Author Topic: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)  (Read 693 times)

Talon

  • High Impact Football League Commissioner
  • Administrator
  • The 30,000 Post Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 36705
  • Beef / Broccoli 50019
    • View Profile
Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« on: December 26, 2017, 12:18:08 PM »
So in my researching about the NFL Franchise tag (since it always gets micro tweaks they don't talk about on TV) I saw the in the NFL that when you trade "two first round draft picks" for a franchise'd player, they must be YOUR TEAMS' Original draft picks.  meaning that a team can only trade THEIR 1st round pick (and one in the next season) in order to sign a tagged player.

Currently our rules are that you just have to have two firsts to offer (any, between this year and next) and that it is your choice which 2 you surrender as the signing team.

While these rules will be used this year since we are already into the off-season, I am curious if you as the players in the game feel the rules should be amended.  I have two different options:

Amendment proposal 1:
Quote
A team may only sign a franchise-tagged player to an offer sheet if they have their own first round pick for the upcoming draft and the following season's draft.

EXAMPLE:   Team A may only sign the franchise-tagged player from Team B for Team A's S10 1st round pick and Team A's S11 1st Round pick.


Amendment proposal 2:
Quote
A team may sign a franchised player so long as they have a minimum of two first round picks over the upcoming and following season, however it is up to the team losing it's franchise-tagged player to choose which picks they will receive.

EXAMPLE: Team A signs Team B's franchise-tagged player.   Team B then chooses from the pool of Team A's available 1st round draft picks from S10 and S11, choose the 2 of their choice.


I am fine leaving the rule as is, but if you would like to weigh in and vote, you may do so in either of the proposed situations OR vote to leave things as is.
Quote
GM Kirk [21|May 12:29 AM]:   When trade fever hits, math is the first casualty.

GM Powers

  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 3431
  • Beef / Broccoli 9013
  • GM of the Eastern Conference Champions
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2017, 12:34:49 PM »
I vote to leave it as is.


GM Lucas

  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
  • Beef / Broccoli 24
  • Winning starts Now!
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2017, 01:13:13 PM »
Keep it as. The way it is offers options to teams either going after a monster draft or going after a stud player. It makes you have to manage even when you are out of it. The other way I feel lets teams off easily. Team A could be on his last year if he don't do well so he sells off the future just trying to keep their job. If someone knows they will get fired they could just sell off this year and next year for a player.

GM T-Bone

  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 1688
  • Beef / Broccoli 5
  • @GMBoneKC
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2017, 01:32:59 PM »
As much as I think proposal 2 is probably superior to how it is now...I think both of these proposals will eliminate the franchise tag altogether. It doesn't get used much to begin with...because every position has 2 or 3 players that make well above the average salary for the position, and that makes the franchise tag too expensive for players that would otherwise get tagged.

The tl;dr portion is leave it as is.

GM Strike Guy

  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 4686
  • Beef / Broccoli 66
  • Milwaukee Barons GM
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2017, 02:56:20 PM »
Im in agreement to leave it as it is.

GM Gates

  • Impact Bowl 8 & 9 Champion
  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 1963
  • Beef / Broccoli 19
  • 2x Impact Bowl Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2017, 02:57:26 PM »
I'm alright leaving things as is.

GM TJ II

  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 3138
  • Beef / Broccoli -2
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2017, 03:00:01 PM »
I vote for Proposal two.

The franchise tag is meant for teams to hang onto franchise players while compensating players with a top 5 average salary AND only a one year deal.

Yeah you could argue that two first rounders is quite the compensation for teams to lose their franchise player but Id rather have the best chance(s) i can get to replace that franchise player. Especially if that player was a top 5 pick and Im getting low end first rounds

GM Jon

  • IMPACT BOWL VI AND VII CHAMPION!
  • Prediction Admin / PBL Moderator
  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3278
  • Beef / Broccoli 1334
  • Quiffy
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2017, 05:13:23 PM »
I'm with TJ here.

I vote for proposal 2.



