.
- Tagging Team has right to match during auction.
- Compensation paid by Bidding Team = (2) 1st round picks, of which one must come from the upcoming draft, plus 50% the winning bid.
- Compensation received by Tagging Team = (2) 1st round picks and a percentage of the winning bid on a sliding scale. The percentage is calculated based on the lowest (worst) upcoming 1st round pick. The scale is as follows: 1.01 pays out 0% with each subsequent pick paying out an additional 2% of the winning bid up to a maximum of 26% for the 1.14. For example, if the winning bid on Christian McCaffery is $400 PD's and the lowest 1st round pick offered in the upcoming draft is 1.10, then the tagging team will receive (2) 1st round picks and 18% of the $400 = $72. Remember the Bidding Team does not pay the $400 winning bid, only 50%. In theory, if someone bids you up on a elite player such that you cannot keep said player, then at least you can use that compensation to bid on another elite player or use the compensation as you'd like.
- Can only receive a maximum of 4-year contract no matter who wins the player.

Rational/Explanation - This is the franchise tag replacement. The intent here is to create a franchise tag that owner's can use to extend their elite players. However, this change makes it more expensive to do so and makes it so that other teams can bid on the player, which is something most seemed in favor of. If your initial instinct is to think that the compensation is too expensive, that's okay, its supposed to be. It can also be expensive to use. At the cost of 2% of the PD's in play, at minimum (meaning everyone ends the previous year with 0 PD's, which will never happen) the cost will be 84 PD's ($300 stipend x 14 = $4200) => ($4200 x .02 = $84). Realistically, it will cost between $150-$200 PDs. This year the cost would have been about 160 PDs. From an initial cost perspective I think this is about right given that some teams aren't flush with capital. I'm a little concerned however, that using a cost related to inflation will cause owners to be hesitant to spend PD's elsewhere in the RFAA and UFAA so they can be sure they have enough funds to extend a CMC, Barkley, Mahomes, etc., when its time to do so. Obviously, this would be the opposite effect of what we're trying to achieve. Alternatively, it could be argued that an owner should have to conserve PD's for the opportunity to extend their best player at a later date and that the annual depreciation on PD's should keep the cost in check. Let me know your thoughts on this; I digress. The bidding team must pay a compensation of both picks and PD's, although since the price of these players will be relatively high and we want owners to bid on these players if the situation is right, the PD compensation the Bidding Team actually pays is only 50% of the winning bid. For example, no one would likely give up 400 PD's and 2 first round picks for say CMC, but I think someone might be willing to give up 200 PDs and 2 first round picks. The PD compensation the Tagging Team actually receives is based on the sliding scale explained in the bullet points above. Finally, the non-exclusive franchise tagged player can receive only a maximum of a 4 year deal. This will slightly increase the chance that the player will eventually be available to others.

The explanation is more complicated that it really is. 

(2) Exclusive Franchise Tag
- Cost of Tag = 1% of PD's in play after stipend is awarded.
- Can only be used on expiring contract.
- Player is not bid on in the RFAA.
- Player automatically receives only a 1-year extension, however, if the player is traded before August 1st, the new team can give the player a new contract and the Tagging Team will be refunded 75% of the Cost paid for the tag.
- If traded, the trading team cannot trade back for the player until the following season.
- Can be used on same player two years in a row, maximum.
- Cannot be used on a player that has already received the non-exclusive franchise tag in his career.

Rational/Explanation - This is the replacement for the extension tag. Although this player is not bid on during the RFAA, it can only be used on an expiring contract and its pretty pricey to use for only a 1-year extension. At the cost of 1% of the PD's in play, at minimum (meaning everyone ends the previous year with 0 PD's, which will never happen) the cost will be 42 PD's ($300 stipend x 14 = $4200) => ($4200 x .01 = $42). Realistically, it will cost between $75-$100 PD's. This year the cost would have been about 80 PD's. Additionally, even though its not part of the RFAA, I've incentivized mobility of this player by refunding 75% of the tag cost to the Tagging Team and allowing the acquiring team to award the player a brand new contract rather than the 1-year extension if the player is traded before August 1st of the year he was tagged. Finally, I didn't want someone to be able to use a Non-Exclusive Franchise Tag on a player and then continue to extend them for a couple years using this tag afterwards, so the Exclusive Franchise Tag cannot be used on a player who has already received the Non-Exclusive Franchise Tag.

