The League

See this thread for previous discussion: http://forum.theleague.us/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=415

So we didn't have any bids on tagged players this year. I think the big reason for this is that more then half the league could not place any bids due to the "must be original pick" rule due to all the trades in the 1st and 2nd round. Already many teams in 2010 can't bid on any tagged players next year.

Do we really want to limit it like this? I don't think it follows the spirit of the league.

While I can appreciate the concern that someone could trade down to lower in the first and still bid on a tagged player (and really, who is going to do this on purpose?) frankly, why is that a big deal. The chance that someone with a top 5-7 pick is actually going to bid on a 1 year rental tagged player is pretty low. So most bids will probably come from someone with a lower pick anyway in the back half of the round. Plus the fact if you don't like the fact of getting a low pick then simply match the bid and keep said tagged player. There are plenty of options.

Current rule states:
The compensatory draft picks must be the original draft picks of the team that signed the tagged player.

I would like to see the rule changed to this:
The compensatory draft picks must be the original draft picks of the team that signed the tagged player or the highest available draft pick in the round owned by the team that signed the tagged player if the original draft pick is no longer owned.

Example 1: I have the 1.05 pick and have traded it away and own the 1.07 and 1.13 pick, then I could bid on a tagged player and the 1.07 pick would be the one given up.
Example 2: I have the 1.05 pick and have made trades to acquire the 1.13 pick, the 1.05 pick would be the one given up.
Example 3: I have the 1.05 pick and have acquired the 1.02 pick, the 1.05 pick is the one given up since it was my original.
Example 4: I have the 1.05 pick but traded it away and now have the 1.02 and 1.13 pick, the 1.02 pick would be the one given away.

Thus if the original pick is still owned, it is the one given up no matter what other picks in the round you have. But if your original is gone, then it's the highest pick in the round.
The other option is to say the highest picked owned no matter what, but that just punishes a team (in my view) for making a trade for picks and why do that.

Thoughts?

I agree with you!

Scott what about if you had multiple picks in the first round, like yourself? Could you put a bid on a FP and a TP because you have the compensatory picks to give up?
I say you should be able to. Maybe that was the plan on that owner instead of drafting a rookie.

irishpride8 wrote:I agree with you!

Scott what about if you had multiple picks in the first round, like yourself? Could you put a bid on a FP and a TP because you have the compensatory picks to give up?
I say you should be able to. Maybe that was the plan on that owner instead of drafting a rookie.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with that. It could certainly be a strategy of a team to gather up enough picks to actually put in more then one bid on tagged players. Say this year if someone had two 1sts and two 2nds they could have bid on both Randy Moss and Andre Johnson and win those bid (which they would then give up their picks probably). Could also spark more trades because as you say in my case I may have had to try to acquire another 2nd rounder to bid on multiple tagged players.

I would support your proposed rule change. I think you make a good case and I don't really see a negative to it.

bonscott wrote:

irishpride8 wrote:I agree with you!

Scott what about if you had multiple picks in the first round, like yourself? Could you put a bid on a FP and a TP because you have the compensatory picks to give up?
I say you should be able to. Maybe that was the plan on that owner instead of drafting a rookie.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with that. It could certainly be a strategy of a team to gather up enough picks to actually put in more then one bid on tagged players. Say this year if someone had two 1sts and two 2nds they could have bid on both Randy Moss and Andre Johnson and win those bid (which they would then give up their picks probably). Could also spark more trades because as you say in my case I may have had to try to acquire another 2nd rounder to bid on multiple tagged players.

How would you decide who gets the higher picks? Randy Moss owner or Andre Johnson owner?

Achon44 wrote:

bonscott wrote:

irishpride8 wrote:I agree with you!

