Off-Season Rules Discussion - Franchise Players
 

I cut and pasted this from the Philadelphia Freedom's post in another thread... just thought it'd be good to keep these discussions seperate and distinct.

posted by the Philadelphia Freedom in THIS thread

I like this idea as well, and think it makes sense if we go with the Signing Bonus Cap hits.

We might want to play with the minimum salaries a tad, but overall I think Matt's idea has merit.

Maybe I'm the only one, but I am having difficulty undertanding the tie between the signing bonus issue and a franchise player. The only connection I see is that they are both NFL inspired. Other than that, I don't see why one goes with the other.

Regardless, I am against the franchise player tag. As far as I can see, it would only be used on players dramatically underpriced, or by a team with enough cap room to pay a premium to retain a player. If a team has a player dramatically underpriced (say they drafted a RB in the 3rd round, and he turned out to be a stud), that team should have received enough benifit from having that player for a certain number of years at the cheap contrac that they don't need another way to capitalize on that player. If the team has enough cap room to pay a premium, I'd rather see the league market determine the players price in RFA or FA. If the team has the cap room, they can still match the price.

If the majority of the league favors the idea, I have a few suggestions to make it more palatable to me. First, I'd say if we have a franchise player tag, I'd like to see the price as the average of the top three players at that position from the previous season. I believe the NFL does top 5, but we have far fewer teams and players. There is also a big dropoff at some positions after the first 3. That way, the team HAS to pay a premium to retain the player, as they are paying top dollar for him.

I think the franchise tag should only be allowed to retain a player at a premium price, not with some low level that would allow a previously underpaid player to continue to be underpaid.

With the franchise tag as proposed, I think the game becomes more a matter of who can manage their salary and roster cap rather than who is a good judge of talent.

Just my opinion though, of course.

Agreed with some of the point Dodgers.

If a Franchise Tag is imposed I would also like to see it based on some sort of average of the highest paid players at the position.

As for underpaid "studs" being "franchised", I believe it is only a fair. If a owner has the ability to judge talent or just gets plain lucky they should be rewarded. Also if the franchise tag is used on the previous years highest paid players then they would be paying a premium anyways to frnachise their underpaid player.

I also believe it "franchising" a underpaid "stud" could leave the team either worse or equal to their previous year's team. I believe logic would suggest that given a set cap, a team would be hardpress to match the "talent" level by franchising a previoulsy underpaid player, because they would have to completely restructure a team that was based around the "cheap" stud. To make up for his raise, they would have to cut players or choose to let certain FA go.

But in the end they would keep thier franchise player and if they so happen to excceed the previous year performance, then all you can say is great management.

And as for the league becoming more numbers base and less on judge of talent, then all I can say is, we're closer to the experience of an NFL GM. They have to place a player's "talent" to his value and that is what we're trying to emulate here.

Dodgers I can see you points but to be honest I think the Insects are pretty much on-point with their comments. In a league with a hard $10,500 cap limit there are not going to be many teams out there that can easy afford to keep there team intact and utliize the franchise tag. At the same time I think structuring with the greater of 1.2 times last years salary or $1,200 for a QB, $1,500 for a RB, $1,100 for a WR, $550 for a TE and $450 for a K will cause teams to think hard before using the tag.

I know Mike is updating the roster app but for most teams that got a bargain in the draft the bump up will be pretty steep. For example I drafted Brandon Lloyd in the third round at salary of $160. If I make him active this year his final year salary with me will be $194. If I wanted to franchise him I would have to pay $1,100 to keep him. If he turns out to be a superstar that is not that bad of a deal however, it is over $900 more or almost 9% more of salary cap being eaten by him. You also need to factor in the salary cap/bonus issue which means that taking a gamble like this could backfire.

I agree and I think this is the only way I could support such a rule change. The Brandon Lloyds of the league aren't the real subjects of this rule change, it's the Shaun Alexanders. If an underpriced stud is to be kept out of the RFA marketplace, then the price should be steep. I think whoever was a good enough judge of talent to sign him at his original low $$$ contract has already met their reward.