(3) Transition Tag
- Cost of Tag = 10 PD's, non-refundable.
- Can only be used on expiring contract.
- Player can be bid on in the RFAA.
- Tagging Team doesn't not participate.
- Right of First Refusal
- No Compensation.
- Cannot be used in back-to-back seasons on same player.

Rational/Explanation - Think of this as a player in the unrestricted free agent auction with a right of first refusal. The big difference between this tag and the tenders below is that the Tagging Team does not participate in the bidding process and therefore, a single owner cannot run up the bid. The Tagging Team will only decide after the auction is over whether or not they want to match the high bid for the rights to retain the player or let him walk with no compensation. I think this tag can lead to a bunch of activity, even if the players are not great because there is no compensation if the team opts not to match the high bid. The cost for this tag is cheap for two reasons: first, I don't expect great players to be transition tagged due to the fact there is no compensation and second, the cost is non-refundable, so if you decide not to match you lose the 10 PD's.

(4) Trade Tag
- No Cost to Tag
- Can be used on any expiring contract.
- Player can be bid on in the RFAA.
- Tagging Team does not participate.
- Bidding Teams present offers for the tagged player during the RFAA. Can be players, picks, PD's or a combination of all three. If just PD's is offered the amount must be greater than 10 PD's (see why below).
- After RFAA is concluded, Tagging Team can opt to accept one of the offers or release the player outright and receive 10 PD's. Teams must receive at least one offer to qualify for the 10 PD's. If no offer is made on the player than the player is automatically released at the end of the RFAA and enters the UFAA.
- If Tagging Team opts to take an offer, there is no cost to Tagging Team or Bidding Team other than the terms of the offer.

Rational/Explanation - This is just a fun one that I thought of as I was writing this post. It's difficult to trade a player on an expiring contract before the RFAA begins, and the point of this tag is an alternative way to do just that. Bidding Teams can simply make trade offers for the player on the forums. At the end of the RFAA, the Tagging Team will decide whether they would like to accept one of the offers or alternatively they can release the player outright and they will receive 10 PD's. This should help encourage everyone to use a trade tag and perhaps increase activity. Also, the 10 PD's serves as a means to not reward anyone who just posts a shit bag who isn't even worth a 7th. Tagging Teams will only receive the 10 PD's IF they have received at least one offer for the tagged player. If a Tagging Team uses the Trade Tag on a player who receives no offers, the tagged player is automatically released with no compensation at the end of the RFAA.

NEW TENDERS:
(1) 1st Round Tender
- No Cost to the team tendering the player.
- Can only be used on expiring contract.
- Player can be bid on in the RFAA.
- Only pay if you win.
- Compensation = 2nd Round Pick in the Upcoming Rookie Draft or a 1st Round Pick in the Next Rookie Draft OR Bidding Team can pay 150% of the bid amount, half of which goes to the Tendering Team as compensation. Must declare the compensation at the time of the bid.
- Right to Match during auction.

Rational/Explanation - This is pretty self-explanatory. I removed the minimum bids by removing the initial costs. This should in and of itself create more bidding activity because teams will not want others to re-sign players for free (unless you tender a really shitty player). The winning team, whether that's the Tagging Team or the Bidding Team, will still need to pay the winning bid after the fact. Additionally, the compensation has changed. The pick compensation has been lowered if the bidding team uses a pick in the upcoming rookie draft and the compensation is the same if the team uses compensation in the subsequent draft. Alternatively, teams can now choose to use PD's for compensation instead of draft picks. Using PD compensation will cost the Bidding Team to pay 150% of the winning bid and 50% of THAT amount will be given to the Tagging Team as compensation. For example, if Nature Boy gives Kenny Clark a 1st Round Tender and Hitman bids him up to 80 PD, Hitman could offer to pay compensation in the forum of PD's at a rate 150% of the 80 PD bid. That will cost Hitman 120 PD's for the rights to Clark with Nature Boy receiving 60 PD's in compensation if Nature Boy opts not to match. The rational here is that everyone has limited picks to use as compensation, this opens an alternative option for teams.

