Tiered Rookie Years? (Morphing into a Tagging Discusion)

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Just throwing this out there...

Has it ever been thought of/discussed about having a tiered system for rookie years?

1st rounders can get a max 5 year deal
2nd rounders max of 4
3rd rounders max of 3
UDFA max of 5 since they were FAs?

Probably be more of a hassle to manage the years for who was drafted at what round... But just kinda curious. Would give rookies a chance to "get paid" sooner if they outperform their draft position.

[bocious]

This post stoked my curiosity, so I looked up how rookie contracts actually work these days since they're different from what they were before the strike. That then led me to look at the tagging system to see if that had also changed. Here's what I found as well a few thoughts (full disclosure: I plagiarized a few sentences and am totally not citing references).

Rookie Contracts:
Since 2012, all 1st-round rookies are signed to four year contracts. There's a team option for a 5th year that has to be exercised at the end of the 3rd year. If a player is picked 1-10, then the 5th year option is going to be the average of the top-10 players at the respective player’s position (based on year 3 numbers since that's when the option is picked up). If you’re picked 11-32, then the 5th year club option is the average salary of the top 3rd through 25th player in that position.

At least that seems to be the rule... except I noticed some of this year's draft picks were signed to 5-year contracts right out the gates.

If anyone feels like taking a deep dive, here's the actual CBA: http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/201 ... 1-2020.pdf. Rookie compensation is covered on pages 21-33.

Tagging:
Franchise tags: Our league rules default all franchise players to "non-exclusive" status, which is different from the NFL but really more fun, so whatever.
Transition tags: Our rules match the NFL's pretty much exactly.
RFA tags: The NFL rules are waaay different from ours... and kinda interesting. First, the player has to have completed at least 3 seasons in the league in order to be tagged. Second, the dollar amount for transition tags is really low (see below). Third, a team can choose which round they want to give up, with minimum contract amounts based on which round a team selects. Here are teams' options based on 2012 season numbers:
1st round: $2.74m, 2.27% of salary cap ($1.215m based on The League cap)
2nd round: $1.927m, 1.6% of salary cap ($720k)
Player's Original Draft Round: $1.26m, 1.04% ($468k)

Thoughts:
We can see that the new CBA has altered rookie contracts in favor of owners, removing some of the upfront risk, but requiring larger contracts in the 5th year of a draftee's career. It seems like this creates more parity among teams and opens up cap space to spend money on free agents. In other words, the NFL has changed in a way that, if we try to mimic it, could drastically change the dynamic of our league.

The RFA tagging system actually looks kinda fun. I have a few ideas on how we could implement that type of tagging system, but I'm tired of typing and will let someone else take the conch for awhile.

[braven112]

I was just thinking, about a month ago, about what it would be like if we only have 4 year contracts for rookies across the board.

I hadn't had a chance to really think it all the way through but my initial thought was it would change the dynamic of the league quite a bit. Draft picks would probably be worth less, the free agent period could get a little more active and we would probably see a boost in the use of the various tags. Its an interesting idea though.

[bonscott]

My first thought is that the vast majority of rookies don't even do anything until their 3 or 4th year and we just don't have the roster size to accommodate holding on to them that long unless they hit their first year (the high picks mostly). Draft picks would definitely be worth less to me simply because I wouldn't want to even bother unless I had a top 10 pick. I'd just pick up free agents in their 3rd or 4th season and try to actually get some worth out of them. Although I'd miss out on a guy like Jimmy Graham which I drafted near the end of the 2nd if I remember correctly, more often then not you miss.

Tagging though really doesn't work as intended other then to give a team another year on a player. We've discussed this before a couple years ago. Bids just don't happen much because it's too expensive. For a team like mine whose 1st is a high pick, it makes no sense to bid on a high priced vet and I think most of the league agrees since we have very few bids each season. We've never come up with a solution though to try to encourage bids on tagged players. Maybe have "extra" compensatory picks given up by the league to a team if they don't match. So say this year if Vit decides not to match the Seattle D bid then the league would give him a middle 2nd rounder vs. getting it from the team that got the highest bid. But then that reduces *everyones* pick value that comes after it.

I dunno. I'm rambling.

