reworking of how tag numbers are determined

[Boyz II Men]

Not sure if this has been discussed but it seems like the average is not a good way of determining these values...seems like this is the reason that few players are tagged. i was thinking of tagging a wr at the restricted fa tag but realized when looking that the top 15 rate of 5.7 million, there were only 6 wrs that even made that amount of money. should we look at the median..been awhile since math class..but in a league like ours using a salary cap..shouldn't have cap figures thrown off by 2 salaries ..the 15th highest paid wr..sorting by salary made 2.2 million..no where close to 5.7 million tag rate..am i missing something..not really a complaint but i noticed only 5 or 6 ppl tagged and everyone has the option of tagging 3.

thoughts?

[bonscott]

Hmmmmm, I think it's supposed to be a premium because you are in essence extending a contract for someone out of contract...which in the NFL is a premium. NFL does the average which is I think why we did it in the first place.

In looking at the 2011 spreadsheet it appears that the Top 5 are coming at about a 1 million premium, Top 10 between 1 and 2 million and Top 15 at around a 2 million premium...depending on position of course.

I'm not opposed to changing things up, just thinking about why we did what we did.

[braven112]

Hmmmmm, I think it's supposed to be a premium because you are in essence extending a contract for someone out of contract...which in the NFL is a premium. NFL does the average which is I think why we did it in the first place.

In looking at the 2011 spreadsheet it appears that the Top 5 are coming at about a 1 million premium, Top 10 between 1 and 2 million and Top 15 at around a 2 million premium...depending on position of course.

I'm not opposed to changing things up, just thinking about why we did what we did.

The goal was to mimic the NFL here, I'd like to double check but I think we've probably had the most tags we've ever had this year.

[braven112]

Hmmmmm, I think it's supposed to be a premium because you are in essence extending a contract for someone out of contract...which in the NFL is a premium. NFL does the average which is I think why we did it in the first place.

In looking at the 2011 spreadsheet it appears that the Top 5 are coming at about a 1 million premium, Top 10 between 1 and 2 million and Top 15 at around a 2 million premium...depending on position of course.

I'm not opposed to changing things up, just thinking about why we did what we did.

The goal was to mimic the NFL here, I'd like to double check but I think we've probably had the most tags we've ever had this year.

Actually we had a lot more last year but this is higher than the first 2 years. What would be the intended and unintended or indirect consequences with lowing the tag salary amount?

[Boyz II Men]

well i guess the most intended result would be more teams using their tags and subsequently make the league into more of a dynasty/contract league. Just from looking at how the league patterns are going..seems like the top players are simply signed to one year contracts and there is turnover almost every year with most of them. If you look at the majority of the top scoring qbs, and rbs..they all are signed to one yr contracts...not sure how re-working tagging numbers would effect this, but if tag numbers were lower..there would be more bidding on tagged players and subsequently some longer contracts offered to those players...i guess that would lead to draft picks moving..i guess a more active league. I'm sure you can see I haven't thought it all the way out and someone else might be able to add to my thoughts

and if we are modeling the nfl...I would imagine at least 80% of the teams use at least one type of their available tags..I think we have 7 owners who have use the tag this yr

seems like the trend is to sign a big name qb each year to a 1 yr contract..the same for a rb..and try to hit on draft choices..

*edit to add..18 of the top 30 scoring players have 1 year contracts and expiring contracts..shouldn't more of teams top players be franchised if we are modeling the nfl
but..i am happy with the current system if everyone else is..just think its important to look at different options to make the league more active with more strategy involved

[bonscott]

well i guess the most intended result would be more teams using their tags and subsequently make the league into more of a dynasty/contract league. Just from looking at how the league patterns are going..seems like the top players are simply signed to one year contracts and there is turnover almost every year with most of them. If you look at the majority of the top scoring qbs, and rbs..they all are signed to one yr contracts...not sure how re-working tagging numbers would effect this, but if tag numbers were lower..there would be more bidding on tagged players and subsequently some longer contracts offered to those players...i guess that would lead to draft picks moving..i guess a more active league. I'm sure you can see I haven't thought it all the way out and someone else might be able to add to my thoughts

and if we are modeling the nfl...I would imagine at least 80% of the teams use at least one type of their available tags..I think we have 7 owners who have use the tag this yr

seems like the trend is to sign a big name qb each year to a 1 yr contract..the same for a rb..and try to hit on draft choices..

No matter what changes I don't see this trend changing for me and my team anyway. I see no reason to tie up that much salary for more then a year, two at most. I've been burned already too many times by the "stud" that should be worth the money falling off the cliff, retiring, getting replaced by a younger guy, etc. About the only player I would put a tag on would be a QB. I just might do that in 4 years on Bradford but until then I don't see much worth it to tag a guy. Toss 'em back and redraft him if I really want him and probably less then the tagged salary.

Another thing to consider is those with top picks are less likely to bid on a tagged player. I know there are a few of the tagged players I wouldn't mind bidding on, but no way would I give up the 4th overall pick to do it. I'm sure most "at the top" of the draft would feel the same way, especially considering it would be a one year rental vs. getting a guy for 5 in the draft. So only those who were in the playoffs last year would probably consider bidding on a tagged player.

Then again what do I know. I've never finished higher then 10th.

[braven112]

Another thing to consider is those with top picks are less likely to bid on a tagged player. I know there are a few of the tagged players I wouldn't mind bidding on, but no way would I give up the 4th overall pick to do it. I'm sure most "at the top" of the draft would feel the same way, especially considering it would be a one year rental vs. getting a guy for 5 in the draft. So only those who were in the playoffs last year would probably consider bidding on a tagged player.

Then again what do I know. I've never finished higher then 10th.

I tend to agree, especially for me being closer to the top its really too expensive to give up the potential for 2 great contracts where a guy is outperforming his pay for up to 5 years. For a guy that is getting paid exactly what he is worth and occupy's a larger percentage of cap space for 1+ year. That to me is a larger deterrent than the actual price of the player alone.

For what its worth not very many teams in the NFL try to put bids on Franchise Players probably for much the same reasons.

It sounds like what you are really looking for is a way to increase the time or likelyhood that star players stay on one team right?