  

GM Gooch

  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 2861
  • Beef / Broccoli 88
  • Never wanted the fame, I only wanted to be great
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2017, 05:42:57 PM »
I was for proposal 1 until TJ said what he did. I vote for 2, as well.
Quote
GM Kirk [12|Mar 04:19 PM]: Gooch, how much did you bribe the HIFLPA to help you steal all my players?
GM TJ [12|Mar 04:21 PM]: Lolololololololooooooooooollllllllllll
Disgraced GM Powers [12|Mar 04:24 PM]: The league is #TeamGooch
GM Gravedigger [12|Mar 04:25 PM]: It's because he's so nice....
GM Gravedigger [12|Mar 04:25 PM]: Unnaturally nice...
GM Adam Wrong [12|Mar 04:25 PM]: I love gooch
GM Gravedigger [12|Mar 04:26 PM]: Everyone loves Gooch, except Kirk...
GM Phoenix [12|Mar 04:28 PM]: Almost makes you think gooch is reincarnate red skull trying to live a double nice guy life on hifl
GM Gravedigger [12|Mar 04:31 PM]: Gooch's heel turn will rival Hogan....

GM Dazz

  • The 500 Post Club
  • **
  • Posts: 995
  • Beef / Broccoli 1
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2017, 06:17:40 PM »
This may be surprising but I agree with Jon and TJ. I vote for option 2.

GM Pancho

  • IMPACT BOWL V CHAMPION!
  • The 500 Post Club
  • **
  • Posts: 781
  • Beef / Broccoli 16
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2017, 06:21:30 PM »
I vote for proposal 2.  It offers the team losing the player how they want their cap space to play or if they are on "make or break" years to go all in on talent now or go all in later.

This is of course assuming the teams don't come to an agreement.

Talon

  • High Impact Football League Commissioner
  • Administrator
  • The 30,000 Post Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 36705
  • Beef / Broccoli 50019
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2017, 06:55:08 PM »
There is now a formal poll, please vote.
Quote
GM Kirk [21|May 12:29 AM]:   When trade fever hits, math is the first casualty.

GM Powers

  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 3431
  • Beef / Broccoli 9013
  • GM of the Eastern Conference Champions
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2017, 07:27:34 PM »
After a re-read and re-think I am in favor of #2.


GM Kirk

  • The Freakin' Man
  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 2507
  • Beef / Broccoli 1019
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2017, 08:48:52 PM »
I agree with Jon. Option 2 makes the most sense. If you're stealing another team's franchise player, you must be prepared to pay big.

GM Kirk

  • The Freakin' Man
  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 2507
  • Beef / Broccoli 1019
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2017, 08:50:09 PM »
I mean I agree with TJ. I knew it was one of the ones I don't usually agree with.

GM Justin

  • Supreme Basketball Alliance sim Moderator
  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ****
  • Posts: 2456
  • Beef / Broccoli 19
  • Batter up!
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2017, 09:51:07 PM »
I am going be voting for scenario 1.  Long story, short, I believe it creates the need for GMs to be more strategic with their trading of picks.  As of now, GMs trade picks with little regard (not there is anything wrong with it), but I believe this will give some GMs more reason to think about those trades.  That coupled with my gut instinct that I believe over the next season or two we will see negotiations get tougher and the need for the franchise tag will come more into play.

GM Pancho

  • IMPACT BOWL V CHAMPION!
  • The 500 Post Club
  • **
  • Posts: 781
  • Beef / Broccoli 16
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2017, 02:51:56 PM »
I am going be voting for scenario 1.  Long story, short, I believe it creates the need for GMs to be more strategic with their trading of picks.  As of now, GMs trade picks with little regard (not there is anything wrong with it), but I believe this will give some GMs more reason to think about those trades.  That coupled with my gut instinct that I believe over the next season or two we will see negotiations get tougher and the need for the franchise tag will come more into play.

I see your point but I counter with scenario two simply because the financial planning can be left up to the team losing the tagged player.

I'll use Alabama as an example.  Say they wanted to tag Botts or Kirk or Bruce ... and they managed to sign other players.  This year's payroll especially in PR would be a nightmare with forcing them to go for 2 1st round draft picks and the PR they command.

