IMPORTANT INFO: The basis for this FT is that bids are done blindly and then the owners of Franchise Players can decide on
what compensation package(by the bid) that they want to receive if they decide to let a FP walk. The cost of the tag is all the team will
have to put forward to keep their FP unless they want to let him go for compensation.
FT.1 Each year an owner may designate one player whose contract has expired to be their Franchise Player.
FT.2 The Franchise Tag is a designation that only has relevance during the Franchise Player Period in March and to indicate if a player is eligible to receive the Franchise Tag again(players can only be tagged for 2 consecutive years, no matter if they change teams).
FT.3 The cost to franchise a player is $XX (30% suggested). This $XX is non-refundable.
FT.4 The deadline for assigning the Franchise Tag for your franchise is March 14 at 11:59pm, and must be posted in the league forum.
FT.5 Blind Bids on Franchise players can be submitted from March 15th thru March 23rd at 11:59pm and will be submitted to "tbd email addy".
FT.5a Blind Bids can be any combination of ATAP Cash, Players and/or Draft Picks.
FT.5b Franchise Players may be bid on by the 15 other teams in the league. A team can try to acquire multiple Franchise Players but in submitting their bids they cannot submit the same draft pick for different Franchise Players and they cannot submit cash bids that when combined will exceed their current level of ATAP Cash.
FT.6 On March 24th a Commissioner will create a thread that lists each bid for each Franchise Player. Owner of Franchise Players will then have until March 30th 11:59pm to decide if they will keep their Franchise Player or let them go. Once the blind bids are posted Franchise Players will not be able to be traded until the owner decides to keep the player or let him go for the compensation package of one of the blind bids.
FT.6a If a team decides to keep their Franchise Player they keep them at no additional cost then what the Franchise Tag cost was and they will automatically be given a 1 year contract.
FT.6b If a team decides it is willing to let its Franchise Player go for compensation they must post their intentions in the Commissioners thread with the Blind Bids and state which team they are going to let their Franchise Player go to and in turn accept that teams compensation package. The winning team will then be able to assign the Franchise Player any length contract they desire(contracts will be assigned according to "rule number for contract deadlines".
FT.6c When a team lets their Franchise Player go they will immediately receive the cash portion of that bid(if there was cash bid) and will be assigned the appropriate draft picks from the team that is acquiring the Franchise Player.
FT.7 A Player can only be Franchise Tagged for 2 consecutive years(Does not matter if they are owned by a different team or not).
edit: to Bold out the FT#s
2nd edit: RED TYPE in FT.6b is to include the contract length a winning team can assign(leaving it out was an oversight)
3rd edit: RED TYPE in FT.6 i forgot to clarify that you cant trade a FP once the blind bids are posted but after you say if you want to keep the FP or let him go then the player is eligible to be traded again.
4th edit: RED TYPE in FT.5a of PLAYERS was never added and should have been as it was clarified that players would be available to be included in compensation packages. An addendum will need to be added to specify how to submit players(name, position team, contract length etc) in compensation package bids.
Full Version: Keg's FT Rule
The Huddle Fantasy Football Forums > League Forums > BoTH Fantasy Football League Forums > Any Time, Any Place Dynasty League
This is another different and interesting way to do the FT.
I like the simplicity of this rule, and like that there is some form of compensation. This and Swiss''s offering are my top two, simply due to the simplicity of the rules.
QUOTE(The Wolf @ 1/18/08 5:11pm) 
I like the simplicity of this rule, and like that there is some form of compensation. This and Swiss''s offering are my top two, simply due to the simplicity of the rules.
This rule definitely got my attention.
First, it's unclear what happens to the FP's contract if the original owner lets him go to another team. Is the player still under a 1-year deal for his new team? Or does the new team get to assign him a contract freely?
Also, what's the difference between this rule and simple, outright trading of FPs? The only two differences I see are (1) there's no opportunity for negotiation, since the "trade offers" are of the secret-ballot variety and (2) it's forbidden to offer players along with or instead of cash/picks.
I kinda like difference #1 -- it would force owners to make their strongest offer all at once, instead of the annoying low-ball strategy that's common in trade negotiations. It also mimics the NFL in the sense that the team who has more cash than the other 15 owners won't automatically win the FP. In the real NFL, it doesn't matter how much money other teams offer a player; the original team will trade the player to whomever provides the best trade offer.
