33 replies to this topic

[Atlanta Cracker]

Discussion allowed but please post how you would vote.  If we stumble towards something that will pass we can have another vote.

Quote

6.0.1 Franchise Tag

Each team may Franchise Tag one player per year via a post on the Fusion message board. The franchised player will cost that team based on the player's position the minimum following amount:

RB: $15
QB/WR: $12
LB/TE: $10
DE/DT: $8
CB/S: $6
PK: $3  

Each franchised player will be assigned a one (1) year contract.  Franchise players may be bid on but the franchising owner may match 1/2 the max bid to retain the franchised player.  The 1 year contract remains whether the player is acquired by another owner or retained at a higher amount by the original owner.  The deadline for declaring a franchise player will be 9PM Eastern Time on March 28th of each year. A team must have at least enough Fusion $$ to cover the minimum cost outlined above prior to naming a franchise player. All declarations are considered final upon posting and may not be rescinded or modified in any way. There is no limit to the number of times a player may be tagged. Franchised players may be traded after RFA begins.

[skylive5]

Have to keep in mind that we don't have coins in Fusion so something will have to added that says the number will be rounded up.

Example: 1/2 of 19FB is 10FB

If we never have to talk about this subject again I guess I would vote yes.

[tbimm]

If there is no 1st round compensation and no cash compensation then all we really have is a way to make it a bit harder for an owner to claim a tagged player. I think some form of compensation is a must for the tag to work as intended.

Yes but compensation is needed.

Edited by tbimm, 03 March 2010 - 05:19 AM.

[Big John]

I would agree.

[rajncajn]

I would vote yes on this one & disagree with tbimm that compensation is needed. I think the added chance at being able to keep your player and if lost, the money moved out of the pool, are compensation enough as long as the original owner retains the tag fee.

[Caveman_Nick]

I could live with this.

EDIT:  The tiered dollar values were just some spaghetti I threw against the wall, so I would also be open to adjustment there if the league agrees on different numbers, as well as subsequent review in later seasons of those values

Also...

rajncajn, on 3/3/10 8:11am, said:

the money moved out of the pool, are compensation enough as long as the original owner retains the tag fee.

And this.  If you tag a player and he goes away, you should retain the tag bucks.

Edited by Caveman_Nick, 03 March 2010 - 09:20 AM.

[Fatman]

As I stated yesterday, I'm not big on tags but could live with this one - it would actually make things a bit more interesting. One minor point - LBs seemed underpriced in the above pricing sched. As CN said, it was just a first pass at prices.

I'm indifferent on the compensation component at this point.

[Savage Beatings]

I would have voted yes.

[Caveman_Nick]

Fatman, on 3/3/10 9:56am, said:

As I stated yesterday, I'm not big on tags but could live with this one - it would actually make things a bit more interesting. One minor point - LBs seemed underpriced in the above pricing sched. As CN said, it was just a first pass at prices.

I'm indifferent on the compensation component at this point.

JMO, the reason I suggested LB at that price is because there are soooo many.

[SteelBunz]

I think I would have voted Yes on this sort of scenario.  
The flat $20 seemed all geared toward RBs.  We should have just called it that....lol.  The RB Franchise Tag......lol.

Couple things.....if compensation (half winning bid or full winning bid) isn't doable....at least the original owner should retain the tag amount if they don't or can't match a winning bid.
And maybe a slight tweak in the dollar amounts (I like Sarge's amounts a little more) with an understanding that all RFA bids on Franchise players should be in even numbers...no need to round up.    That's not tough.  It should hurt a little, monetarily, to tag a player.....and it should hurt a lot to bid on one.  (A lot meaning, the initial bid should be the higher end of what any player in this category has ever gone for in RFA.)

And Sky.....I understand and agree with not piling on the player commissioner.  If Don thinks it's too much.....maybe we can get him an assistant that tracks all Franchise Player activity?     But honestly.....other than tagging the named players and initially deducting the tag amount before RFA starts, I don't see that this is too much of a headache.  I'd bet that most tagged players won't be bid on...and if they are and won, the only piece of accounting added is to add back the Tag amount to the original owner.....everything else would've happened if there was no franchise tag anyway.