(2) 2nd Round Tender
- No Cost to the team tendering the player.
- Can only be used on expiring contract.
- Player can be bid on in the RFAA.
- Only pay if you win.
- Compensation = 3rd Round Pick in the Upcoming Rookie Draft or a 2nd Round Pick in the Next Rookie Draft OR Bidding Team can pay 150% of the bid amount, half of which goes to the Tendering Team as compensation. Must declare the compensation at the time of the bid.
- Right to Match during auction.

Rational/Explanation - See 1st Round Tender's rational.

(3) 3rd Round Tender
- No Cost to the team tendering the player.
- Can only be used on expiring contract.
- Player can be bid on in the RFAA.
- Only pay if you win.
- Compensation = 4th Round Pick in the Upcoming Rookie Draft or a 3rd Round Pick in the Next Rookie Draft OR Bidding Team can pay 150% of the bid amount, half of which goes to the Tendering Team as compensation. Must declare the compensation at the time of the bid.
- Right to Match during auction.

Rational/Explanation - See 1st Round Tender's rational.

Ok, thoughts?

[Beefcake]

It's a step in the right direction, although the bar wasn't set real high to begin with. But at the end of the day it's not going to change things much. I don't see these rule changes increasing spending. You just added a rule to deplete PD's 20% arbitrarily. You could do essentially the same thing, by just giving teams less money each year. The goal of the exercise should be to increase spending, not just decrease the amount of PD's in the pool.  We need to make teams WANT to spend money.

There aren't many players worth multiple 1sts and 200/300/400 dollars. Actually, I'm not sure if there are any players worth that, so it doesn't really move the needle.

And I'd like to fight for the removal of the extension tag. I don't know why we to hold onto it. It's still going to be used to spread out franchise tags, regardless of the additional cost. The additional cost is nominal when you take into consideration the fact (or my opinion) that these rule changes aren't going to increase PD spending. If you still have nothing to spend your money one, you might as well still use it on the new extension tag.

Now you could add a rule that you can't use the franchise tag on a player that has previously had the extension used on them, until they are given a new contract by going through RFAA or UFAA. That would at least eliminated the ability of teams using the extension tag to space out franchise tag players.


The more I thought about the PD issue here, the more I think we should move straight towards the Scott Fish Bowl Capitalist Pig system. It's pretty tried and true and pretty much everything we do is via auction anyways. If you don't know what that is, I can explain it. But we can pretty easily update the current PD's in the system by keeping the same percentage across each team.   Instead of just decreasing PD's 20% for no reason, why not use the 'Tax The Rich' system within the Capitalist Pig Leagues.  It's a better way to spread the money out where the better teams give the worse teams money based on their previous years finish.  


The other thing we also need to do in order to increase team spending is to remove FCFS waivers. Make all player taken off of FCFS cost $20. Force teams to use the blind bid system to acquire players, or they can spend a pretty penny to pick them up via FCFS.  Absolutely nothing should be free in a league when we want teams to spend money.

[Macho Man]

Apr 13, 2020 23:28:39 GMT Beefcake said:

It's a step in the right direction, although the bar wasn't set real high to begin with. But at the end of the day it's not going to change things much. I don't see these rule changes increasing spending. You just added a rule to deplete PD's 20% arbitrarily. You could do essentially the same thing, by just giving teams less money each year. This is not true. Sure 20% is an arbitrary figure, however, its not the same as just giving teams less money each year. For example, someone with 1000 PD's will lose 200 PD's, but someone with 500 PD's will lose a 100 PD's. The difference between the two teams used to be 500 PD's and is now 400 PD's, the delta has decreased by 20%. Perhaps 20% is too low, I'm not sure, but the idea is good in that at some point the depreciation factor will be too great to continue hording PD's and your better off spending your PD's (generating activity). Perhaps the depreciation should be on a sliding scale where the more you have the larger the depreciation percentage is, IDK, but that's why presenting something and having this conversion is good. The goal of the exercise should be to increase spending, not just decrease the amount of PD's in the pool.  We need to make teams WANT to spend money.