My main problem is with difference #2 -- if you're allowing draft picks to be part of the "bids," then why not allow players, too? I don't like the concept that a team with signficant depth at one or two positions, but minimal cash or picks, wouldn't be able to acquire the FP.
Last thing...I'm assuming this rule allows FPs -- whether on 1-year deals or otherwise -- to be traded during and/or after RFA. If that's the case, what's the incentive to submit a blind bid before RFA? If anything, it will be EASIER for owners to acquire a FP via trade, since they can include ALL their resources (players, picks, cash). I can tell you that I seriously doubt I'd submit any blind bids on FPs; it would make more sense to see how RFA shakes out, then use whatever resources I have to trade for one of the FPs.
So, the only real way this rule would work would be to disallow trading of FPs...and you know I'm not in favor of that.
First, it's unclear what happens to the FP's contract if the original owner lets him go to another team. Is the player still under a 1-year deal for his new team? Or does the new team get to assign him a contract freely?
Also, what's the difference between this rule and simple, outright trading of FPs? The only two differences I see are (1) there's no opportunity for negotiation, since the "trade offers" are of the secret-ballot variety and (2) it's forbidden to offer players along with or instead of cash/picks.
I kinda like difference #1 -- it would force owners to make their strongest offer all at once, instead of the annoying low-ball strategy that's common in trade negotiations. It also mimics the NFL in the sense that the team who has more cash than the other 15 owners won't automatically win the FP. In the real NFL, it doesn't matter how much money other teams offer a player; the original team will trade the player to whomever provides the best trade offer.
My main problem is with difference #2 -- if you're allowing draft picks to be part of the "bids," then why not allow players, too? I don't like the concept that a team with signficant depth at one or two positions, but minimal cash or picks, wouldn't be able to acquire the FP.
Last thing...I'm assuming this rule allows FPs -- whether on 1-year deals or otherwise -- to be traded during and/or after RFA. If that's the case, what's the incentive to submit a blind bid before RFA? If anything, it will be EASIER for owners to acquire a FP via trade, since they can include ALL their resources (players, picks, cash). I can tell you that I seriously doubt I'd submit any blind bids on FPs; it would make more sense to see how RFA shakes out, then use whatever resources I have to trade for one of the FPs.
So, the only real way this rule would work would be to disallow trading of FPs...and you know I'm not in favor of that.
QUOTE(Swiss Cheezhead @ 1/18/08 7:23pm)
This rule definitely got my attention.
First, it's unclear what happens to the FP's contract if the original owner lets him go to another team. Is the player still under a 1-year deal for his new team? Or does the new team get to assign him a contract freely?
Also, what's the difference between this rule and simple, outright trading of FPs? The only two differences I see are (1) there's no opportunity for negotiation, since the "trade offers" are of the secret-ballot variety and (2) it's forbidden to offer players along with or instead of cash/picks.
I kinda like difference #1 -- it would force owners to make their strongest offer all at once, instead of the annoying low-ball strategy that's common in trade negotiations. It also mimics the NFL in the sense that the team who has more cash than the other 15 owners won't automatically win the FP. In the real NFL, it doesn't matter how much money other teams offer a player; the original team will trade the player to whomever provides the best trade offer.
My main problem is with difference #2 -- if you're allowing draft picks to be part of the "bids," then why not allow players, too? I don't like the concept that a team with signficant depth at one or two positions, but minimal cash or picks, wouldn't be able to acquire the FP.
Last thing...I'm assuming this rule allows FPs -- whether on 1-year deals or otherwise -- to be traded during and/or after RFA. If that's the case, what's the incentive to submit a blind bid before RFA? If anything, it will be EASIER for owners to acquire a FP via trade, since they can include ALL their resources (players, picks, cash). I can tell you that I seriously doubt I'd submit any blind bids on FPs; it would make more sense to see how RFA shakes out, then use whatever resources I have to trade for one of the FPs.
So, the only real way this rule would work would be to disallow trading of FPs...and you know I'm not in favor of that.
First, it's unclear what happens to the FP's contract if the original owner lets him go to another team. Is the player still under a 1-year deal for his new team? Or does the new team get to assign him a contract freely?