I love that there are no draft picks associated here.  Now THAT is a headache to track.

Sorry I was long-winded.  I was still mulling over the last discussion when it was closed.  

[SteelBunz]

Fatman, on 3/3/10 9:56am, said:

One minor point - LBs seemed underpriced in the above pricing sched. As CN said, it was just a first pass at prices.

Zach,
I'd agree....if we just look at LBs as point-getters, compared to QBs or RBs.  But around here, LBs are rarely bid on over $20 in RFA.  I tried to trade or sell another "Zach" for years.  And even though he was consistantly a top 5 LB....no one wanted him.  

CN is right.....there are many more decent or potentially decent LBs than there are RBs or top TEs.  The tag amount is probably sufficient.

[Fatman]

Caveman_Nick, on 3/3/10 12:14pm, said:

JMO, the reason I suggested LB at that price is because there are soooo many.

SteelBunz, on 3/3/10 12:58pm, said:

Zach,
I'd agree....if we just look at LBs as point-getters, compared to QBs or RBs.  But around here, LBs are rarely bid on over $20 in RFA.  I tried to trade or sell another "Zach" for years.  And even though he was consistantly a top 5 LB....no one wanted him.  

CN is right.....there are many more decent or potentially decent LBs than there are RBs or top TEs.  The tag amount is probably sufficient.

Good points.

[keggerz]

EDIT: NO I would not vote for this tag.

DISCUSSION:
why use subjective $'s on players...use the average of the top 3, 4, 5 or whatever bids from the previous RFA on each position and you can include a floor number just in case the previous year everyone was a dog

and I am not sure I can get on board with a tag that allows an owner to recoup their tag cost if they lose the player...that makes very little thought needed to use the tag....if you lose the player then oh well I still get my money back...and as in years past I don't like anything that will allow an owner to keep FT players at less than market value (ie; matching half the bid) so I guess that would probably put me in the camp of making compensation part of a FT but I haven't seen a compensation package I can get on board with yet.

EDIT: Better?

Edited by keggerz, 03 March 2010 - 02:48 PM.

[skylive5]

keggerz, on 3/3/10 11:31am, said:

why use subjective $'s on players...use the average of the top 3, 4, 5 or whatever bids from the previous RFA on each position and you can include a floor number just in case the previous year everyone was a dog

Oh for cryin' out loud! Let's make it really complicated and have six or seven formulae to come to a conclusion on how a player will be designated a monitary amount. Jimminy Christmas!

Can you live with this? Yes or no please.

ETA: I am putting you down as a no.

Edited by skylive5, 03 March 2010 - 02:40 PM.

[keggerz]

skylive5, on 3/3/10 2:38pm, said:

Oh for cryin' out loud! Let's make it really complicated and have six or seven formulae to come to a conclusion on how a player will be designated a monitary amount. Jimminy Christmas!

Can you live with this? Yes or no please.

ETA: I am putting you down as a no.

I am sorry I thoght this was a discussion thread.

Edit: guess I forgot to put NO in my post

Edited by keggerz, 03 March 2010 - 02:47 PM.

[skylive5]

keggerz, on 3/3/10 11:46am, said:

I am sorry I thoght this was a discussion thread.

Edit: guess I forgot to put NO in my post

Don't start that.

This is a discussion/how I would vote thread, yes. However, throwing that out was not really conducive to constructive discussion. You know darn well that that would never fly.

[Caveman_Nick]

keggerz, on 3/3/10 2:31pm, said:

EDIT: NO I would not vote for this tag.

DISCUSSION:
why use subjective $'s on players...use the average of the top 3, 4, 5 or whatever bids from the previous RFA on each position and you can include a floor number just in case the previous year everyone was a dog

and I am not sure I can get on board with a tag that allows an owner to recoup their tag cost if they lose the player...that makes very little thought needed to use the tag....if you lose the player then oh well I still get my money back...and as in years past I don't like anything that will allow an owner to keep FT players at less than market value (ie; matching half the bid) so I guess that would probably put me in the camp of making compensation part of a FT but I haven't seen a compensation package I can get on board with yet.

