Tagging Compensation

[braven112]

Which of the two was actually voted on?

The compensatory draft picks must be the original draft picks (or the next closest, draft pick that is higher that the original, is no longer owned) of the team that signed the tagged player.

This is what we voted on. And as best as I can tell I didn't read the "clearer" version well enough and added that to the constitution, not realizing that the wording actually changed the rule.

What has the league perception been regarding this rule since it was voted on in 2009?

When I read the voting thread, It sounds like the vote was to add the option to only use a pick higher than your original if you had traded it. The voting title was very clear on what was being voted on. "VOTE!! Compensatory draft picks on tagged players change"

This is something that hasn't come up very often. In years past the combination of the tagged salaries at QB, RB and WR and draft pick compensation really limited what teams were willing to do, we just haven't had a lot of bidding on tagged players over the years. 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'll let Poker speak to the Calvin Johnson deal.

I think a couple things potentially make this year different, though its still early.

1. We changed the tagging salaries and compensation for some of the tags last year. So this is our first offseason with the current rules. Now there are only draft picks given up for Franchise and RFA and nothing for the transition tag. I think the goal was to increase the activity on the RFA tag. This change is something for us to continue to monitor but so far so good from my perspective.

2. The other thing that I think we all saw coming a few years ago is that Gronk, Graham (and Hernandez at the time) were way underpaid and locked into long term contracts on the cheap. There weren't any other elite TE's that would raise the average salary of TE's to the Franchise tag level of other positions (9-12 million). Vernon Davis and Gates have had decent salaries but they haven't been Gronk and Graham good.

At under 5 million Gronk and Graham are both underpaid when comparing them to other elite players at there positions. I don't think we've ever had a player franchised two times in a row but given where the TE position is salary wise it wouldn't surprise me at all.

If Gronk or Graham started at 9-12 million for the franchise tag we may not even be having this discussion, no one would make a bid and we would go another year of not looking into this.

[bonscott]

So this was about 6 years ago but has really not come up before. But sounds like we need to clarify.

I guess the clarification needed (or a new vote needs to be held), can you give a pick that is *lower* then your original in compensation if you don't own your original pick nor have a higher pick then that. I personally don't really care either way. If you disallow a lower pick then original being used then that may hamper bidding which I think we wanted to increase tagging and bidding by this change as well as the change last year.

If the concern is something I posted earlier (a team trading down on purpose, but then how to you really know that's their goal), then perhaps you lock down all trading until after the tagging period is over. How many trades actually happen in January and February anyway? I'm not usually a fan of limiting trading though.

Good discussion though.

[Poker in the Rear]

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'll let Poker speak to the Calvin Johnson deal.

LOL, I'm still okay with the Megatron deal, but only because I have AJ dirt cheap And I would never admit to a bad deal or leave a league because of it

[Cybergeek]

Which of the two was actually voted on?

The compensatory draft picks must be the original draft picks (or the next closest, draft pick that is higher that the original, is no longer owned) of the team that signed the tagged player.

This is what we voted on. And as best as I can tell I didn't read the "clearer" version well enough and added that to the constitution, not realizing that the wording actually changed the rule.

This was my initial impression after reading the voting thread. If that is the case, we can't have a rule that was voted on in good faith altered because of a copy and paste error.

Maybe a new vote with both options presented would put this to bed. Unless it already has.

[bonesman]

Maybe a new vote with both options presented would put this to bed. Unless it already has.

Probably a good idea.

I think the original or higher thing is lame. It doesn't promote tagging (which we've implemented rules since to try to do) and removes flexibility/freedom... which is sort of what this league is about.


I definitely don't think we can say, "ooops, we got the rule wrong" as it's in writing and was applied as read when the case came up last time with Poker.

Any insight as to how the NFL resolves issues like this?

[bonscott]

Possible new wording to vote on (if needed):

*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 in the same round or highest draft pick available in the same round if lower, of the team that signed the tagged player. If no picks are owned in the round then the lowest pick in the next higher round can be used (example, no 2nd round picks are owned so the lowest 1st round pick can be used). Picks used should be specified in the bid post on the message board and once posted those picks can no longer be traded until the tagging period is over.

I think the current wording is actually in line with the spirit of what we're talking about but this may offer better clarification by stating the picks should be in the same round and also what would happen in the case of no picks in the round but there are higher picks that could be used. In the end the choice is up to teams that might want to bid if they want to do this.

I think any vote should simply be to approve this rule clarification, not to again choose between options. I'd be fine if the commish just made a dictator decision and made it so, it's one of those things in my mind.

[braven112]

Since we are half way through the process we'll have to keep the rule as written in the constitution for this year and fix it for next season.

