Tagging Compensation

[braven112]

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think you can make a bid on franchise players since you traded you're original first round pick away and the ones you have now are lower than the original.

[Cybergeek]

Wouldn't the higher of Devil Dogs two first round picks (1.16) be the compensation under the rules?

There appear to be three options for draft pick compensation:

1. The original pick

2. A pick that is higher than the original

3. The highest draft pick available if lower than the original

Devil Dogs traded their original pick, so that option is out. The pick that he has are lower than the original, so option 2 is out. The highest pick available is 1.16, using option 3, that is the compensation owed.

[braven112]

I like the way you tried to break it down. We struggled to find a good way to word it so we added a link in the constitution to refer to the thread. In all scenarios though the pick must be equal to the original or better .

http://forum.theleague.us/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=428#p1699 (This links directly to the amendment to Amish's original proposal)


Here is the link where we voted on it for reference.
http://forum.theleague.us/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=509

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Isn't this the post that the rule in the constitution was based on? - http://forum.theleague.us/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=509#p1847

I'd assume that the offer is valid based on this post, as well as the wording in that post matching exactly what is in the constitution?

I think Poker had a similar issue last year worried that his offer on Calvin would be invalid because he didn't own his own 2nd round pick, but everything ended up being fine.

[Devil Dogs]

I read through the constitution before making a bid, and read the part that says "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 or highest draft pick available if lower, of the team that signed the tagged player."

Then went to the linked thread right after that rule in the constitution and read

Interesting....my take on it was that if you no longer owned your original pick that the highest pick you have would be used, thus 1.09 in the example. Doing it the other way might be harder to track (since we would somehow need to keep the original order listed somewhere for reference), but no biggy I guess, we can do that.

I'd vote yes either way cause the change needs to happen.

The updated wording is still a bit confusing although the example is clear.

Current new wording:

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.

Perhaps a clearer statement:

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 or highest draft pick available if lower, of the team that signed the tagged player.

This would also cover the example of if my original is say 1.10 but now I own 1.12 and 1.15, 1.12 would be the highest pick available and would be used.

You then said that was correct and it was added to the constitution. So I'm unclear what is wrong here.

[bonesman]

Offer looks valid to me also

[bocious]

Looking at that original vote thread, the wording of the vote itself specifically says "original pick or higher," but then people hedged after the vote closed and settled on language that allows for lower picks as long as they're in the same round.

[bocious]

Somehow I posted before finishing my thought. Sorry about that. Here's my full comment:

Looking at that original vote thread, the wording of the vote itself specifically says "original pick or higher," but then people settled on different language after the vote closed that allowed lower picks in the same round. So that vote wasn't well-executed, and now we're stuck trying to sort it out six years later. Looking at the conversation leading to the revised language, and seeing how everyone seems to agree that it's alright to have lower picks if they're in the same round, how about we allow it and just move forward with that interpretation of the rule?

[braven112]

I thought we ran into this recently but I couldn't find any dialogue about it. Thats why I wasn't certain. I guess I'm confused as to why I was ok with the "clearer" wording in the vote thread when in reality it changes the rule and seems to go against the amendment to the proposal that we talked about in the initial idea thread.

This is actually the first thread where this whole idea started, then we talked about it more extensively in the post I referenced earlier.
http://forum.theleague.us/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=415

As an owner, I'm ok with allowing the bid to stand. Though I would point out that this means we are talking about using 1.16 and 1.17 since 1.17 is higher than the original 2nd round pick (2.01).

[Poker in the Rear]

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 trade into a late round spot just to ultimately move it for a tagged player. Maybe that had something to do with it as well, but i can't recall to be honest?

[Devil Dogs]

It was mentioned that Poker had this same situation with Calvin Johnson last year, is there a thread that we can look back on?

The written rule and the linked discussion in the constitution seemed pretty clear to me.

[Devil Dogs]

As an owner, I'm ok with allowing the bid to stand. Though I would point out that this means we are talking about using 1.16 and 1.17 since 1.17 is higher than the original 2nd round pick (2.01).

Thats the way I understood it, using 1.16 and 1.17, so thats fine with me.

[Poker in the Rear]

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 swung a deal to move into that round just so i could make that offer.

[bonscott]

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.

I barely remember hashing all this out. It actually kinda shows how long this league has been around which is cool.

As written though there is nothing stopping someone that has say the 1.01 pick from trading that pick and getting the 1.11 back (along with other stuff) and then using that 1.11 to bid on a franchise player. I'm not saying if that's good or bad either way, but if it's a concern then perhaps we need to have a wider discussion on it in the Rules forum.

[Cybergeek]

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.

It barely remember hashing all this out. It actually kinda shows how long this league has been around which is cool.

As written though there is nothing stopping someone that has say the 1.01 pick from trading that pick and getting the 1.11 back (along with other stuff) and then using that 1.11 to bid on a franchise player. I'm not saying if that's good or bad either way, but if it's a concern then perhaps we need to have a wider discussion on it in the Rules forum.

I sounds like the original intent was to only allow someone to use a pick higher than their original pick as compensation for a winning bid on a "Tagged" player. The rule as written seems to allow owners to also use picks lower than their original.

