Vote: Franchise Tag Compensation

[braven112]

This vote is in regards to Franchise Tag compensation discussion:

Yes Vote:

Franchise Tag Compensation: Current seasons 1st and 2nd round pick.
The picks are the highest 1st and 2nd round pick available in the bidders inventory at the start of the tagging period (Feb 1st). When placing the bid, the bidder must also state the draft picks given up and, at that time, those picks become protected and non-tradeable until after the tag matching deadline has passed.

If the bidder does not have a 2nd round pick, then the next highest pick in their inventory above the 2nd round (i.e, a 1st round pick) For example if a bidder has 1.05 and 1.12 and no 2nd round round pick, they could still bid on a franchise player by stipulating they will give up the two 1st round picks as compensation. If they had 3 first round picks, for example 1.05, 1.12, and 1.15 and no 2nd round pick then they would have to give up 1.05 (highest first round pick) and 1.15 (next highest pick above the 2nd round). And so on ...

Compensatory draft picks (1.17, 2.17,2.18) can be used as compensation.

No Vote:

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

[Wascawy Wabbits]

In the thread where this all came up, wasn't the general consensus that the Compensatory picks count as a round below? So the 1.17 would be considered a 2nd round pick compensation and the 2.17 and 2.18 as 3rd round pick compensation?

[Wascawy Wabbits]

This vote is in regards to Franchise Tag compensation discussion:

Franchise Tag Compensation: Current seasons 1st and 2nd round pick.
The picks are the highest 1st and 2nd round pick available in the bidders inventory at the start of the tagging period (Feb 1st). When placing the bid, the bidder must also state the draft picks given up and, at that time, those picks become protected and non-tradeable until after the tag matching deadline has passed.

If the bidder does not have a 2nd round pick, then the next highest pick in their inventory above the 2nd round (i.e, a 1st round pick) For example if a bidder has 1.05 and 1.12 and no 2nd round round pick, they could still bid on a franchise player by stipulating they will give up the two 1st round picks as compensation. If they had 3 first round picks, for example 1.05, 1.12, and 1.15 and no 2nd round pick then they would have to give up 1.05 (highest first round pick) and 1.15 (next highest pick above the 2nd round). And so on ...

Compensatory draft picks (1.17, 2.17,2.18) can be used as compensation.

Another question in regards to the highlighted
If the bidding team EARNED the 1.12, but also owned the 1.05 and 1.15 but no 2nd, would they not be giving up the 1.12 and 1.15? Since you would be giving up the pick that you earned, plus the next highest pick as compensation above the 2nd rounder.

[Cybergeek]

In the thread where this all came up, wasn't the general consensus that the Compensatory picks count as a round below? So the 1.17 would be considered a 2nd round pick compensation and the 2.17 and 2.18 as 3rd round pick compensation?

Yes, everyone who commented on the compensatory picks agreed (commish included) that they should be considered as a round lower for the purposes of tagging compensation.

[Cybergeek]

This vote is in regards to Franchise Tag compensation discussion:

Franchise Tag Compensation: Current seasons 1st and 2nd round pick.
The picks are the highest 1st and 2nd round pick available in the bidders inventory at the start of the tagging period (Feb 1st). When placing the bid, the bidder must also state the draft picks given up and, at that time, those picks become protected and non-tradeable until after the tag matching deadline has passed.

If the bidder does not have a 2nd round pick, then the next highest pick in their inventory above the 2nd round (i.e, a 1st round pick) For example if a bidder has 1.05 and 1.12 and no 2nd round round pick, they could still bid on a franchise player by stipulating they will give up the two 1st round picks as compensation. If they had 3 first round picks, for example 1.05, 1.12, and 1.15 and no 2nd round pick then they would have to give up 1.05 (highest first round pick) and 1.15 (next highest pick above the 2nd round). And so on ...

Compensatory draft picks (1.17, 2.17,2.18) can be used as compensation.

Another question in regards to the highlighted
If the bidding team EARNED the 1.12, but also owned the 1.05 and 1.15 but no 2nd, would they not be giving up the 1.12 and 1.15? Since you would be giving up the pick that you earned, plus the next highest pick as compensation above the 2nd rounder.

I thought that the whole discussion was about a scenario where a team did not have their own picks to offer as compensation. If a team still holds their original picks but have also traded for picks higher than their original, the original picks should be given up as compensation, not the picks that were traded to them.

As Wascawy said, "If the bidding team EARNED the 1.12, but also owned the 1.05 and 1.15 but no 2nd, would they not be giving up the 1.12 and 1.15?"

I will wait for clarification before voting.

[braven112]

In the thread where this all came up, wasn't the general consensus that the Compensatory picks count as a round below? So the 1.17 would be considered a 2nd round pick compensation and the 2.17 and 2.18 as 3rd round pick compensation?

Yes, everyone who commented on the compensatory picks agreed (commish included) that they should be considered as a round lower for the purposes of tagging compensation.

No, unfortunately there wasn't a consensus.

And in all cases compensatory picks are valid for all tags. A pick is a pick.

The proposal we are voting on is basically what Dark Magicians posted. I said that I felt compensatory picks shouldn't be used but I don't feel that strongly about it. Treating all picks the same would simplify things so that is what is in the proposal and what we are voting on.

[braven112]

This vote is in regards to Franchise Tag compensation discussion:

Franchise Tag Compensation: Current seasons 1st and 2nd round pick.
The picks are the highest 1st and 2nd round pick available in the bidders inventory at the start of the tagging period (Feb 1st). When placing the bid, the bidder must also state the draft picks given up and, at that time, those picks become protected and non-tradeable until after the tag matching deadline has passed.