[braven112]

Just to throw it out there, what if the picks you gave up were:

Franchise Tag: 1st rounder
Transition Tag:2nd rounder
Restricted FA: 3rd rounder

[Poker in the Rear]

Just to throw it out there, what if the picks you gave up were:

Franchise Tag: 1st rounder
Transition Tag:2nd rounder
Restricted FA: 3rd rounder

Well, I think this would definitely increase the odds of guys bidding on tagged players thats for sure...Which would be nice for the original owner too so they can actually end up with more than just a 1 year deal if they decided to match.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Just to throw it out there, what if the picks you gave up were:

Franchise Tag: 1st rounder
Transition Tag:2nd rounder
Restricted FA: 3rd rounder

When you take a look at the tagged salaries for the RB and WR positions over the past few years, it's expensive to tag a guy! And then to try and sign away that player, your doing it at PEAK value when there could be comparable players available in FA that may potentially be had for significantly cheaper (and without having to give up a draft pick).

The exception to the rule is TE, where I'm sure that Gronk, Graham, and Hernandez will all be tagged at franchise levels and could all potentially have offers put on them because of their status as the top 3TEs in fantasy. I can't forsee the cost of the TE franchise tag going up until the offseason those 3 become available. Even if they don't get signed away, I would think/hope that the market value of those players would get set during the tagging period because each of them are EASILY worth the amount of the RB/WR franchise tags.

QB saw it's price spike because of the Brady/Rodgers contracts, but in prior seasons I think the franchise tag was between $5 and $6m?

I almost think that you need to offer incentive to the teams that are sending offers for the players, because there is no benefit to send an offer unless that offer is crazy high (Rodgers last season), because the original owner will probably match. There was discussion about this in the Seahawks thread.

The person "losing out" is most likely the guy sending the offer. If the original owner matches the contract price, how come they don't have to compensate anything? I think if you started having to give up something to compensate the offering owner, you'd start seeing more offers on tagged players.

[braven112]

The tag #'s are very fluid and eventually TE tag numbers will be in line with every other position. I really love how fluid those numbers are. The contracts that mediocore TE's signed for this tagging period will help boose those tagging numbers next year. I'm sure there will be a TE that will get signed this offseason that will boost those numbers even further and when those 3 TE's you mention are ready to be tagged the numbers will be even higher. Given that there will be 3 guys signed at potentially Franchicse tag numbers means the Franchise tag numbers the following season will be really high.

It's just part of the ebb and flow of our league and one reason why I love it.

I don't think teams making a bid on tagged players should get anything in return. They haven't risked anything if the contract is matched. I feel like that would artifically create bids and cause teams to bid on players just so they could get and extra pick. If the contract is matched you get your money back anyway and can use it on another Free Agent. To me the advantage of forcing their league mate to pay more money is enough compensation.

Right now all 3 types of tags are almost used interchangably. I could see us differentiating each type of tag to put a little more strategy behind how and when to use each one.

Franchise tags: We could move this to average of top 3 or 20% increase and keep the draft picks the same. That would pretty much garauntee you keep the guy but his price would be higher and it increases the tag numbers for all the tags across the board. It gives each team one player that they virtually control.

Tranistion Maybe keep this the same? Or make the compensation a 2nd rounder or a pick between 1.09 and 2.08?

RFA: This is one tag that I think we could tweak to generate more activity. I'd rather decrease or eliminate the penalty for making a bid. Giving up a 2nd rounder is still a pretty high price. I think bonscott's idea about the extra pick at the end of the 2nd round could work. I'm sure we could think of a few other ways as well to reduce the cost to the team making a bid.

[bonscott]

Right now all 3 types of tags are almost used interchangably. I could see us differentiating each type of tag to put a little more strategy behind how and when to use each one.

Franchise tags: We could move this to average of top 3 or 20% increase and keep the draft picks the same. That would pretty much garauntee you keep the guy but his price would be higher and it increases the tag numbers for all the tags across the board. It gives each team one player that where the virtually control.

I can get behind this. Subtle change but effective.

Tranistion Maybe keep this the same? Or make the compensation a 2nd rounder or a pick between 1.09 and 2.08?