There aren't many players worth multiple 1sts and 200/300/400 dollars. Actually, I'm not sure if there are any players worth that, so it doesn't really move the needle.

And I'd like to fight for the removal of the extension tag. I don't know why we to hold onto it. It's still going to be used to spread out franchise tags, regardless of the additional cost. The additional cost is nominal when you take into consideration the fact (or my opinion) that these rule changes aren't going to increase PD spending. If you still have nothing to spend your money one, you might as well still use it on the new extension tag. I understand what you want you want to prevent, however, that really turns it into an entirely different type of league. Both franchise tags are expensive, teams will not easily be able to tag anyone that want. You're presenting an illusion of a problem that doesn't exist - that teams have so many PD's that we need emergency action to deplete their stockpiles. This is hardly the case. The average amount of PD's per team right now is 437 and we haven't even had the UFAA yet. 

Now you could add a rule that you can't use the franchise tag on a player that has previously had the extension used on them, until they are given a new contract by going through RFAA or UFAA. That would at least eliminated the ability of teams using the extension tag to space out franchise tag players. The rules I stated said you can't use the Exclusive Franchise Tag on a player that was already given the Non-Exclusive Franchise Tag, period. I'm not sure if we need it the other way around, but I'll give it some thought. 

The more I thought about the PD issue here, the more I think we should move straight towards the Scott Fish Bowl Capitalist Pig system. It's pretty tried and true and pretty much everything we do is via auction anyways. If you don't know what that is, I can explain it. But we can pretty easily update the current PD's in the system by keeping the same percentage across each team.   Instead of just decreasing PD's 20% for no reason, why not use the 'Tax The Rich' system within the Capitalist Pig Leagues.  It's a better way to spread the money out where the better teams give the worse teams money based on their previous years finish. I've read the Capitalist Pigs bylaws in the past, but I don't think that's a good idea here. For starters, I'm not committing myself to that amount of work. You want to start a CP league, more power to ya. Secondly, I think the "tax the rich" system to redistribute wealth is (1) not capitalistic at all, obviously, (2) generally the same thing as the depreciation idea I proposed except my idea does not differentiate between good teams and bad teams, only to the amount of PD's that each team is holding; and (3) a poor concept for the same reasons socialism sucks. Teams aren't bad because they don't have more PD's, they're bad because they've made bad calls, whether that's bad trades, bad draft picks, bad tags, etc. We already distribute draft picks in an inverse relationship to last years finish, I'm not sure if we need more of that in this league and I also don't believe there is any correlation to the amount of PD's a team has and whether they're good or not.  As I previously stated I'm trying to encourage people to spend their PD's to increase activity, not necessarily to redistribute players. 

The other thing we also need to do in order to increase team spending is to remove FCFS waivers. Make all player taken off of FCFS cost $20. Force teams to use the blind bid system to acquire players, or they can spend a pretty penny to pick them up via FCFS.  Absolutely nothing should be free in a league when we want teams to spend money. 20 PD's for a FCFS player? A player no one bid a dollar for? Was is your goal, for everyone to be broke and can't afford to tag or keep anyone? If you proposed $1, perhaps that is a reasonable, but $20?

I find your position interesting as only a year ago when Steamboat said he was concerned about inflation and wanted to cap PD's, you said the amount of PD's didn't matter - that the amount being bid for would just go up. While this was debatable, the point was also, in theory, valid. But now you're completely against anyone saving PD's, and too to a degree I am as well, but not for the same reason. You want a different league, one where owners cannot keep elite players for 7 or 8 years or more and were there is more turnover of these players. There is nothing wrong with this, but as I stated earlier that is not the type of drastic change I'm looking to implement. What I want to do is far more simple. I'm simply trying to increase activity in the off-season event. I want there to be more participation by changing rules that fuel participate rather than hinder it. This will ultimately result in more spending. I also don't think there is a mysterious surplus of PD's out there in the ether that is a problem that must be resolved. Your posts come off like it's some sort of emergency and I just don't see it. As I pointed out above, the average team has 437 PDs right now and it will certainly drop in the 300's after the UFAA. Those don't seem like egregious numbers. I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist because you like the idea of a different type of league - maybe because you joined one and like it, I don't know - and that's fine, but its not the type of league I'm looking to transition towards. 