If the bidder does not have a 2nd round pick, then the next highest pick in their inventory above the 2nd round (i.e, a 1st round pick) For example if a bidder has 1.05 and 1.12 and no 2nd round round pick, they could still bid on a franchise player by stipulating they will give up the two 1st round picks as compensation. If they had 3 first round picks, for example 1.05, 1.12, and 1.15 and no 2nd round pick then they would have to give up 1.05 (highest first round pick) and 1.15 (next highest pick above the 2nd round). And so on ...

Compensatory draft picks (1.17, 2.17,2.18) can be used as compensation.

Another question in regards to the highlighted
If the bidding team EARNED the 1.12, but also owned the 1.05 and 1.15 but no 2nd, would they not be giving up the 1.12 and 1.15? Since you would be giving up the pick that you earned, plus the next highest pick as compensation above the 2nd rounder.

They would be giving up the 1.05 and 1.15. Original draft picks don't have any meaning in this proposal. It's simply highest 1st round pick and highest 2nd round pick (or better if no 2nd round pick is owned).

[bonscott]

I don't recall any discussion on that. I just went thru the thread and unless I misunderstood I don't see anything about always using the highest pick in the round period. Always thought it was as well as the clarification discussion, that the original/earned pick in the round would always be used, but if the earned pick was no longer owned then the next highest pick in the round would be used.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

So with the current wording, this would also mean that if you DO own a multiple firsts and/or seconds, the highest ones will always be used?

Not sure I like this rule change.

If anything, I thought the issue that was brought up during the tagging period had to do w/ the compensatory picks being used more than anything

[Wascawy Wabbits]

So with the current wording, this would also mean that if you DO own a multiple firsts and/or seconds, the highest ones from each round will always be used?

Not sure I like this rule change.

If anything, I thought the issue that was brought up during the tagging period had to do w/ the compensatory picks being used more than anything

I didn't really see any issues about the first round pick was lower than originally owned in that bid for Gronk?

For the NO vote:
Would this mean now that if you earned (for instance) the 1.01 and traded it away at any point before the tagging period and now owned the 1.12, you're not allowed to bid?

[braven112]

For the NO vote:
Would this mean now that if you earned (for instance) the 1.01 and traded it away at any point before the tagging period and now owned the 1.12, you're not allowed to bid?

That's correct. If you don't own your original pick or better you can't bid.

[bonscott]

I don't like either option then as it's not really how I took the discussion previously. I thought it was just a clarification that if you no longer owned your original pick but you did have a lower pick in the same round it could be used or not. So we have the "not" portion here but then an entirely different proposal for the "yes" side of things. It's seems the Yes option allows for that but also forces you to use the highest pick you have, even if you still have your earned/original pick. That's what seems new to me. All the other parts of it (the 2nd rounder stuff) is part of what was discussed earlier. And frankly that should be allowed anyway no matter what the proposal. I mean who am I to stop someone from giving up a 1st instead of a 2nd? Win-win for everyone on that case. Don't really need to vote on that.

Because I don't support in any way to have to give up a higher pick just because you happen to have one. If I earned 1.09 but traded for 1.01 and still had 1.09 then 1.09 should be the pick to give up in tagging, *not* the 1.01 in my opinion*. So if I'm pushed to vote for either one then I'd go the No option but I don't like either one personally.

* And yes, one has the option of just not bidding on a tagged player in this scenario but I thought the whole point of this and recent changes was to encourage more tagged bidding, not less. Both of these options can lead to less tagged bidding unless I'm missing something and I'm totally off.

[Achon44]

We could avoid all of this if we used drafts picks from the following season. The same way I now own Amish's 2nd rounder next season for losing Dez to him. This would also allow everyone to bid on tagged players seeing everyone would still have their future picks. It also makes for great risk/reward for both teams seeing we are dealing with future picks. I can also most certainly guarantee we would have seen bidding on Jimmy Graham this year if we used this idea.

[braven112]

I thought the whole point of this and recent changes was to encourage more tagged bidding, not less. Both of these options can lead to less tagged bidding unless I'm missing something and I'm totally off.

1. Yes and no. The changes to the Transition tag and RFA tag were what would increase bidding on tagged players. The only change we made to franchise tags last year was to make the starting salary the average of the top 3 players vs the average of the top 5 players. If anything that would discourage bidding on a franchise tag player. I personally don't want to see more bidding on franchise players. That is the whole point of a franchise tag to me.

We are only discussing compensation that would be used for Franchise Tags and RFA#2

2. A no vote means we are going back to what we originally voted on. (Before we reworded it) It also means we can vote again if we want.

To add some perspective, in our entire league history we've had 4 times when a franchise player was bid on. In only 2 of those was compensation awarded.

2008 Tom Brady -Original Team matched offer
2011 Aaron Rodgers
2014 Calvin Johnson
2015 Rob Gronkowski -Original Team matched offer

Given how infrequent this issue I don't want to overcomplicate or overanalyze this. Just vote no if you don't like the simplified version and yes if you do like it. If you vote no we can vote on another proposal.

[Cybergeek]

I say that we go back to square one, and vote no to get the rule that was voted in 6 years ago in effect.

Remember, abstentions are considered yes votes.

No matter how this vote turns out, at least the new rule will be the result of a vote.

[Cybergeek]

In a case like this where two "new" options are presented for voting, will abstentions still be counted as "yes" votes? Seems like they shouldn't be.

[braven112]

This vote fails since it received 5 "no" votes. I'll come up with another proposal and we'll vote again.

The no vote is for our rule as voted on. I'm considering that as the current rule so any new rule has to receive 75% approval.