Tiered Rookie Years? (Morphing into a Tagging Discusion)

[braven112]

My first question would be on the RFA options...can you use both tags or is it you still get 1 RFA tag but you can choose between the two options? I believe as posted it was just 1 RFA tag but choose between the two options but just wanted to clarify since I've been "off" already in this thread. LOL

Just one RFA tag was my thought. I suggested the top 3 for the FA tag to increase that salary just a bit. NFL does top 5 for 32 teams so I thought top 3 might be a little closer comparison for our league. Seems like we've seen some pretty high salaries for the top 2-3 guys via our normal FA process so this would bump these salaries up a little more which may make people consider the other tagging options more than they otherwise would have.

My thought for the transition tag is it would probably be used less vs. more now that there is less compensation for loosing him but maybe not? I would consider using it for a guy that I would like to keep at the right salary but someone that wasn't critical for my team. Someone that would be easy to replace in Free Agency like kickers or Defenses.

[braven112]

The franchise tag really has just become nothing more than one year contact extension given the premium placed on picks.

I think that has been our goal since it emulates what nfl teams use it for. But given that, it's also why I was thinking we should increase the salary a bit to increase the use of the other tags. If you use the franchise tag you are basically saying this guy is my franchise. I can't afford to lose this guy.

[Poker in the Rear]

The franchise tag really has just become nothing more than one year contact extension given the premium placed on picks.

I think that has been our goal since it emulates what nfl teams use it for. But given that, it's also why I was thinking we should increase the salary a bit to increase the use of the other tags. If you use the franchise tag you are basically saying this guy is my franchise. I can't afford to lose this guy.

Yep, and if thats what we are after thats cool. The only difference is we don't have the ability to "negotiate" to turn it into a long term deal either. I believe this has come up before and maybe worth revisiting, but it obviously complicates things more.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Looking at the past trend of the franchise tag, it seems to only get used when it is cost effective (ie when top tier QBs were vastly underpaid). If anything, this change removes the compensation from a tag that appeared to be getting used more frequently in the transition tag. I would prefer to see the franchise tag remain as is and stick with the top 5 salaries if we're removing the transition tag's compensation.

I'm going on a hunch and saying that WRs won't be getting franchised for the next few years with Calvin now costing $15m and escalating up to $18m over the next 3 seasons, double what the current franchise tag is. Tagging, and bidding on, Calvin seemed to have bucked the trend of how people used the Franchise tag in the past.

I'm OK with the changes, but as mentioned, would prefer much like the rest of the franchise tag to remain as the top 5 salaries. Not gonna lie in saying that I'll miss the option at tagging at the Transition level and being compensated for it. Like you mention Brandon, I have a feeling that it'll only get used in scenarios where you really don't care if you lose the player or not

[bonscott]

I know this is a bit out of left field but I've always felt we should not include the top paid player because it's almost always an outlier vs. the rest of the pack. The top guy is almost always a couple million more then #2. Sometimes not, but there is always one. And just that one player then really pulls the tag prices up a lot higher then they would be otherwise. If we keep pushing that price up it's only going to do the opposite of what seems to be what we want (more tagging) and encourage teams not to tag a player because why bother, just get the guy back in the auction and most likely a cheaper price and put as many years as you want on him.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

I know this is a bit out of left field but I've always felt we should not include the top paid player because it's almost always an outlier vs. the rest of the pack. The top guy is almost always a couple million more then #2. Sometimes not, but there is always one. And just that one player then really pulls the tag prices up a lot higher then they would be otherwise. If we keep pushing that price up it's only going to do the opposite of what seems to be what we want (more tagging) and encourage teams not to tag a player because why bother, just get the guy back in the auction and most likely a cheaper price and put as many years as you want on him.

I would be in favour of this

[Poker in the Rear]

I would be against it...i think the top paid individual needs to be taken into account.

[bocious]

I would be okay with it for the RFA and transition tags - I wouldn't vote against it, but I'm not a huge fan, either - but would definitely want the Franchise tag to stay as-is.

Also, should we maybe break this into separate discussions, one for each type of tag? Trying to keep track of all these tags is like having three conversations on top of each other.