I can get behind this as well. Move it from a 1st to a 2nd and you'd probably get much more activity *and* you may find teams Franchising a player instead because with just a 2nd rounder to give up it's much more at risk. Either way it should boost salaries a bit. If you wanted more movement at this level drop the salary to Top 15 OR toss out the top 2 in the calculation. So calculate it as the average from #3 thru #12 (vs. Top 10).

RFA: This is one tag that I think we could tweak to generate more activity. I'd rather decrease or eliminate the penalty for making a bid. Giving up a 2nd rounder is still a pretty high price. I think bonscott's idea about the extra pick at the end of the 2nd round could work. I'm sure we could think of a few other ways as well to reduce the cost to the team making a bid.

RFA...right now it's used mainly for kickers and defenses. This may change in a couple years since we eliminated the contract cap. I for one refused to waste contract years on them and only gave them 1. Going forward now I won't hesitate to slap a couple/three years on one. If others follow then less will be tagged and perhaps more "real" players will.
Salary...maybe Top 20 instead? Or again, same idea, toss out the top 2/3 in the calculation. This would lower the entry point for bidding. And compensation...3rd rounder. This should generate quite a bit of activity as some teams think 3rd rounders are garbage, others like them. It's easy to toss around a 3rd. And with more bidding the salary may creep up. The idea I had about an extra pick from the league being given up is interested, but the big downside is this: What if we had say 8 teams that need a compensated extra 2nd. That means all 3rd rounders are 8 picks later which really devalue them. Could make it much harder to trade them that way.

[braven112]

I thought this was a great discussion that we had last year and figured its a good time to bring it back up for discussionnow that tagging is on everyone's mind. We won't do anything to the upcoming tags but for the next offseason I'd like to vote of this. Seems like some solid ideas that we just needed to wrap up before we vote.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

I like the idea of making tagged players more affordable to make a bid on / retain.

Just writing some thoughts on potential changes...
Franchise - Top 10 salaries. Compensation: Current year's first round pick (top 5 protected, if the pick is within the top 5, offering team has option to give up it's the next available 1st + lowest available (or future) 2nd rounder) or Future 1st & 2nd.
Transition - Top 5 - 15 salaries. Compensation: Two 2nd round picks for the current year or a future 1st
Restricted - Top 10 - 20 salaries. Compensation: One 2nd round pick for the current year or future 2nd & 3rd

This could make the players more affordable/desirable to offer contracts to? I know that 2nd round picks can be pretty valuable to owners given the very low cost of the contracts, so I'm not sure if giving up two is exactly what someone would want to do.

Just a thought.

[bonesman]

I like the idea of making the tags compensation go 1st, 2nd 3rd for Franchise, Restricted and Transition.

I cannot really picture a scenario where I'm willing to drop 10k+ on a guy AND give up a 1st and 2nd for him.

[bocious]

Personally, I'd rather not change the rules for the franchise tag. These are designed to lock a player to a team and make it very costly for another team to sign said player. In fact, in the NFL, the compensation is two 1st-round picks, which is even more brutal than what we have in our league. And think about it, how often does an NFL team sign another team's franchise player? It very rarely happens.

The tag that gets a lot of action in the NFL is the RFA tag because the team can determine which round they're willing to give up, and the player's salary is determined based on the round. These contracts are very low, and because of that other teams are aggressive in negotiating contracts with RFA's. The RFA tag is reserved for players with expiring contracts at the end of their third year, but for the purpose of this league we could modify that rule.

Also worth noting is that the transition tag provides NO draft pick compensation under the new NFL CBA. Either you match another team's offer, or the player goes to the other team. That's it.

If we're modifying tags to encourage offers, and also want to mimic the NFL as much as possible while still having fun, this is how I would do it.

Franchise Tag: No change
Transition Tag: Remove draft pick compensation altogether
RFA Tag: You can tag your expiring rookie contracts with one of three tags-
- 1st-round compensation - $2million
- 2nd-round compensation - $1.5million
- 3rd-round compensation - $1million

(If those RFA numbers seem low, keep in mind that these are actually generous in comparison to the NFL's numbers.)

By setting it up that way, teams can still pay the big bucks to keep their franchise players, but the other tags open up the opportunity to grab other teams' players.

