5

2 years

4 years

this offer is matched.

Cool, thanks for the clarification

meant to post this year, and not in the 2015 franchise tag section....

So, for the RFA2 tag, the compensation in return is a 2nd round pick "next year"....If you don't have a 2nd next year, can you bid and give up a 2nd this year? Cant recall if this came up and addressed before.

So, for the RFA2 tag, the compensation in return is a 2nd round pick "next year"....If you don't have a 2nd next year, can you bid and give up a 2nd this year? Cant recall if this came up and addressed before.

RFA Option #2: WR, Julio Jones, ATL
15 Salary: $4,172,685
16 Tagged Salary: $5,476,857 [Top 20 @ position]

I'm with WW...we just changed this. IMO you can't keep changing "foundation" type rules in an established league. Takes away from league credibility imo.

Calvin at $16.5m is nearly worthless to the majority of this league. No one is going to trade for that contract (no offence Poker, but I doubt anyone will).

No offense taken, because I've never looked to move it anyway

And i think it should be a single scale regardless of the position thats selected.

I'm not opposed to a change either, but i think if it happens it shouldn't go into affect until 2017 given there hasn't been any rookie picks that have changed hands as of yet.

Love this time of a year...you get some tourney action, and the real start of the league year!

If only i had money to spend LOL

I actually think it's become a little complicated as well and think it could be cleaned up.

That said, if we tweak things again, I feel it's important that we get it right and then let it be. I'm personally not a fan of constant rule changes in established leagues.

The two big ones that come to mind are Calvin and Aaron Rodgers and I think in hindsight the guy who bid on Rodgers realized what a huge mistake that was. He ended up leaving the league after one season and Rodgers is still arguably the worst contract in the league despite being a great player. I'l...

I'm okay with it as well....Really the only time I would have a concern with the pick being lower than the original is if someone is purposely trying to trade back to give up lower picks. In the end, if I recall correctly, I may have been without the appropriate compensation to begin with, and then ...

Yeah, I'll admit I through a bit of a temper tantrum last year over this rule...LOL If I recall it was a situation where the pick was one different and it wasn't a compensatory pick either. If i recall in part it may have gone through, because it wasn't a situation where it was a blatant attempt to ...

LOL

I think we need a "none of the above" option

Looks like you missed this one Brandon. Thanks.