Ultimately, however, I don't see why this rule change is necessary. Is the RFA system really so inadequate for allowing teams to retain their core talent? I think it works just fine.

once again, i'm thinking along the exact same lines as the Undead....

First of all, I don't think these price salaries will make anyone think twice about using the tag. The QB price is accurate, the RB price is market value for a lsightly above average starting running back (let us not forget that Lamont Jordan has garnered a $1400 contract), the WR salary is the going price for a good but not great receiver. TE and Ks are not an issue for me.

If you have a Shaun Alexander at under $500 for x number of years, you've been able to overpay approximately $1500-2000 for the rest of your talent for those years, since Shaun is really a $2000-$2500 (or more) running back. That I believe is fair enough compensation for getting a steal out of either drafting him late, or deftly signing him (Shaun is only a hypothetical example, and I am ignoring the real reason he is currently underpriced). If we now have the franchise tag to use, and the owner gets to resign him for only $1500, he's still geting a $500 to $1000 savings off his market salary, and can overpay for talent by that much. Will the owner have to cut talent to keep him? Yes, but that's not really the issue. Theoretically, he's overpaid for talent due to his large suplus of cash the previous year, or if he's spent wisely, he has far more talent then most teams already, and by cutting talent, things are only being evened out.

I'd rather see a Shaun Alexander go to the RFA route, and have the market set the players value, then have the opportunity for an owner to resign a player uncontestedly to another under market contract.

Now, going to an average of the top three salaries aleviates this, as the owner is guaranteed to pay a premium, but the set scale needs serious adjusting at the very least in my eyes.

It seems to me that we keep getting back Shaun Alexander. Now I am not sure how many players from our initial allocation draft are still under their first contract but I would be tempted to suggest that these players are exempt from this rule.

That would eliminate what seems to be the major issue here. For other players that have been acquired as FA's or drafted I think the proposed pricing structure would work well. Remember part of the proposal is that 20% escalator applies to each year the player is signed for (this would also increase the cap hit if someone tried to dump a franchise player.

If the concern is that the RB salaries are too low (I think we can probably set appropriate values). Not sure how easy it would be do Top 3 (I will defer to Mike on that one) but I think we can work something out.

I said originally that I felt the scale needed to be adjusted, and I think Brian's most recent post was pretty much dead-on.

I think it's a viable concept, but the salary scale should be rated by the top salaried players at each position, however I disagree that it should be top 3, it should be top 5 IMO.

In fact to back up my opinion, I created a table of the top paid players at each position, you can find this on the 2003 roster app in a tab called "2003 Top Paid Players" which is to the left of the summary tab.

Thanks for the numbers Mike. To clarify (neaten it up):

QB Top 3 Average 1,278
RB Top 3 Average 2,653
WR Top 3 Average 2,330
TE Top 3 Average 600
K Top 3 Average 208
Def Top 3 Average 252


QB Top 5 Average 1,162
RB Top 5 Average 2,502
WR Top 5 Average 2,104
TE Top 5 Average 502
K Top 5 Average 189
Def Top 5 Average 235

With some actual numbers here I think the Top 5 works well when we consider having a 20% escalator each year for the franchise player.

I agree with the Undead. I think RFA is working just fine as is. I personally cannot see myself using a franchise tag. I'd rather take a chance and let the market set the player's value. But that's just me.

Well Joe, then that's your perogative but I'll support a Franchise tag as long as it is based on Top Salaried Players average.

Freedom, I tried to make the point in my post that I was using Shaun Alexander only as a hypothetical example. I know he has such a low salary for a reason that will never arise again. However, I do think there will be another Terrell Davis or other late round RB drafted that isn't expected to be a stud in April, but later turns out to be so. They won't be drafted until possibly the third round of our draft, and will fit into what I was trying to say.

As far as the two scales, I'd still go with top three. I think the point of a franchise player is that they should be paid a premium .