We'll continue the discussion on what the rule should be going forward and follow our normal voting process for a rule change.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Should compensatory picks be considered as valid picks to be used in the future? Or excluded?

Say a team traded away their 2nd round pick and ended up winning their 2.17 or 2.18. Should those picks be allowed as compensation to get a played tagged as a Franchise player? Or should they be considered invalid picks for the compensation?

Basically... Is the 1.17 considered on the same level as a standard 1st round pick or is it considered on the level as a 2nd round pick? Same with the 2.17 and 2.18, would those be considered as 2nd round picks or more like 3rd round picks?

[Achon44]

My first thought is that they should not be used, but maybe allow them to be used in place of a lower pick.
Example: Pick 1.17 being used in place of a 2nd round pick.

[yugimoto]

Personally, I would like to see the tagging rules simplified next season to be:

Franchise Tag: Current seasons 1st and 2nd round pick. The picks are the highest 1st and 2nd round pick available in the bidders inventory at the time of the bid. When placing the bid, the bidder must also state the draft picks given up and, at that time, those picks become protected and non-tradeable until after the tag matching deadline has passed. Also, I would like to add the flexibility to this tag that if the bidder does not have a 2nd round pick, then it is the next highest pick in their inventory above the 2nd round (i.e, a 1st round pick) For example if a bidder has 1.05 and 1.12 and no 2nd round round pick, they could still bid on a franchise player by stipulating they will give up the two 1st round picks as compensation. If they had 3 first round picks, for example 1.05, 1.12, and 1.15 and no 2nd round pick then they would have to give up 1.05 (highest first round pick) and 1.15 (next highest pick above the 2nd round). And so on ...

Transition Tag: Not sure when we voted to remove compensation for this tag, but it seems to me there should be some compensation so I would recommend the current season's 2nd round pick. The pick is the highest 2nd round pick available in the bidders inventory at the time of the bid. When placing the bid, the bidder must also state the draft pick given up and, at that time, that pick becomes protected and non-tradeable until after the tag matching deadline has passed. Also, I would like to add the flexibility to this tag as well that if the bidder does not have a 2nd round pick, then it is the next highest pick in their inventory above the 2nd round (i.e, a 1st round pick) For example if a bidder has 1.05 and 1.12 and no 2nd round round pick, they could still bid on a franchise player by stipulating they will give up the 1.12 pick, not the 1.05 pick.

Keep the RFA #1 and RFA #2 rules as they are today, but add the clause that they must state the pick to be given up in the bid and that pick becomes protected and non-tradeable until after the tag matching deadline has passed.

And in all cases compensatory picks are valid for all tags. A pick is a pick.

Ultimately, it is up to the person matching the bid to determine whether or not there is sufficient value to match or not.

My

Thank you for your consideration (yes that was a Hunger Games reference)

[braven112]

My first thought is that they should not be used, but maybe allow them to be used in place of a lower pick.
Example: Pick 1.17 being used in place of a 2nd round pick.

That's what I'm thinking as well.

[Achon44]

My first thought is that they should not be used, but maybe allow them to be used in place of a lower pick.
Example: Pick 1.17 being used in place of a 2nd round pick.

That's what I'm thinking as well.

I also like everything DMOC said

[bonscott]

Transition Tag: Not sure when we voted to remove compensation for this tag, but it seems to me there should be some compensation so I would recommend the current season's 2nd round pick.

I believe this was done to encourage more bidding since the risk to the bidder is nothing in that they don't have to give anything up. If you want a 2nd then use RFA#2. At least that is what I took away from the previous discussion a couple years ago.

[bonscott]

Is there an issue with the "ebay snipe", especially since not everyone is going to be able to stay up until midnight to try to up the bid? One idea is if someone puts in a snipe bid in the last hour to allow bidding on that player to continue until someone cries uncle or no bid is placed for 12 hours after the last bid, then it's final.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Transition Tag: Not sure when we voted to remove compensation for this tag, but it seems to me there should be some compensation so I would recommend the current season's 2nd round pick.

I believe this was done to encourage more bidding since the risk to the bidder is nothing in that they don't have to give anything up. If you want a 2nd then use RFA#2. At least that is what I took away from the previous discussion a couple years ago.

I think it was also because the transition tag in the NFL didn't give any compensation, so it was voted to be removed here as well.

The way I look at it now is basically if you don't care about getting compensation and kind of want to keep the player you tag them at Transition, otherwise the RFA tag will be the preferred one to use moving forward.

[yugimoto]

Transition Tag: Not sure when we voted to remove compensation for this tag, but it seems to me there should be some compensation so I would recommend the current season's 2nd round pick.