Also, just wanted to add here that I still would prefer we move to 4-year rookie contracts, especially if we move to the RFA structure above.

[braven112]

I like the idea of making each tag a little different, to me that is what makes this idea intriguing. It introduces some strategy behind each tag. I don't want to encourage more activity for Franchise tagged players if anything I'd like to encourage less activity. On the other end of the spectrum I would love to encourage more activity for the RFA tag.

I didn't know that the transition tag offered no compensation. I actually kind of like that idea it makes that tag unique and if used, would definitely increase activity. That is also probably why you rarely see NFL teams use it but I could see some situation where you want to keep a guy but would be willing to move the salary and use it on free agents.

For the RFA tag though I think it needs to be tied to a players current salary, with the draft compensation based off a percentage of their current salary. Each position has a different salary in our draft and a lot of those early draft picks are higher than what's listed.

[bocious]

For the RFA tag though I think it needs to be tied to a players current salary, with the draft compensation based off a percentage of their current salary. Each position has a different salary in our draft and a lot of those early draft picks are higher than what's listed.

So what if we did something like this:

1st-rounder - 40%
2nd-rounder - 30%
3rd-rounder - 20%

We should test these numbers against some real scenarios to see if they make sense, but my initial thought is that we should have set pay increases at a higher percentage than the franchise tag since the pick compensation is lower.

Also, if we're applying this tag to expiring rookie contracts, we need to determine exactly how that is defined (thinking about UDFA's here) as well as whether to limit the number of tags that can be placed on expiring contracts. The NFL doesn't limit the number of players a team can RFA tag, but it seems like we probably should since we have way fewer draft picks to trade around.

Thinking about this more, this could be a really fun change to the offseason.

[braven112]

In your mind would this only apply to rookies? That part would be a major change and we would have to at least consider the current rookie year limit and factor that into what we did here. Just kind of thinking out loud, I like 5 years for the same reason as bonscott said. A lot of guys take a few years to develop so you may be only looking at having them for a couple years. That also eliminates one tag that is available to a veteran, which I would be ok with, just pointing it out.

I think establishing some sort of minimum salary where a salary is somehow based off the top X at the position would work. That naturally puts the salary at a minimum that would be somewhere near market value based of the position.

[bocious]

In your mind would this only apply to rookies? That part would be a major change and we would have to at least consider the current rookie year limit and factor that into what we did here. Just kind of thinking out loud, I like 5 years for the same reason as bonscott said. A lot of guys take a few years to develop so you may be only looking at having them for a couple years. That also eliminates one tag that is available to a veteran, which I would be ok with, just pointing it out.

Yep, that's how it works in my mind, but to make it easier we could just open it up to players under a certain age so we don't have to keep track of the individual contracts. I still think reducing the rookie contracts to 4 years would be good if we change RFA tags in this way, but if that's the sticking point to changing our tagging system, I'm fine with leaving it as-is.

I think establishing some sort of minimum salary where a salary is somehow based off the top X at the position would work. That naturally puts the salary at a minimum that would be somewhere near market value based of the position.

We would need a pretty large pool to average since we want contracts low enough to generate bids. Maybe something like this:

1st-rounder: avg of top 15
2nd-rounder: avg of top 25
3rd-rounder: avg of top 35

Obviously the minimum 20% increase would still apply.

[braven112]

As I'm thinking about this, it seems like a 1st round RFA tag wouldn't help our goal of their being more activity on the tagged players. What if we get rid of that options and go with 2 types of RFA tags. I think the biggest obstacle for placing bidding on a player is giving up a draft pick. The salary part is really not a problem. If its a great player teams will shell out the cash no problem. We also have to have our original draft picks or better as compensation so that limits teams in being able to offer bids on players.

I'm really liking the idea of not having a draft pick associated with the transition tag. That would obviously eliminate the downside of bidding on a player. And the original team still has the right to match any offer. If they choose not to they still have all the cash to use on another Free Agent.

Here are a few tweaks I added to generate some discussion, I highlighted the differences in bold.

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 three 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 fifteen 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*.

[bonscott]

I like the idea of the Transition tag having no compensation. If I want compensation then I just need to choose one of the other tags.

