Player Tags

[Poker in the Rear]

Currently if an FP, TP, and RFA player do not receive an offer during the tag player phase it becomes a 1 year contract. If this happens, have we ever considered allowing the owner an opportunity to re-sign the player to a long term extension vs playing out the 1 year deal?

[braven112]

Contract extensions done that way would be interesting. I'd be interested in hearing how others felt about it. I don't remember if we've talked about it or not. I know we have with contract extensions in general. Currently we do part of this but only if someone else bids on a player and adds years.


Right now, you can re-tag a player each year and that is a 20% increase each season.

[Poker in the Rear]

I would definitely be for it as it adds another layer to ones overall strategy. Especially since you are putting out that high of an increase to tag them anyway.

[bonesman]

hmmmm... not sure how I feel about this one. I think my first impression is that I'd be against the change... I could see it saving me a lot of $$$ though.

[Achon44]

I agree with LB. Maybe if there was additional money added on per extra year, but even then I'm still just not that big of a fan of the idea.

[bonscott]

Not really sure how I think about it. One thing I do like about the system now is that it does keep a steady flow of at least a few top free agents each year. When this league started it was billed as a dynasty league but it really isn't, it's a contract/cap league and thus the name change a couple years ago.

I'd have to see proposals on what would happen if you "renegotiated" a contract. Right now it's a 20% raise (or Top X average) to tag a player. What would you do for the 2nd year, 50% raise? The bigger issue there is tracking it all. By hand. Not something I would want to do although it's pretty much "tracked" due to posting the tag.

But here is the thing...you can in a way already get a longer term deal. Just tag the player again next year. Once again he'll get a 20% raise and maybe higher if other teams bid on the tag. So really, I think we already have it in place that you can keep a guy "forever" if you really want, just keep on tagging him every year.

Now that I think about it, really don't need a new rule as we kinda already support it in terms of we don't have limits on how many times you can tag a player. The only real limit is your tolerance for higher and higher salary.

Now if what you are talking about is something different, like renegotiating a longer term deal at a lower salary, then again, what ideas are there for such a system? Something like take a % cap hit this year and next as a penalty for the renegotiated contract or something?

[Poker in the Rear]

My initial thought was lets say I decide to tag Addai at the franchise level next year and it happens to be $10 million based off the current rule, and nobody bids on him so it becomes a one year deal. As the original owner I'm thinking you could have him play it out or say offer 10% more making it $11 and you could then add on years like you do any player following the same % increase so tracking wise it wouldn't create another layer. IMO it seems right now the system is more or less making a guy unaffordable vs the market because you have to do 20% every year for the tag if they aren't bid on. It would make you think twice whether to give up picks or not that's for sure so it may create more movement since owners can't wait until the tag price tag just becomes too steep so they hit the open market. Now If the goal is to create turnover, then thats an entirely different story.

[braven112]

I think the rule is designed to have the opportunity for turnover at the very least. Right now, you have an infinite number of 1 year renewals at 20% which is cost prohibitive after probably 2 maybe 3 tags or you can let him go and see what the open market would pay him. More often than not, its probably cheaper to just let him go in free agency anyway and just resign him at current market value, what ever that is.

I like the idea of this or renegotiating contracts in general. But I don't like the current options of automating it with MFL, more than the current system of just letting the market reset their contracts every few years. With the option to extend years there.

Also, I think having great players in the auction every year makes that whole thing more fun and this would take guys out of the auction more often.

[Achon44]

One thing I like about the tagging rules is that they award good drafting. If you draft well and sign your players to 5 year contracts you will leave yourself plenty of cap room to sign high priced free agents, offer contracts to another teams tagged players, and extend your own free agents with 20% tags for a couple of years after their initial contract ends. It also awards teams who are willing to take chances on free agents they sign by offering them 4-5 year contracts.

[LV Elite]

One thing I like about the tagging rules is that they award good drafting. If you draft well and sign your players to 5 year contracts you will leave yourself plenty of cap room to sign high priced free agents, offer contracts to another teams tagged players, and extend your own free agents with 20% tags for a couple of years after their initial contract ends. It also awards teams who are willing to take chances on free agents they sign by offering them 4-5 year contracts.

Well said and I agree... I lean more of having somewhat of a turnover, which helps keep the off-season/auction interesting.

[bonscott]

I'm never one to shy away from new wrinkles but having at least some turnover which we have now is not something I'd want to give up unless we turn the league into a true dynasty league were you can keep guys forever.