[Beefcake]

It's not about changing the type of league. If you want people to spend money, then you must decrease/remove the restrictions preventing people from spending the money. You aren't doing any of that with the above proposals. You're just making the 2 things that people use the most (franchise tag and extension tag) more expensive. That isn't increasing activity. Sure, it's possible that allowing teams to use future compensation or 50% more PD's as compensation, *may* increase bidding...but on how many players per year? 1? 2? How many additional teams will participate? 2? 3? Most of the tagged players aren't even worth the tag they are being given. At best, most of them are of equal value and therefore the additional pick just doesn't make it worthwhile unless there is a big need by a competing team, whether it's this year or next.

IDK, I'd like to increase activity as well, but I've come around to the fact that the barriers of entry need to be lowered. And pretty significantly. Will that make it harder for tagging teams, to keep players? Possible, but I don't really think so. As you can just give the tagging team an incentive (ie. 20% reduction in the cost of the high bid). That innately allows the tagging team to bid 20% more for free. Perhaps, instead of the bidding team actually giving compensation of their own pick, maybe the tagging team just receives a draft pick at the end of the round, just like how the NFL gives out compensatory picks. So yeah, some rounds there maybe 14 picks and other rounds 15 or 16. The tagging team still gets their draft pick compensation, but now the bidding team is just spending PD's and doesn't lose the pick themselves. I think this would do far more to increase activity while giving the tagging team compensation.

Maybe 20 PD's for FCFS is high, but the premise remains. 1 PD, might as well be 0. Make it 10 PD's. The amount needs to make it possible that it would cost the team a little more in FCFS, and therefore make it worthwhile to actually make a blind bid. If it's $1, then they might as well risk it. If it's $5, $10, $15, then they are more likely to bid. More teams, that are more likely to bid are more likely to bid on the same player. It would inherently increase strategy on blind bid waivers, increase cost of blind bid players, and increase overall activity. Isn't that a good thing?

Force rivalry weeks. First season is random. Losing teams pick their opponent thereafter. The winner of the week gives the losing team $25 PD's. I don't know. Anything to move PD's is a good team.

Socialism does suck, but that's neither here or there. You are trying want to increase activity and make people want to spend their money. You are decreasing the total money in the pot by 20% each year. Isn't that the same thing? I thought socialism sucked? ;-) But anyhow, we are trying to achieve the same thing. I think it's far better to give the rich teams money to the poor teams. Will the rich teams care as much if 20% is being removed and goes to the bank, where their competition can't use it against them? Of course. They are more likely to spend, if they know the money they are hoarding is going to go to other teams, and can be used as a weapon against them. I agree, that teams with the most money doesn't mean that they are the best teams. Then give the money to the teams with less of it. So most money gives a certain percentage to the team with the least. Then 13-2. Then 12-3, etc... This closes the gap, and gives MORE of an incentive for teams hoarding cash to spend it. Spending PD's = activity. We are on the same page.

[Macho Man]

I want to increase activity on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round tenders and the additional proposed transition and trade tags, but not so much on the franchise tags. I think a complete overhaul of the franchise tag is too drastic for a league already entering year 4.

The idea to move the PD's from the wealthiest to the poorest, rather than the good to the bad, is interesting in that it may force spending and activity, but I'm concerned it doesn't necessarily mean the money would be spent in the RFAA. It could be used in the UFAA or on waivers, which wouldn't have the desired effect. I think a decision on this would be dependent on the other rules being implemented.

I like the idea of giving the tagging team a 20-25% cushion on bidding, but I'm not in favor of the compensatory picks for rounds 1-3. It messes with the value of peoples draft picks and I don't think the trade off is worth it. The only thing we could do is offer late round comps with a percentage of the PD's from the winning bid. For example, a 1st round tender that is won by the bidding team for $100 PD's offer a 4th round compensation pick and 75 PD's (75%). 2nd round tenders would be 5th round comps, 3rd round would be 6th round comps, etc.