Scott what about if you had multiple picks in the first round, like yourself? Could you put a bid on a FP and a TP because you have the compensatory picks to give up?
I say you should be able to. Maybe that was the plan on that owner instead of drafting a rookie.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with that. It could certainly be a strategy of a team to gather up enough picks to actually put in more then one bid on tagged players. Say this year if someone had two 1sts and two 2nds they could have bid on both Randy Moss and Andre Johnson and win those bid (which they would then give up their picks probably). Could also spark more trades because as you say in my case I may have had to try to acquire another 2nd rounder to bid on multiple tagged players.

How would you decide who gets the higher picks? Randy Moss owner or Andre Johnson owner?

Good point and why we need to flesh this all out. With that point then it starts to become confusing with multiple bids on tagged players. Thus let's leave this out of the discussion and talk about the main issue at hand which is only being able to bid on a tagged player if you have your original pick, which seems unlikely for most teams with as many trades that go on.

I like this idea as well. Opens up more opportunity to bid on players, and really there is no downfall.

Achon44 wrote:

bonscott wrote:

irishpride8 wrote:I agree with you!

Scott what about if you had multiple picks in the first round, like yourself? Could you put a bid on a FP and a TP because you have the compensatory picks to give up?
I say you should be able to. Maybe that was the plan on that owner instead of drafting a rookie.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with that. It could certainly be a strategy of a team to gather up enough picks to actually put in more then one bid on tagged players. Say this year if someone had two 1sts and two 2nds they could have bid on both Randy Moss and Andre Johnson and win those bid (which they would then give up their picks probably). Could also spark more trades because as you say in my case I may have had to try to acquire another 2nd rounder to bid on multiple tagged players.

How would you decide who gets the higher picks? Randy Moss owner or Andre Johnson owner?

I think it would have to depend on what kind of tag, perhaps you can only bid on one Franchise Player and one Transition player or RFA where the franchise tagged player always receives the higher draft picks. A team couldn't make an offer on 2 FP for example.

I'm definitely for tweaking the rules so that we don't in any way discourage trading or bidding on these type of players.

bonscott wrote:Good point and why we need to flesh this all out. With that point then it starts to become confusing with multiple bids on tagged players. Thus let's leave this out of the discussion and talk about the main issue at hand which is only being able to bid on a tagged player if you have your original pick, which seems unlikely for most teams with as many trades that go on.

I think with the fact that it "starts to become confusing" is a sign that multiple bidding should be avoided.

bonscott wrote:The chance that someone with a top 5-7 pick is actually going to bid on a 1 year rental tagged player is pretty low.

This statement is misleading, because you have the option of adding multiple years to the contract of any tagged player you bid on.

bonscott wrote: Current rule states:
The compensatory draft picks must be the original draft picks of the team that signed the tagged player.

I would like to see the rule changed to this:
The compensatory draft picks must be the original draft picks of the team that signed the tagged player or the highest available draft pick in the round owned by the team that signed the tagged player if the original draft pick is no longer owned.

Example 1: I have the 1.05 pick and have traded it away and own the 1.07 and 1.13 pick, then I could bid on a tagged player and the 1.07 pick would be the one given up.
Example 2: I have the 1.05 pick and have made trades to acquire the 1.13 pick, the 1.05 pick would be the one given up.
Example 3: I have the 1.05 pick and have acquired the 1.02 pick, the 1.05 pick is the one given up since it was my original.
Example 4: I have the 1.05 pick but traded it away and now have the 1.02 and 1.13 pick, the 1.02 pick would be the one given away.

Thus if the original pick is still owned, it is the one given up no matter what other picks in the round you have. But if your original is gone, then it's the highest pick in the round.
The other option is to say the highest picked owned no matter what, but that just punishes a team (in my view) for making a trade for picks and why do that.

Thoughts?

I think one thing you are ignoring is that the tagging process was created to mock as close as it could the NFL tagging process and was intended first as a way for teams to attempt to keep a player on their roster for one more year and second as another way for teams to pick up new players. Your proposal would pretty much flip that. It would make the tagging period just another time frame for open bidding on players, while the owner who does the tagging will be sitting there hoping they can match any offers. With that said I don't totally disagree with your idea of us not being strapped to the rule that we could only use our own original picks. I feel if we changed the rule it should only be for original picks or higher like Brandon suggested in the earlier thread. This would still give the tagging owner some strength like the original rule was intended.