Also, what's the difference between this rule and simple, outright trading of FPs? The only two differences I see are (1) there's no opportunity for negotiation, since the "trade offers" are of the secret-ballot variety and (2) it's forbidden to offer players along with or instead of cash/picks.
I kinda like difference #1 -- it would force owners to make their strongest offer all at once, instead of the annoying low-ball strategy that's common in trade negotiations. It also mimics the NFL in the sense that the team who has more cash than the other 15 owners won't automatically win the FP. In the real NFL, it doesn't matter how much money other teams offer a player; the original team will trade the player to whomever provides the best trade offer.
My main problem is with difference #2 -- if you're allowing draft picks to be part of the "bids," then why not allow players, too? I don't like the concept that a team with signficant depth at one or two positions, but minimal cash or picks, wouldn't be able to acquire the FP.
Last thing...I'm assuming this rule allows FPs -- whether on 1-year deals or otherwise -- to be traded during and/or after RFA. If that's the case, what's the incentive to submit a blind bid before RFA? If anything, it will be EASIER for owners to acquire a FP via trade, since they can include ALL their resources (players, picks, cash). I can tell you that I seriously doubt I'd submit any blind bids on FPs; it would make more sense to see how RFA shakes out, then use whatever resources I have to trade for one of the FPs.
So, the only real way this rule would work would be to disallow trading of FPs...and you know I'm not in favor of that.
just got back from a hockey game and i will address in the morning...i threw the rule together quickly but i think i may have left out a small part that is one of your concerns...as for the trading during RFA....you will notice my dates are in MARCH...FPs would be taken of PRIOR to RFA and now MARCH would be a month where something was going on
QUOTE(Swiss Cheezhead @ 1/18/08 7:23pm)
This rule definitely got my attention.
First, it's unclear what happens to the FP's contract if the original owner lets him go to another team. Is the player still under a 1-year deal for his new team? Or does the new team get to assign him a contract freely?
The new team gets to assign a contract freely...if people wanted to put a cap on that contract length(say 3yrs) then we could look at adding that
Also, what's the difference between this rule and simple, outright trading of FPs? The only two differences I see are (1) there's no opportunity for negotiation, since the "trade offers" are of the secret-ballot variety and (2) it's forbidden to offer players along with or instead of cash/picks.
Yeah you could just trade the FPs but then they still have no contract so the acquiring team will be locked into a 1yr deal max. If you want him for an extened length of time you will have to win him via the blind bid and have your bid accepted. I didnt write in the rule that players could be used in the blind bid but i would not be opposed to them being an option...but again if you bid on multiple FPs you can only use your assets once in every bid
I kinda like difference #1 -- it would force owners to make their strongest offer all at once, instead of the annoying low-ball strategy that's common in trade negotiations. It also mimics the NFL in the sense that the team who has more cash than the other 15 owners won't automatically win the FP. In the real NFL, it doesn't matter how much money other teams offer a player; the original team will trade the player to whomever provides the best trade offer.
That and you will also see a team possibly send a player to an out of division or out of conf team for less to keep them out of their division
My main problem is with difference #2 -- if you're allowing draft picks to be part of the "bids," then why not allow players, too? I don't like the concept that a team with signficant depth at one or two positions, but minimal cash or picks, wouldn't be able to acquire the FP.
Like i said above i would not be opposed to having players be a part of the compensation that can be offered....if we do this then I will need to add a rule that states exactly how bids need to be submitted(ie: players name , position, contract so that when its posted its all posted no hunting for what a players contract length is)
Last thing...I'm assuming this rule allows FPs -- whether on 1-year deals or otherwise -- to be traded during and/or after RFA. If that's the case, what's the incentive to submit a blind bid before RFA? If anything, it will be EASIER for owners to acquire a FP via trade, since they can include ALL their resources (players, picks, cash). I can tell you that I seriously doubt I'd submit any blind bids on FPs; it would make more sense to see how RFA shakes out, then use whatever resources I have to trade for one of the FPs.
Actually the way this rule works is all FP activity takes place in MARCH the month prior to RFA...but to answer your question about what would keep them from trading after RFA since they will have all their picks etc...it would be that the player would only have a ONE YR DEAL vs if they bid they can give a contract of any length(unless we cap it at say 3 yrs or something)
So, the only real way this rule would work would be to disallow trading of FPs...and you know I'm not in favor of that.