EDIT: Better?

I think that the kind of FT being talked about here is one where you can basically bid on your own player at a fixed amount and assign them a 1 year deal.  It's just different from other kinds I have seen.

As far as the amounts in RFA, go ahead and do some calculations, but IMO any of these amounts is a high amount to put on a player that you are only getting for one year.  I am open to discussion on the amounts, though.

The bit about people getting their tag fee back if the player goes away is to stay away from other more complicated compensation packages.

[Dallas Sooner]

Personally, I like the way I put it much better, as I think compensation gives the current owner options. take the money or match the player.   And I love options.




This is a tag used in another league, just for good reading. Not trying to rework things here, but I would like to see more compromise from owners and we try and get everyones opinions, and ideas involved in some way.  Fusion since day one has always been its my way, or Im taking my ball and going home.  To me, fantasy football is suppose to be fun. Its suppose to be within the spirit of the rules, even if a clear loophole exists, and we should respect each others ideas more, as I thought I had the perfect Tag below, but CNs idea of tiered cost per position is a great idea IMO.  Never have been a voice of reason, so I wont say that, but Ive really tried to come along to others ideas, to make this league more active, fun, competitive like it was day 1. Not saying its bad now by any means, but I think most think it was better the first couple of years, and this is not a reflection of the new owners either.  Its some of us grumpy year 1ers




Franchise Tags [Restricted free agency cont']

13.14 - Each yr an owner may designate 1 player to be his franchise player whose contract expires, before April 1 RFA.
13.15 - Cost to designate a franchise player is 10 DBs each yr (see 13.16)
13.16 - franchise player may be bid on by the league, but said owner only has to pay half the amount of the high bid or 10 DBs (see 13.15) whichever is greater. Owner does not pay both cost (13.15) and high bid, just the greater of the 2.
13.17 - If current owner does not have the cash, or chooses not to match high bid of franchise player, said owner receives amount of high bid, plus high bids 1st round pick in the upcoming rookie draft. If high bid owner does not have a 1st round pick in upcoming rookie draft, said owner pays his highest pick in that draft plus 1st round pick in the next draft. [rule 10.14 applies here] If said owner does not have a 1st round pick in 2nd upcoming draft, he pays his highest pick in that draft as well and his 1st round pick in the 3rd upcoming draft. [rule 10.15 applies here] High bid owner could be out up to 3 draft picks if he chooses to trade his 1st round picks, and bid on opposing owners franchise players.
13.18 - 1.) - If you only have your original 1st...... then obviously you forfeit that pick.

2.) - If you have multiple 1st. Rd. picks and one of them is your original...... then you forfeit your original 1st. .... regardless of what the other pick is.

3.) - If you own multiple picks and none of them are your original then you forfeit the pick that is closest to your original pick in the order.... regardless of direction.





Some Franchise tag loopholes addressed, and to clarify the intention of the rule.



The tag is used to protect one player per owner per yr. The Franchise player is for the month of RFA only. Basically it is to allow you to protect 1 player during the month of RFA, or get some sort of compensation for that player if you dont have enough cash to match, or choose to take the pick and cash over the player you franchised. Once RFA is over, the FP is just another player on your roster, and you get to use the tag again the next yr on someone. So in the spirit of the rules, if you franchise a player, you cant trade him to another team during RFA, unless you get their FP back in the deal or to a team who doesnt have a FP assigned, and even then you can not use the tag again, because its past the FP announcement deadline.


The cost of the franchise tag is $10. That $10 is the current high bid on the franchise player for bidding purposes. the current owner only has to match half the bid amount, so the first available bid if you want to go after someones franchise player is $22. Which ups the current owners bid by 1, from 10 to 11 because he only has to match half. All Bids on FP must be in even numbers, as again the current owner only has to match half the bid.

