|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Feb 25, 2018 21:08:22 GMT -5
If a player sells for 1 year, $25M, or even 1 year, $50M (happening in DD2 right now) he should not be able to be Franchise Tagged for $15M the next year. We need to come up with a better system for Franchise Tag tiers based on previous salary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 22:29:37 GMT -5
Why not? That’s a legitimate strategy. If you have the cap space, that’s an advantage. It contributes to the balance of power. High salaried stacked teams don’t have as good of a shot with these players as rebuilding low payroll teams. I think it’s fine as is. Dd3 I can do this, Dd4 I can’t because a high payroll. I like the advantage in dd3 and understand and accept the disadvantage in Dd4
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Feb 25, 2018 23:50:00 GMT -5
We can't change the rules at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Feb 26, 2018 0:26:45 GMT -5
We can change the rules for future seasons. I'm not talking about for right now or 2018. Any rule change needs a 2/3 approval vote. I just want to discuss options. The way it's set up now is a flaw in the system and owners can work the system which I don't like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 1:28:05 GMT -5
It’s only a flaw if you can’t benefit from it methinks.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Feb 28, 2018 12:28:17 GMT -5
My feelings on this haven't changed since 2016 when it was first brought up. It's an incentive to tank your team and I don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Feb 28, 2018 13:39:12 GMT -5
I am inclined to agree. It's not realistic, the player would push back and demand more years. I think a RFA-like set of rules for bidding wouldn't be a crazy idea.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Nationals (Brendan) on Feb 28, 2018 23:41:08 GMT -5
You really think that a young, with upside, but certainly mid-level starter would turn down a 1 year, $50m deal and be able to get back in the market the following year, because this hypothetical player would be demanding multiple years? That's ridiculous. I also don't understand why it's an incentive to tank. I don't consider my team tanking, I just think a bid like this is the best use of my available cap space. If you restrict contracts too much, especially with the years of cheap control that are gifted to the franchise on the front end, the cap essentially becomes a number that no one will ever hit. No major league team would ever do this because it would be a bad precedent to set. It would raise players' expectations. It would also stand in the way of the owners pocketing more money. The beauty of fantasy leagues is that we don't actually have to deal with those personal aspects. We just set constraints and compete to see who can best exploit them to succeed in the game. Whatever constraints you set, there will be exploitable aspects. That doesn't make them flaws, it's the reason that complex leagues like this are great. It's a level playing field. How do you plan to attack the problem laid out in front of you? That's a question we've all been answering since this league began, and to change the rules without at least 2 years notice gives an advantage to those that have pursued strategies that will fit in the future rules better.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Feb 28, 2018 23:43:45 GMT -5
I don't have a problem at all with someone bidding $25M for 1 year, or get this, $51M even. No issue whatsoever if you have the cap space.
What I don't want to see happen is taking that $50M one year deal and then turning it into another 4 or 5 years at only $15M each season. That's not fair and is definitely working the system. Me thinks there should be some type of tier system for Franchise Tags, maybe something like this. With $15M as the number to use for any salaries that were $20M and under. Maybe $20M+ up to $30M would be $17.5M to Franchise Tag. And then $30M+ to $40M could be a $20M Franchise Tag cost, and why not? $40M+ maybe is something like $25M per year to FT.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Nationals (Brendan) on Feb 28, 2018 23:55:41 GMT -5
I’m not necessarily against any rule changes, as long as everyone is given lead time to change course. If we’re talking about changes taking effect in 2020, I have no issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 0:02:08 GMT -5
Again, is this unfair because it doesn’t fit certain people’s current team makeup because they are bogged down by big contracts that don’t afford them to do deals like this. Life is unfair! This is within the parameters of the rules, any rule change would be based off of the perception of unfairness by teams that simply can’t afford to take advantage of this system
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 1:07:33 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that if I'm not the 1st guy, I'm in the lead group of people that have been talking about Franchise Tags and Free Agency bidding for over a year now, so A) My bad...didn't mean to get everyone going (when I say everyone, I mean the 5 people that talk on here) B)I just think the rules could be better.
I'm not doing it cause of strategy or cap space...my strategy obviously, isn't very good and I have tons of cap space (I don't bid on principal, I'm not spending $51M on Zach Goody...and it's not even real money).
I just think it can be better...A little more realistic (ironic). Also, I think it can be faster too.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Mar 1, 2018 3:38:31 GMT -5
I traded for Trout and previous traded for Scherzer. Both those players real life contracts end at $30M+. It would not be fair to change the $15M franchise tag at this point. I've been counting on having Trout at $15M tagged in a few years. These are the things that need to stay etched in concrete. That's the whole purpose behind dynasty- staying within a strategy and not have rules change as we go. Those are not "fluid" changes. If you guys want to change something like the clock on FA type stuff, that's fine, because that doesn't mess with any part of the dynasty strategy for someone.
I don't think I'd ever bid $50M on a FA but to each their own. That's their strategy. There was nothing wrong with Tripp and I think Alex bidding on Price and Greinke the first year with the intention of franchise tagging them for $15M shortly after. Can't change the tag money to $20M all of a sudden because if they would've known that would happen, they might not have bid like that from the start.
And please don't wait til 2019 or 2020 to vote or make changes. If we are going to vote then we need to do it now and not necessarily because I may depart the league, but because the longer it waits, the more our long term strategy for how we play will have to be on hold.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Mar 1, 2018 4:29:59 GMT -5
Good point Paul. If you change the rules to say you can't FT someone with over X salary, it should only be relevant for contracts in the future- Trout for example could still be franchise tagged.
Just to be clear, I'll play to whatever rules exist and if the league wants to leave this as-is I'm cool. It's usually avoided anyway, because these sorts of players usually end up tagged. But the dynamic doesn't feel right, and I'd vote for some sort of tweak.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Mar 1, 2018 8:58:26 GMT -5
I don't know where you get the idea that rules can't be fluid. I've never been in a league that didn't see significant changes to the rules.
|
|