I think that my explanations above will make you realize this rule will work without disallowing trading of FPs.
First, it's unclear what happens to the FP's contract if the original owner lets him go to another team. Is the player still under a 1-year deal for his new team? Or does the new team get to assign him a contract freely?
The new team gets to assign a contract freely...if people wanted to put a cap on that contract length(say 3yrs) then we could look at adding that
Also, what's the difference between this rule and simple, outright trading of FPs? The only two differences I see are (1) there's no opportunity for negotiation, since the "trade offers" are of the secret-ballot variety and (2) it's forbidden to offer players along with or instead of cash/picks.
Yeah you could just trade the FPs but then they still have no contract so the acquiring team will be locked into a 1yr deal max. If you want him for an extened length of time you will have to win him via the blind bid and have your bid accepted. I didnt write in the rule that players could be used in the blind bid but i would not be opposed to them being an option...but again if you bid on multiple FPs you can only use your assets once in every bid
I kinda like difference #1 -- it would force owners to make their strongest offer all at once, instead of the annoying low-ball strategy that's common in trade negotiations. It also mimics the NFL in the sense that the team who has more cash than the other 15 owners won't automatically win the FP. In the real NFL, it doesn't matter how much money other teams offer a player; the original team will trade the player to whomever provides the best trade offer.
That and you will also see a team possibly send a player to an out of division or out of conf team for less to keep them out of their division
My main problem is with difference #2 -- if you're allowing draft picks to be part of the "bids," then why not allow players, too? I don't like the concept that a team with signficant depth at one or two positions, but minimal cash or picks, wouldn't be able to acquire the FP.
Like i said above i would not be opposed to having players be a part of the compensation that can be offered....if we do this then I will need to add a rule that states exactly how bids need to be submitted(ie: players name , position, contract so that when its posted its all posted no hunting for what a players contract length is)
Last thing...I'm assuming this rule allows FPs -- whether on 1-year deals or otherwise -- to be traded during and/or after RFA. If that's the case, what's the incentive to submit a blind bid before RFA? If anything, it will be EASIER for owners to acquire a FP via trade, since they can include ALL their resources (players, picks, cash). I can tell you that I seriously doubt I'd submit any blind bids on FPs; it would make more sense to see how RFA shakes out, then use whatever resources I have to trade for one of the FPs.
Actually the way this rule works is all FP activity takes place in MARCH the month prior to RFA...but to answer your question about what would keep them from trading after RFA since they will have all their picks etc...it would be that the player would only have a ONE YR DEAL vs if they bid they can give a contract of any length(unless we cap it at say 3 yrs or something)
So, the only real way this rule would work would be to disallow trading of FPs...and you know I'm not in favor of that.
I think that my explanations above will make you realize this rule will work without disallowing trading of FPs.
Did i clarify your questions well enough?
QUOTE(keggerz @ 1/19/08 10:00am)
Did i clarify your questions well enough?
Actually, yeah. The main element I didn't realize, obviously, was difference in the contracts when you win the player in a bid and when you trade for him. And, YES, I'd absolutely want to see players be eligible parts of bid packages.
I think I really like this rule.
But I'll have to think a little more. 
QUOTE(Swiss Cheezhead @ 1/19/08 12:24pm)
Actually, yeah. The main element I didn't realize, obviously, was difference in the contracts when you win the player in a bid and when you trade for him. And, YES, I'd absolutely want to see players be eligible parts of bid packages.
I think I really like this rule. But I'll have to think a little more.
I think I really like this rule.
But I'll have to think a little more.
If our two proposals come up for vote today, can we clarify with certainty that players can be included in bid packages? I don't see any reason why others would have a problem with that, but I figure we should settle that issue before doing the official/final vote.
I'd probably vote for this rule over my own, but only if we're allowed to use ALL our resources in our bids.
I'd probably vote for this rule over my own, but only if we're allowed to use ALL our resources in our bids.
QUOTE(Swiss Cheezhead @ 1/25/08 7:44am)
If our two proposals come up for vote today, can we clarify with certainty that players can be included in bid packages? I don't see any reason why others would have a problem with that, but I figure we should settle that issue before doing the official/final vote.
I'd probably vote for this rule over my own, but only if we're allowed to use ALL our resources in our bids.