As for the RFA tags and what they translate to using this year as an example (so that I understand them):

Say I put a RFA tag on Dan Marino.
If I use tag #1 and don't match I get a 2014 3rd round pick.
If I use tag #2 and don't match I get a 2015 2nd round pick.

and the others:
If I use the FP tag and don't match I get a 2014 1st and 2014 2nd.
If I use the Transition tag and don't match I get nothing.

Do I have that correct?

Given all that, it does give the current owner a lot of options of what to do when tagging. If I want the best chance of keeping a player or the best compensation then use the Franchise tag. If I just want minor compensation use the RFA. If I just want a shot at keeping a guy another year then Transition tag. It'll add strategy to tagging for sure.

Also, I think the rulebook does need a bit of clarification in that the compensation must be the original pick or higher (if the original is no longer owned) or else a bid cannot take place. For example I have my original 1.11 pick plus a higher pick I snagged in a trade. So I bid on a player and 1.11 will be the pick used for compensation. But lets say I had traded away 1.11, didn't have a higher pick and only had a lower pick, say 1.15. Then I shouldn't be able to bid on a tagged player as the base minimum pick is not available to me to give. I believe this is what we follow and is the spirit of the rule, but it probably needs to be written down that way.

[Poker in the Rear]

But lets say I had traded away 1.11, didn't have a higher pick and only had a lower pick, say 1.15. Then I shouldn't be able to bid on a tagged player as the base minimum pick is not available to me to give. I believe this is what we follow and is the spirit of the rule, but it probably needs to be written down that way.

Guess we definitely need some clarification on this...I was under the impression you could bid as long as you had the picks and this came into play only if you had multiple picks on hand...

[bonscott]

Yea, I don't really know and I could be wrong. I think I remember the issue brought up being that I could do something like trade down to get a lower pick and still use it to tag someone, thus the guy giving up the tagged player is getting a lower pick then they should. But honestly, I don't recall at this point.

[Poker in the Rear]

Yeah, i didn't take the rules that way, so will be curious to see what Brandons take is on this...I get where you don't want guys to deliberately start to trade back to ultimately "lower" the compensation, but if you have the right owners in place then you shouldn't have to worry about it. On the flip side, your'e kind of hurting other owners IMO and taking away even more player movement as your'e also limiting even further who can bid on tagged players that come available. Heck, you would never really want to trade any of your picks either because you're boxing yourself in to the point where even if you have picks in those rounds they may be of no use during the tagging period based on how they all fall....

Guess we have that here...I own the 1.10(my original),and the 2.11, and i made an offer on Megatron....

What sayeth you Mr. Commissioner?

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Yea, I don't really know and I could be wrong. I think I remember the issue brought up being that I could do something like trade down to get a lower pick and still use it to tag someone, thus the guy giving up the tagged player is getting a lower pick then they should. But honestly, I don't recall at this point.

I looked at the constitution and saw the rule linked to this post which it seems to be based on, which was actually posted and refined by yourself
http://forum.theleague.us/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=509#p1847

My interpretation of the rule was that the highest / closest draft picks to the original which you would have owned would be used as the compensation. As long as you have picks in those rounds, it's fair game to make an offer.

As for the update to the tagging rules, I'm still undecided about the proposed changes.

[Poker in the Rear]

I'm still undecided on the proposed changes as well...not sure how i feel about it

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Just throwing this out there...
But if we're going to change around the tagging rules, why not give the option to the team that would be losing the player to be compensated with choosing whether they want to take the team's current year's draft pick or their future pick?

And some thoughts about the proposed change to the tagging structure:
I can see the RFA #2 tag being used more often then the transition tag. Not only is the salary lower, but you're at least compensated an alright draft pick for potentially losing that FA. If I'm tagging a player, is that added salary for the top 10 players enough to warrant me tagging them at transition and ward off any potential bidders? Or do I consider the difference in cost between the top 10 and 15 as a buffer for people to use for bidding and still get compensated with a future 2nd the following season if someone signs him away from me OR if no one signs them I get them for TWO years instead of ONE at a discounted top 15 cost!??! Seems like a no brainer to me to almost exclusively use the RFA2 tag over the transition tag.