Achon44 wrote:With that said I don't totally disagree with your idea of us not being strapped to the rule that we could only use our own original picks. I feel if we changed the rule it should only be for original picks or higher like Brandon suggested in the earlier thread. This would still give the tagging owner some strength like the original rule was intended.

I can live with that so long as we get the rule changed.

Any other thoughts on this?

bonscott wrote:

Achon44 wrote:With that said I don't totally disagree with your idea of us not being strapped to the rule that we could only use our own original picks. I feel if we changed the rule it should only be for original picks or higher like Brandon suggested in the earlier thread. This would still give the tagging owner some strength like the original rule was intended.

I can live with that so long as we get the rule changed.

Any other thoughts on this?

Does something like this cover it?

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

The probably would need some clarification but I would also like to see something like this added as well...

If a team owns more than one pick, and would like to bid on multiple tagged players. The higher picks would be used for the franchise tagged players, then transition players and lastly RFA.

braven112 wrote:
The probably would need some clarification but I would also like to see something like this added as well...

If a team owns more than one pick, and would like to bid on multiple tagged players. The higher picks would be used for the franchise tagged players, then transition players and lastly RFA.

What if a team owns more than one pick, and would like to bid on multiple franchise players?

Achon44 wrote:

braven112 wrote:
The probably would need some clarification but I would also like to see something like this added as well...

If a team owns more than one pick, and would like to bid on multiple tagged players. The higher picks would be used for the franchise tagged players, then transition players and lastly RFA.

What if a team owns more than one pick, and would like to bid on multiple franchise players?

Not sure if there is a good way to do that. Off the top of my head the only thing I can think of is something like the most expensive franchise player would get the higher pick in compensation but then we have to have all these rules about what "most expensive" means and so forth. I think I'd prefer that you can at most bid on 1 player of each type (franchise, transition and restricted FA) and leave it at that. Just changing the rule to allow bids even if you don't have your original pick anymore is frankly good enough for me without getting super complicated.

bonscott wrote:

Achon44 wrote:What if a team owns more than one pick, and would like to bid on multiple franchise players?

Not sure if there is a good way to do that. Off the top of my head the only thing I can think of is something like the most expensive franchise player would get the higher pick in compensation but then we have to have all these rules about what "most expensive" means and so forth. I think I'd prefer that you can at most bid on 1 player of each type (franchise, transition and restricted FA) and leave it at that. Just changing the rule to allow bids even if you don't have your original pick anymore is frankly good enough for me without getting super complicated.

I agree

bonscott wrote: I think I'd prefer that you can at most bid on 1 player of each type (franchise, transition and restricted FA) and leave it at that. Just changing the rule to allow bids even if you don't have your original pick anymore is frankly good enough for me without getting super complicated.

I agree, what I was getting at was in order to bid on one of each type of player you would need more than one pick in each round.

So if a person bids on a franchise player and a transition player the higher 1st round pick would go to the franchise players original team and the lower pick would go for the transition player, does that make sense and if so does that seem fair to everyone?

braven112 wrote:So if a person bids on a franchise player and a transition player the higher 1st round pick would go to the franchise players original team and the lower pick would go for the transition player, does that make sense and if so does that seem fair to everyone?

Sounds fair to me.

Rock on.

If someone has a nice way to word all that, we can get a vote going here shortly.

How about this for a first pass, taken mostly from the commish's posts.

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

If a team owns more than one pick in a round they can bid on multiple tagged players of different types. The higher picks would be used for the franchise tagged players, then transition players and lastly RFA.

So if a team has 2 first round picks and bids on a franchise player and a transition player the higher 1st round pick would go for the franchise player and the lower pick would go for the transition player.

We should probably vote on this soon.