|
Post by Atlanta Indians (Brent) on Dec 5, 2018 22:30:22 GMT -5
We have had several discussions over the last couple years about the problem of the Franchise Tag. Scott and myself have adopted this proposal as the Franchise Tag Rule for DD5, and we are proposing to use the same for our league.
A player may only be Franchised once. Said player may be retained for 1 to 5 additional years. The current rule we have in place is the that franchise tag has a flat salary of $15m per year. We are proposing the following change.
1. If that player, on his expiring contract, had an AAS (Average Annual Salary) of less than $15M/year, then the Franchise tag will be at $15M/year.
2. If a player had an AAS of $15M or greater, then the Franchise Tag will be at an amount of 120% of that AAS. For example, if Mike Trout is an impending free agent whose expiring contract was at an AAS of $30M, then the Franchise Tag would have to be at an AAS of 120% of $30M, or $36M
.
If passed, this new Franchise Tag would go into effect next season, meaning being applicable to Franchise Tags applied for the 2020 season.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Dec 7, 2018 7:28:32 GMT -5
This is a little unfair to the guy who traded for Trout. I'd be in favour of this with an exception carved out for existing contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Dec 7, 2018 10:24:54 GMT -5
Yep very unfair for me and that is why I voted no. If I have to be stuck with a $36M AAS that is really going to hurt. A big part of my strategy of trading for him, and not trading him away was because of the look ahead of $15M AAS for 5 years. Also, other owners are in the same boat that own players like Kershaw and Scherzer. But even if I did't have Trout, this league is too far in to have such drastic changes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2018 16:26:21 GMT -5
I wouldn’t think that a franchise tag of 120% is fair. I’d like a o see a rule that if a guy signs an extension before becoming a free agent then the team could choose to honour that extension in fantasy. I think one of the perks in the franchise tag is signing a guy for less than open market.1
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jan 4, 2019 12:01:52 GMT -5
Guys, something has to change. If you have a player on a $30M contract, there's no way that it's fair to the league to have him become a $15M player for another 1-5 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 12:57:17 GMT -5
Fair enough. But I don't think it is fair to take that same player's real life $30M contract and turn it into a $36M fantasy contract. I don't see why it wouldn't be fair, it is something we all agreed upon. It is the same thing as the RFA or free agent process, you can sign players at a lower or higher cost. It really only helps with a few players each year. In a couple years when I have Judge, and Albies, and a few other guys up for FA, I'm only going to be able to keep a few of them.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jan 4, 2019 20:55:45 GMT -5
I'm not even talking about players coming off initial contracts from when we started this league. There aren't that many who have extremely high salaries like that. I'm more concerned with our own Diamond Duos III bidding and free agent signings. If you sign a player for 3 years, $75M (AAS $25M) for 2019-2021, then I don't think you should be able to then get him on a Franchise Tag for $15M in 2022 for 1-5 more years. That's my argument.
You want to play with the system? What if a free agent is signed in Free Agency for 1 year, $50M? You're telling me you should be able to Franchise Tag him the next year for $15M. No way!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 20:59:30 GMT -5
And I don’t think you should have to pay $36M for a $30M contract. If there was some kind of option to pick up the players contract if they’ve been extended by their team or to franchise them at their current contract price that would be more fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 21:05:34 GMT -5
Further to my point, I currently have Yoenis Cespedes franchised, there is no way I’m going to be able to move him at even $15M, imagine trying to move him at 120% of his real life contract. Consider the same thing for a guy like Miguel Cabrera. Those things handcuff teams, and I would posit that it would hurt the health of the league for than a $15M franchise tag.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jan 5, 2019 21:54:47 GMT -5
I'm not following this T.J. We're not using real life salaries anymore. That was only for initial keepers when we determined contracts in the first year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2019 22:04:13 GMT -5
Yes. Some guys are still on initial deals, like Mike Trout, and it’s possible (if they were picked up initially) that guys like Cano and Cabrera would be too. Having to franchise them at a price higher than their deal is crazy. That’s my point. If you don’t want guys dropping one year huge contracts limit the amount of money that can be spent on one year, the same as there is a minimum. Anyway, the rule didn’t pass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2019 22:34:38 GMT -5
Part of my suggestion was to use the player’s real-life salary as a guide, or to even be able to sign them at their current rate if they signed an extension (like Eugenio Suarez) instead of letting them go to free agency based off the .5 .5 .5 .5 1 2 3 structure. You said something needs to change, those are ideas.
|
|