I believe this was done to encourage more bidding since the risk to the bidder is nothing in that they don't have to give anything up. If you want a 2nd then use RFA#2. At least that is what I took away from the previous discussion a couple years ago.

Yes, but as I understand it the 2nd you receive for a RFA#2 is next season's 2nd not the current season's, which is why I suggested the transition tag be worth the current season's 2nd, to keep it different from the RFA tags.

I would like folks to consider the ideas and if warranted maybe we could put it up for a vote, otherwise I think we do need to get clarification under the current rules what picks can be used in tagging as there is some confusion, especially for me after reading all the dialogue

[Achon44]

Is there an issue with the "ebay snipe", especially since not everyone is going to be able to stay up until midnight to try to up the bid? One idea is if someone puts in a snipe bid in the last hour to allow bidding on that player to continue until someone cries uncle or no bid is placed for 12 hours after the last bid, then it's final.

[Achon44]

Transition Tag: Not sure when we voted to remove compensation for this tag, but it seems to me there should be some compensation so I would recommend the current season's 2nd round pick.

I believe this was done to encourage more bidding since the risk to the bidder is nothing in that they don't have to give anything up. If you want a 2nd then use RFA#2. At least that is what I took away from the previous discussion a couple years ago.

Yes, but as I understand it the 2nd you receive for a RFA#2 is next season's 2nd not the current season's, which is why I suggested the transition tag be worth the current season's 2nd, to keep it different from the RFA tags.

I would like folks to consider the ideas and if warranted maybe we could put it up for a vote, otherwise I think we do need to get clarification under the current rules what picks can be used in tagging as there is some confusion, especially for me after reading all the dialogue

I think it would make it interesting if all picks surrendered were "next season's". That would pretty much put everyone into the mix for bidding. I also think it would be more of a reward to the team who would receive the picks. Also, we might want to reconsider the RFA #1 option. I just don't see that ever being used other than on a defense or kicker.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

I think it would make it interesting if all picks surrendered were "next season's". That would pretty much put everyone into the mix for bidding. I also think it would be more of a reward to the team who would receive the picks. Also, we might want to reconsider the RFA #1 option. I just don't see that ever being used other than on a defense or kicker.

The difference between RFA1 and RFA2 wasn't only the compensation.
RFA1, if no one bids, the owner can choose to extend that team for 1-3 years. If you use RFA2, it's a standard 1 year extension.

It probably won't ever be used for more than a K or D, but I don't think the old RFA tag was used for more than a K or D to begin with?

[braven112]

I think it makes sense to focus on Franchise tag compensation first since that is really what started this discussion. Overall, seems like DMOC suggestion would work well for this. The only change I would like to see is that all pick compensation is frozen February 1st across the board rather than at the time each team makes a bid.

From what everyone has posted this seems like it would be fairly easy to pass.

The rest of the tags are pretty straightforward.

• Transition tag has no compensation, just like the NFL. We already discussed this last year so we don't need to do it again until we see how our current rule works.
  
  RFA#1 is a 3rd round pick. What ever we decide on Franchise tag compensation is what we should do here. Its a 3rd round pick so it really doesn't matter all that much to me.
  
  RFA#2 is a future pick pick so there is no difference between each teams pick.

[Achon44]

I think it makes sense to focus on Franchise tag compensation first since that is really what started this discussion. Overall, seems like DMOC suggestion would work well for this. The only change I would like to see is that all pick compensation is frozen February 1st across the board rather than at the time each team makes a bid.

From what everyone has posted this seems like it would be fairly easy to pass.

The rest of the tags are pretty straightforward.

• Transition tag has no compensation, just like the NFL. We already discussed this last year so we don't need to do it again until we see how our current rule works.
  
  RFA#1 is a 3rd round pick. What ever we decide on Franchise tag compensation is what we should do here. Its a 3rd round pick so it really doesn't matter all that much to me.
  
  RFA#2 is a future pick pick so there is no difference between each teams pick.

IMO its become way more complicated than it needs to be. I also feel we don't need to do everything "just like the NFL".

[Achon44]

It probably won't ever be used for more than a K or D, but I don't think the old RFA tag was used for more than a K or D to begin with?

It was used all the time on every position. One year it was used on Matt Ryan.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

It probably won't ever be used for more than a K or D, but I don't think the old RFA tag was used for more than a K or D to begin with?

It was used all the time on every position. One year it was used on Matt Ryan.

Ah that's right... Went and looked back at the old threads.

[Poker in the Rear]

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.

[Achon44]

I'm gonna throw this out there...

We go back to the old way except use draft picks from the following season (like the way RFA #2 is setup now). I truly feel this will lead to a lot of bidding on tagged players as everyone should probably own all of there next season's picks at the time of tagging.