The flexibility allows the team to push those PR numbers off till next year where they can take the player after having spent a season or off season off loading contracts.

Flexibility for the team losing a player should be the optimum concern.

GM Lucas

  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
  • Beef / Broccoli 24
  • Winning starts Now!
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2017, 03:42:06 PM »
I'm not in favor of changing anything but it seems like a change is coming but can someone help me understand #2 a bit better.

Is it, if I franchise a guy and have two first round picks does the team get to choose my only two picks in the first or can they decline the second first round pick and instead choose a first rounder in season 10 and a first rounder in season 11.

If that is the case I don't think there should be an option. I don't think the team losing the player should be able to decide if they want to split the picks or if they want the two picks in the first round.

Example: If I have a two first round picks #16 and #22. That should be the offer. The other team should not have a decision to take my #16 overall and next seasons first rounder.

With that said, strategy must come from both sides. Pancho gave a good example of the players he could have chosen from. Honestly if Pancho didn't sign Bruce and Franchised him I would have went after him BIG TIME! $$$$$. He chose to put his eggs in a basket and just get it done, that was his strategy. He could have also tagged him, got two picks and maybe made a deal to jump up to the Crowns and take the brother. again, Strategy. My point and end to this rant is just because a team goes after someone's else s tagged player shouldn't mean the team losing the player goes on a shopping spree. It can't be two steps forward, three steps back. has to be equal.

If the rule is gonna be changed then it should be that of the two first round picks, one must be a top 10 pick and if there are more then one top ten picks then the team holding the pick decides. Just my thoughts.

GM Justin

  • Supreme Basketball Alliance sim Moderator
  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ****
  • Posts: 2456
  • Beef / Broccoli 19
  • Batter up!
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2017, 06:01:39 PM »
I see your point but I counter with scenario two simply because the financial planning can be left up to the team losing the tagged player.

I'll use Alabama as an example.  Say they wanted to tag Botts or Kirk or Bruce ... and they managed to sign other players.  This year's payroll especially in PR would be a nightmare with forcing them to go for 2 1st round draft picks and the PR they command.

The flexibility allows the team to push those PR numbers off till next year where they can take the player after having spent a season or off season off loading contracts.

Flexibility for the team losing a player should be the optimum concern.

Fair point, but one of our goals as GM is to ensure our franchise players do not get To the point where we have to franchise them. Which means putting together a competitive team to entice them to stay along with proper compensation. In my opinion, scenario 2 gives the losing team a chance to recoup something they deserve to lose.

GM Kirk

  • The Freakin' Man
  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 2507
  • Beef / Broccoli 1019
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2017, 06:07:25 PM »
How often does.the tagged player actually move teams? If the team losing the player gets to.choose the picks, they might be less inclined to match the contract offer.

GM Metroll

  • EAT, SLEEP, TRAPE, REPEAT
  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Beef / Broccoli 788
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2018, 04:20:13 PM »
Is the 13 votes in favor of the amendment enough that this motion got carried?

Talon

  • High Impact Football League Commissioner
  • Administrator
  • The 30,000 Post Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 36705
  • Beef / Broccoli 50019
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2018, 05:04:06 PM »
I have reset the vote since some of the voting GMs are gone and we have new guys.. I'll leave it open for a week or so.
Quote
GM Kirk [21|May 12:29 AM]:   When trade fever hits, math is the first casualty.

GM Jon

  • IMPACT BOWL VI AND VII CHAMPION!
  • Prediction Admin / PBL Moderator
  • The 1,000 Post Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3278
  • Beef / Broccoli 1334
  • Quiffy
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2018, 06:00:42 PM »
Still like #2.



  

GM Bennett

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Beef / Broccoli 3
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2018, 12:09:27 PM »
I'm voting Amendment #2

GM Eli

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Posts: 228
  • Beef / Broccoli 5
    • View Profile
Re: Rule Amendment: (Franchise Tag)
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2018, 02:07:45 PM »
I also voted for Amendment #2