Once franchise players are announced, there is no going back and changing them. So wait as long as you want up until the deadline to announce your franchise player. You are not allowed to franchise a player, then remove it off of any player before or after RFA begins. So its best to wait until you are absolutely sure who it is you want ot franchise. This is for many reasons, first if no one bids on your franchise player, you dont get to keep him, then use the tag again. Second the franchise tag is suppose to be a deterent on one of your players every yr, but owners can still bid and take them from you if they have twice as much cash to bid than you, or you choose to let the player walk for the picks and cash.

Edited by Dallas Sooner, 03 March 2010 - 05:11 PM.

[Dallas Sooner]

and yes, I would vote for this.

[Hugh B Tool]

NOPE

[Atlanta Cracker]

My intention would be that if you lose the player you get the tag $$ back.  So in terms of compensation I guess you could say that compensation for losing a player would be a refund of the tag price.  I can't see charging someone to tag a player and then they lose the player as well.

Sarge, we have tried that rule proposal before.  While I would support it there is no way to get it passed in this league.  This amalgamation of a rule is really our only chance.  The part left out is the compensation BUT you only get to keep a tagged player for 1 year.  If a player is acquired the new owner shouldn't have to pay double and give up a draft pick for a 1 year contract.

I think CN summed up what my response to Keg's objections would be..


Seems like we may be very close to something we can get done.  Let's leave it open for discussion a bit more but realize major overhauling probably won't happen.  Tweaking tag amounts will probably be ok.

[rajncajn]

Atlanta Cracker, on 3/3/10 10:03pm, said:

My intention would be that if you lose the player you get the tag $$ back.  So in terms of compensation I guess you could say that compensation for losing a player would be a refund of the tag price. I can't see charging someone to tag a player and then they lose the player as well.

Agree 100%. You're already losing what would be considered a top tier player, by tagging them you are running the risk of losing the player & a sizable amount of cash. In that case I couldn't ever see a scenario where I would actually want to risk using it.

[Dallas Sooner]

Atlanta Cracker, on 3/3/10 10:03pm, said:

My intention would be that if you lose the player you get the tag $$ back.  So in terms of compensation I guess you could say that compensation for losing a player would be a refund of the tag price.  I can't see charging someone to tag a player and then they lose the player as well.

Sarge, we have tried that rule proposal before.  While I would support it there is no way to get it passed in this league.  This amalgamation of a rule is really our only chance.  The part left out is the compensation BUT you only get to keep a tagged player for 1 year.  If a player is acquired the new owner shouldn't have to pay double and give up a draft pick for a 1 year contract.

I think CN summed up what my response to Keg's objections would be..


Seems like we may be very close to something we can get done.  Let's leave it open for discussion a bit more but realize major overhauling probably won't happen.  Tweaking tag amounts will probably be ok.

In the other league, there is no 1 yr restriction. So the compensation ia approprioate.  

And I know that would never get approved.

My frustration is the inability to compromise.  Im definately in favor of your proposal vs no tag at all.  I would like at the least to see the tweaks in price, to prevent the tag to be used on a whim. I think it should be used on superior talent.  But there is no way to interpret that.

Id just like those who are not interested in give a valid reason why they are against it, other than just Nope, Negative, Nota...

[rajncajn]

Dallas Sooner, on 3/3/10 11:19pm, said:

In the other league, there is no 1 yr restriction. So the compensation is appropriate.  

And I know that would never get approved.

My frustration is the inability to compromise.  I'm definitely in favor of your proposal vs no tag at all.  I would like at the least to see the tweaks in price, to prevent the tag to be used on a whim. I think it should be used on superior talent.  But there is no way to interpret that.

Id just like those who are not interested in give a valid reason why they are against it, other than just Nope, Negative, Nota...

Yeah, I don't quite understand the thought process of, "if it's not the way I like it I won't vote for it." If you're a proponent of the tag in general it makes more sense to help a simpler version get voted through & make tweaks and adjustments further down the road. The people who just say no I can understand because they just don't want the tag in any form. No discussion necessary.

[DKF]

I think its a good starting point