What about a tag where teams could put a player for auction that is not on an expiring contract with a reserve price. If the reserve is met the tagging team keeps 100% of the PD's from the auction.

[The Rock]

I think we need to leave Franchise Tag alone. It already costs us 120 PDs and we can only use this tag once per player and once per season. You could in theory lock up 1 player per season for "life" if you drafted that player, assigned him a 6 year contract. Tagged him with 30% of your available PD's and then assigned him another 6 year contract. I think you can look at our history and the number of players who we actually assign 6 year contracts to and I am positive that represets a very small portion of our league. When you compare the number of players on our rosters to the one or two players we actually get to keep for an extended amount of time, I also think that number is very small.

So you would have to draft someone special and then have that player remain elite enough to use your one and only franchise tag and lock him up again. I know this is a crazy small number of players so can we stop worrying about the players we might hit the lottery with and accpet if we do, we probably deserve to keep that player for a bit ?

[The Rock]

Apr 13, 2020 5:11:06 GMT Macho Man said:

NEW RULES:
(1) Existing PD's depreciate 20% at the end of each season; - I don't think removing PD's helps in any way. Limiting PD's will negatively effect bidding IMO
(2) Trading of PD's and Picks is now allowed during the RFAIA; and - I love this idea and think it would increase bidding

(3) Bid Increments are a minimum of 5 PD's. -  don't think this helps any or encourages more spending. Just runs up the bidding 

[Beefcake]

Apr 14, 2020 19:46:41 GMT Macho Man said:

I like the idea of giving the tagging team a 20-25% cushion on bidding, but I'm not in favor of the compensatory picks for rounds 1-3. It messes with the value of peoples draft picks and I don't think the trade off is worth it. 

It messes with early 2nd rounders more than anything else.  But so what.  Nothing is going to be perfect.  The benefit is worth the disruption to early 2nd and 3rd rounders.  You want to have another incentive to not tank and be good.  There it is.  Your early 2nd and 3rd round picks aren't going to worth as much.  Again, who cares.  If it helps the desired outcome, then so be it.  The league is established, and it's impossible to not affect anybody.

[Beefcake]

Apr 14, 2020 19:46:41 GMT Macho Man said:

What about a tag where teams could put a player for auction that is not on an expiring contract with a reserve price. If the reserve is met the tagging team keeps 100% of the PD's from the auction.

This is a rule in another league I'm in.  Teams have 2 weeks within a season where they can auction off 1 player.  The issue is that most teams don't use it, or offer up a player with such a high amount that it will get no bids. 

You aren't going to like it, but in that league, I've wanted to force every team to put up 1 player for auction and that player MUST (a) not be a kicker and (2) must be between #10 and #50 (pick your number) on total point at his position.  The starting auction price is on a sliding scale based on his total points.  So something like:

#10-19:  $80
#20-29:  $60
#30-39:  $40
#40-50: $20

Do you put someone up that had a hot start, that you think will fizzle?  Anyhow, do it twice.  Once week 5 and again week 10.  

[Macho Man]

Apr 14, 2020 21:07:56 GMT Beefcake said:

Apr 14, 2020 19:46:41 GMT Macho Man said:

I like the idea of giving the tagging team a 20-25% cushion on bidding, but I'm not in favor of the compensatory picks for rounds 1-3. It messes with the value of peoples draft picks and I don't think the trade off is worth it. 

It messes with early 2nd rounders more than anything else.  But so what.  Nothing is going to be perfect.  The benefit is worth the disruption to early 2nd and 3rd rounders.  You want to have another incentive to not tank and be good.  There it is.  Your early 2nd and 3rd round picks aren't going to worth as much.  Again, who cares.  If it helps the desired outcome, then so be it.  The league is established, and it's impossible to not affect anybody.

I care. 

[Macho Man]

Apr 14, 2020 21:12:55 GMT Beefcake said:

Apr 14, 2020 19:46:41 GMT Macho Man said:

What about a tag where teams could put a player for auction that is not on an expiring contract with a reserve price. If the reserve is met the tagging team keeps 100% of the PD's from the auction.