Sidenote: Now that Poker's banner image has been changed, I don't have to look around at work to make sure nobody will see my screen. LOL!

[Poker in the Rear]

Sidenote: Now that Poker's banner image has been changed, I don't have to look around at work to make sure nobody will see my screen. LOL!

LMAO...glad I could help!

[braven112]

Seems like this would pass?

Franchise Player - each owner may designate 1 player whose contract with the team has expired. A FP will be tendered a one year contract at the average of the top five salaries at his position or a 20% salary increase, whichever is greater. A FP may be offered a contract (salary and years) by any team. His original team has the right to match the highest offer. If the original team declines to match the offer, they will receive the 1st and 2nd round draft choice as compensation*.

Transition Player - each owner may designate 1 player whose contract with the team has expired. A TP will be tendered a one year contract at the average of the top ten salaries at his position or a 20% salary increase, whichever is greater. A TP may be offered a contract (salary and years) by any team. His original team has the right to match the highest offer. If the original team declines to match the offer, they will not receive any compensation.

Restricted Free Agent - each owner may designate 1 player whose contract with the team has expired. There are two types of RFA tags a team can choose from:

RFA Option #1
A RFA will be tendered a one year contract at the average of the top twenty salaries at his position or a 20% salary increase, whichever is greater. A RFA may be offered a contract (salary and years) by any team. His original team has the right to match the highest offer. If the original team declines to match the offer, they will receive the 3rd round draft choice as compensation*.

RFA Option #2
A RFA will be tendered a two year contract at the average of the top twenty salaries at his position or a 20% salary increase, whichever is greater. A RFA may be offered a contract (salary and years) by any team. His original team has the right to match the highest offer. If the original team declines to match the offer, they will receive next years 2nd round draft choice as compensation*.

Same rules for what we consider a salary increase would apply:

If a team tags a guy at the 2 year tender for 6 million, then a team can place a higher bid 2 ways; either a higher salary or more years on the contract. So a team could bid 2 years at 6.025 million. A second team could bid 4 year at 6.025, then they would be the highest bid. The final contract offer could be 1 year at 6.05 million.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

No difference in salary cost between the RFA1 and RFA2 tags?

[braven112]

No difference in salary cost between the RFA1 and RFA2 tags?

I kind of think there should be but a one or two people didn't seem to want that and its not a deal breaker for me. Whatever would get passed is fine with me. If more people would like to see a difference in the starting salaries I'm open to adjusting it before we put it up for vote.

[bonscott]

No difference in salary cost between the RFA1 and RFA2 tags?

I kind of think there should be but a one or two people didn't seem to want that and its not a deal breaker for me. Whatever would get passed is fine with me. If more people would like to see a difference in the starting salaries I'm open to adjusting it before we put it up for vote.

I don't really care either way but why make it more complicated when it doesn't have to be is all I was saying. Difference between top 15 and top 20 salaries wouldn't be much, maybe a few hundred thousand at most so why bother with more complication, just make the increase the same. My opinion anyway.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

No difference in salary cost between the RFA1 and RFA2 tags?

I kind of think there should be but a one or two people didn't seem to want that and its not a deal breaker for me. Whatever would get passed is fine with me. If more people would like to see a difference in the starting salaries I'm open to adjusting it before we put it up for vote.

I don't really care either way but why make it more complicated when it doesn't have to be is all I was saying. Difference between top 15 and top 20 salaries wouldn't be much, maybe a few hundred thousand at most so why bother with more complication, just make the increase the same. My opinion anyway.

The difference between top 15 and 20 salaries isn't much, but the difference between and 2nd and a 3rd is rather significant IMO... Even if it is next season's 2nd rounder, I think it holds more value in everyone's eyes in comparison to a 3rd. I don't think you'll ever see someone opt for the RFA1 in this instance if there is really no difference between the two tags other then I'd get better compensation if I choose RFA2 over RFA1.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Idea...
RFA1: Top 20 salaries. Current 3rd round compensation. If no one bids, the tagging owner can choose to extend the contract by 1-3 years
RFA2: Top 20 salaries. Next season's 2nd round compensation. If no one bids, the player is assigned a 1 year contract

I think something like this could even it out between the two options for the RFA tag? I think it's heavily favoured in the RFA2 camp right now. Better compensation and a 2 year contract if no one bids.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

can I add to RFA2: "And can't be tagged at the RFA level the following season"

[bonscott]

Depends. If it's a deep draft class I might want the 3rd rounder. Heck, I got Jimmy Graham near the end of the 3rd round his rookie year. And I may want to get a jump start on rebuilding and so want a guy now as opposed to next year. So a 2nd in a future season isn't always better. But point is well taken.