I'd probably vote for this rule over my own, but only if we're allowed to use ALL our resources in our bids.
since you recommended that I made the amendedment to it...if people dont like it then i guess they will vote for your rule but i think it
was an excellent suggestion on your part...
2 things about this that if it passes need to be addressed IMO.
1) I really do not like the idea that another team's use of a FT could affect my use of a FT. Having a rule that limits one team's use of a FT on a player is okay....but I don't like a rule in which something you do with your team could affect decisions that I am allowed to make with mine.
2) Once the blind bids are revealed, are they subject to negotiation? Essentially the way you have positioned these bids is that they are trade offers, not so much bids. So can the owner of the FP work with bidders is an offer is close but not quite what they want?
1) I really do not like the idea that another team's use of a FT could affect my use of a FT. Having a rule that limits one team's use of a FT on a player is okay....but I don't like a rule in which something you do with your team could affect decisions that I am allowed to make with mine.
2) Once the blind bids are revealed, are they subject to negotiation? Essentially the way you have positioned these bids is that they are trade offers, not so much bids. So can the owner of the FP work with bidders is an offer is close but not quite what they want?
QUOTE(Caveman_Nick @ 1/25/08 10:04am)
2 things about this that if it passes need to be addressed IMO.
1) I really do not like the idea that another team's use of a FT could affect my use of a FT. Having a rule that limits one team's use of a FT on a player is okay....but I don't like a rule in which something you do with your team could affect decisions that I am allowed to make with mine.
2) Once the blind bids are revealed, are they subject to negotiation? Essentially the way you have positioned these bids is that they are trade offers, not so much bids. So can the owner of the FP work with bidders is an offer is close but not quite what they want?
1) I really do not like the idea that another team's use of a FT could affect my use of a FT. Having a rule that limits one team's use of a FT on a player is okay....but I don't like a rule in which something you do with your team could affect decisions that I am allowed to make with mine.
2) Once the blind bids are revealed, are they subject to negotiation? Essentially the way you have positioned these bids is that they are trade offers, not so much bids. So can the owner of the FP work with bidders is an offer is close but not quite what they want?
1. I will get with you on aim to see exactly what you mean
2. The bids are FINAL....that is why there is no trading once the bids are posted until the owner posts his intentions...the fact that if the owner keeps the player and they can only get a 1yr deal cuts out any sorta shenanigans of i will give you more if you match and then trade him to me...yeah a team can still trade after the fact but that player will have a 1 yr deal.
I want to leave this pinned to make sure everyone understands how this will work.
QUOTE(keggerz @ 1/18/08 3:26pm)
FT.3 The cost to franchise a player is $XX (30% suggested). This $XX is non-refundable.
I should probably know this, but did we ever come up with an official cost for the FT?
QUOTE(Ziachild007 @ 2/6/08 10:45am)
I should probably know this, but did we ever come up with an official cost for the FT?
nope, but $30 is the suggested amount
QUOTE(keggerz @ 2/6/08 9:37am)
nope, but $30 is the suggested amount
That's as good of an amount as any. I'd agree to that.
QUOTE(Bronco Billy @ 2/6/08 12:07pm)
That's as good of an amount as any. I'd agree to that.
+1
QUOTE(DKF @ 2/6/08 10:15am)
+1
+2
Fine by me.
We have at least 6 owners in favor of the franchice cost being $30. Are there any objections to this? Since the player declaration deadline is March 14th, we probably need to get this squared away in the next few days.
QUOTE (Ziachild007 @ 2/26/09 11:45am)
We have at least 6 owners in favor of the franchice cost being $30. Are there any objections to this? Since the player declaration deadline is March 14th, we probably need to get this squared away in the next few days.
$30 is good with me
Everyone (especially the new folks) please re-read this to make sure you understand how this is going to work.
I'm pretty sure I have a whole year to learn this rule. 
QUOTE (tbimm @ 3/7/09 11:45am)
I'm pretty sure I have a whole year to learn this rule.
so is that a YES vote?
QUOTE (Ziachild007 @ 3/6/09 11:01pm)
Everyone (especially the new folks) please re-read this to make sure you understand how this is going to work.
Ive read it and I like it. My vote is yes.
QUOTE (keggerz @ 3/7/09 12:26pm)
so is that a YES vote?
Yes sir.
Same as Peep, I likely won't be using the rule until next year or the year after but I agree with the rule.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.