If we interpret the rule as allowing picks lower than the original, trading the pick before declaring a bid would seem to be a valid strategy. I would suggest that once a bid on a "tagged" player is announced, the pick that would be used for compensation should be frozen until the process is completed. Trading down after bidding on a player should not be allowed, in my opinion.

[bonscott]

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.

It barely remember hashing all this out. It actually kinda shows how long this league has been around which is cool.

As written though there is nothing stopping someone that has say the 1.01 pick from trading that pick and getting the 1.11 back (along with other stuff) and then using that 1.11 to bid on a franchise player. I'm not saying if that's good or bad either way, but if it's a concern then perhaps we need to have a wider discussion on it in the Rules forum.

I sounds like the original intent was to only allow someone to use a pick higher than their original pick as compensation for a winning bid on a "Tagged" player. The rule as written seems to allow owners to also use picks lower than their original.

If we interpret the rule as allowing picks lower than the original, trading the pick before declaring a bid would seem to be a valid strategy. I would suggest that once a bid on a "tagged" player is announced, the pick that would be used for compensation should be frozen until the process is completed. Trading down after bidding on a player should not be allowed, in my opinion.

Agreed. But nothing stops me from doing such a trade in January.

[bonesman]

Agreed. But nothing stops me from doing such a trade in January.

nor should it IMO

[bocious]

Agreed. But nothing stops me from doing such a trade in January.

nor should it IMO

I agree. As long as the tagging owner knows what the compensatory pick is before they decide whether or not to match the offer is the only thing that matters, IMO.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Agreed. But nothing stops me from doing such a trade in January.

nor should it IMO

I agree. As long as the tagging owner knows what the compensatory pick is before they decide whether or not to match the offer is the only thing that matters, IMO.

So I guess this would mean that if an owner finishes with the 1.05 and also owns a later pick in the 1st (say the 1.14), but doesn't own their original pick in the 2nd and now owns the 2.09... Would this mean that the 2 first round picks are to be used as opposed to the first and the 2nd that they own?

[Achon44]

I honestly never liked the idea of changing the the rule to allow using picks that were not your original picks and this is why.

[bonesman]

I honestly never liked the idea of changing the the rule to allow using picks that were not your original picks and this is why.

Seems kind of unfair to penalize a team (prevent them from tagging) for moves they may have made over a year ago... if they still have the currency (picks) to participate in the tagging.


And really how many #1 picks have lived up to their contract/draft slot?... the higher the pick isn't always better.


but yea, as Midwest said, as long as the tagging owner knows what picks he would get before hand, I don't see why it matters... you either accept or you don't. Chances are if they had their original pick (DD with the #1 in this example) they probably won't make an offer on the tagged player anyway.

[Cybergeek]

but yea, as Midwest said, as long as the tagging owner knows what picks he would get before hand, I don't see why it matters... you either accept or you don't.

Would you guys agree that once a tagged player is bid on the compensatory picks should not be allowed to traded. For example. a team with pick 1.02 bids on a Franchise player. The owner with 1.02 then starts shopping the pick and accepts the best offer, which leaves him with pick 1.12 to give as compensation.

If another team outbids the team with 1.02, or if the original team matches the bid, then the pick is back in play. But until that time, the pick is frozen.

[braven112]

So I guess this would mean that if an owner finishes with the 1.05 and also owns a later pick in the 1st (say the 1.14), but doesn't own their original pick in the 2nd and now owns the 2.09... Would this mean that the 2 first round picks are to be used as opposed to the first and the 2nd that they own?

Yes, this idea is what brought about the initial conversation 6 years ago. Originally you had to have both original picks. The idea was that you should be able to at least give better picks or the original.

For me I still don't think teams should be able to trade down after the season and then use the newly acquired picks to tag players.

[Cybergeek]

Yes, this idea is what brought about the initial conversation 6 years ago. Originally you had to have both original picks. The idea was that you should be able to at least give better picks or the original.

For me I still don't think teams should be able to trade down after the season and then use the newly acquired picks to tag players.

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"

The updated wording is still a bit confusing although the example is clear.

Current new wording:

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.

Then a suggestion for a "clearer" statement that added the ability to use a lower pick for compensation. That clearer statement is in fact the current language in the constitution.

Perhaps a clearer statement:

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 or highest draft pick available if lower, of the team that signed the tagged player.

This would also cover the example of if my original is say 1.10 but now I own 1.12 and 1.15, 1.12 would be the highest pick available and would be used.

There was no further discussion on the matter. Nothing to indicate that the clearer statement was being voted on.

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.

Or .....

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 or highest draft pick available if lower, of the team that signed the tagged player.

[bonesman]

but yea, as Midwest said, as long as the tagging owner knows what picks he would get before hand, I don't see why it matters... you either accept or you don't.

Would you guys agree that once a tagged player is bid on the compensatory picks should not be allowed to traded. For example. a team with pick 1.02 bids on a Franchise player. The owner with 1.02 then starts shopping the pick and accepts the best offer, which leaves him with pick 1.12 to give as compensation.

If another team outbids the team with 1.02, or if the original team matches the bid, then the pick is back in play. But until that time, the pick is frozen.

absolutely... if anything, maybe we should vote on that and add it to the constitution.