[bonesman]

You got Jimmy at 2.6... 23rd overall

[braven112]

Idea...
RFA1: Top 20 salaries. Current 3rd round compensation. If no one bids, the tagging owner can choose to extend the contract by 1-3 years
RFA2: Top 20 salaries. Next season's 2nd round compensation. If no one bids, the player is assigned a 1 year contract

I think something like this could even it out between the two options for the RFA tag? I think it's heavily favoured in the RFA2 camp right now. Better compensation and a 2 year contract if no one bids.

I think this is worth looking into, I almost posted something along these lines. I like the idea of there being a decent difference between the two. This would also address the desire to allow contract extensions but do so under something closer to open market conditions. I was kind of thinking that with RFA1 the original owner could make a bid on his own player. Once an owner bids on his own player the compensation is dropped and anyone could post an offer and the original owner would only retain the right to match. I do like the max of 3 years like you have though.

[braven112]

I don't really care either way but why make it more complicated when it doesn't have to be is all I was saying. Difference between top 15 and top 20 salaries wouldn't be much, maybe a few hundred thousand at most so why bother with more complication, just make the increase the same. My opinion anyway.

I agree, I didn't really look into the price difference between the top 15 and 20. More than anything I just wanted to make some variation between the two tags. But simple is better

[braven112]

Idea...
RFA1: Top 20 salaries. Current 3rd round compensation. If no one bids, the tagging owner can choose to extend the contract by 1-3 years
RFA2: Top 20 salaries. Next season's 2nd round compensation. If no one bids, the player is assigned a 1 year contract

I think something like this could even it out between the two options for the RFA tag? I think it's heavily favoured in the RFA2 camp right now. Better compensation and a 2 year contract if no one bids.

I think this is worth looking into, I almost posted something along these lines. I like the idea of there being a decent difference between the two. This would also address the desire to allow contract extensions but do so under something closer to open market conditions. I was kind of thinking that with RFA1 the original owner could make a bid on his own player. Once an owner bids on his own player the compensation is dropped and anyone could post an offer and the original owner would only retain the right to match. I do like the max of 3 years like you have though.

Anyone else interested in exploring these ideas at all or should we just vote on the original proposal?

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Idea...
RFA1: Top 20 salaries. Current 3rd round compensation. If no one bids, the tagging owner can choose to extend the contract by 1-3 years
RFA2: Top 20 salaries. Next season's 2nd round compensation. If no one bids, the player is assigned a 1 year contract

I think something like this could even it out between the two options for the RFA tag? I think it's heavily favoured in the RFA2 camp right now. Better compensation and a 2 year contract if no one bids.

I think this is worth looking into, I almost posted something along these lines. I like the idea of there being a decent difference between the two. This would also address the desire to allow contract extensions but do so under something closer to open market conditions. I was kind of thinking that with RFA1 the original owner could make a bid on his own player. Once an owner bids on his own player the compensation is dropped and anyone could post an offer and the original owner would only retain the right to match. I do like the max of 3 years like you have though.

Anyone else interested in exploring these ideas at all or should we just vote on the original proposal?

This thread seems to have lost it's steam a bit...
Seeing as how it was my suggestion, I think it'd be worth exploring

[bonscott]

It's interesting. So just sounds like the only difference is that in RFA1 if nobody bids you can give a longer contract extension. Which given just a 3rd rounder as compensation probably wouldn't happen all that often.

[bocious]

I like Wascawy's idea. Wasn't commenting because I felt like I was driving a lot of the conversation and wanted to see if anyone else felt like chiming in.

[Poker in the Rear]

looks like we may be ready just to put this one to a vote..