This is a rule in another league I'm in.  Teams have 2 weeks within a season where they can auction off 1 player.  The issue is that most teams don't use it, or offer up a player with such a high amount that it will get no bids. 

You aren't going to like it, but in that league, I've wanted to force every team to put up 1 player for auction and that player MUST (a) not be a kicker and (2) must be between #10 and #50 (pick your number) on total point at his position.  The starting auction price is on a sliding scale based on his total points.  So something like:

#10-19:  $80
#20-29:  $60
#30-39:  $40
#40-50: $20

Do you put someone up that had a hot start, that you think will fizzle?  Anyhow, do it twice.  Once week 5 and again week 10.  

Yup, not a fan of forcing teams to trade good players mid-season. I don't understand the point of that. I'm talking about in the off-season, giving teams a chance to essentially turn in a player on an extended contract for PD's to the highest bidder so that they could then use those PD's in the RFAA. This could even take place 24 Hours before the RFAA officially begins. I don't expect the amounts to be big unless the player is really good, then perhaps. 

[Steamboat]

After letting this roll around my head for a few days and then discussing with my brother, I think we're getting way more complicated than necessary and pulling way more adjustment levers than we should, at least at one time. I agree with Todd that the goal here is to increase RFAA participation, not create a new league. I fear the proposed rules go a couple steps too far in creating what is in effect a new league. Also, while the proposed rules may increase RFAA participation, the complexity of these rules and how they work together will create confusion and frustration. People already have trouble with simple things like contract assignment. How will they respond to the new rules? My brother and I already help a couple other owners with rule interpretation and contract year declarations. I can't imagine what will happen when these rules get implemented. In my opinion, we will run the risk of frustrating people and putting the league on shaky ground. In addition to complexity, many of us built our franchises on the idea we would have certain tags available. It's how we structured our contracts. To take away an exclusive rights-type tag or near exclusive rights-type tag where one player would likely remain with one team for most or all of his career (which also furthers the dynasty format of this league and aligns with the way top talent operates in the NFL) would throw an unusual kink into that planning and undermine the dynasty aspect of this league. After reviewing the rules, I think we can maintain simplicity and achieve our goals by pulling just a couple levers Todd suggested above (some are modified slightly to maintain simplicity):

- make the franchise tag unavailable in consecutive years or add price escalators in consecutive years and/or make the franchise tag a non-exclusive two first round pick tag; and
- eliminate the extension tag or adjust the extension tag to operate like the proposed transition tag (i.e. open that player up to bidding with a right of first refusal) or make it so a player tagged with the extension tag cannot be tagged again without going through UFAA first.
- make tag prices a percent of total PDs in circulation, as Todd suggested above.
- allow picks and PDs to be traded during RFAA.
- adjust the current first, second, and third round tags to operate as Todd suggested for the tenders. For instance, for a first round tag/tender, "compensation = Two 2nd Round Picks in the Upcoming and next Rookie Drafts or a 1st Round Pick in the current or Next Rookie Draft. Must declare the compensation at the time of the bid." Please note: I eliminated the PD option and doubled the lower round pick. I eliminated the PD option because I think we need meaningful compensation and I don't think PDs are that meaningful. Picks matter. They're valuable. Losing a player for cash is like European soccer and I've never liked that transfer system. It only works there because it's real cash that goes into the owner's pocket.

I think pulling these few levers will further our goal of improving RFAA while also maintaining the dynasty league system. If after a couple seasons these measures aren't enough to improve RFAA, let's discuss pulling a few more. But, let's not lose sight of the need to keep this relatively simple and fun, while also maintaining the dynasty system all of us signed up to participate in.

Also, after reading Todd's breakdown of the average number of PDs per team currently in circulation, for now, I retract my statement about inflation. We're not even to UFAA and PDs are already only $437 per team. That's really not a big deal. I would say, however, if we want to increase blind bidding, I like Beefcake's idea to set a dollar value for FCFS players. I think $20 is too high, but $2 or $3 would make sense.

Happy to discuss further.

[Macho Man]

Appreciate the thoughts Steamboat. I share many of the same positions as you. I'm going to be rolling out draft #2 which incorporates some of the suggestions made in this thread and that others have made on Groupme.