*** THIS RULE HAS PASSED ***
Hey Guys,
As you know, I am in a place where this league feels needlessly complex and I want to simplify rules while maintaining entertaining game mechanics.
RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL 1: revise the RFA process from its current form to something like this:
Step 1) Owner drafts a player
Step 2) Owner elects to sign player; player automatically gets 3-year deal based on slotted salary schedule. If owner does not sign rookie, the rookie becomes a free agent.
Step 3) After 3 years, owner may exercise a player’s 4th year option. If the option is exercised, the player gets a standard 4th year salary increase of the 3rd year salary x 0.25. If owner does not exercise 4th year option, player becomes an unrestricted free agent.
Step 4) After 4th year, owner may franchise player. If owner does use franchise tag, player becomes an unrestricted free agent
Step 5) After 5th year, player becomes unrestricted free agent
This dramatically streamlines our currently sub-optimal RFA process, removes the artificial inflation of 1st round picks, offers the drafting owner the benefit of a cheap 4th year, and also allows players to hit the open market sooner. In this proposal, all players become UFAs after 5 years at the latest. Under the current rules, it’s possible that a player never becomes a UFA (see Antonio Brown).
RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL 2: while we’re at it, remove the ability to franchise tag a player for a second year across the board. This would improve UFA, increase the likelihood of player movement, and lead to more market-value player salaries.
Should we kill RFA and instead offer a 4th year option to rookie contracts?
- Yes (78%, 7 Votes)
- No (22%, 2 Votes)
Total Voters: 9
Loading ...Should we only allow players to be franchise tagged once per team?
- Yes (67%, 6 Votes)
- No (33%, 3 Votes)
Total Voters: 9
Loading ...© 2019, Adam Franssen. All rights reserved.
We’ve been trying for years to make RFA work, with a couple of variations on it being tried. I love the idea of getting compensation for guys that you drafted well, and letting guys like Devonta Freeman and Brandin Cooks go was somewhat tempered by getting a first round pick as compensation. On the other hand, I was rewarded for my genius drafting of Alec Ogletree in the 5th round by having to pay $19 to keep him because the compensation was only a second rounder. Frustrating.
One reason I’m inclined to go with these proposals is that we had a pretty lackluster UFA class this year. And that is due to the fact that big stars generally don’t hit the open market (just ask Enright, who has been trying to pry Antonio Brown from my cold dead hands for years.)
Let’s take the case of Julio Jones. I drafted him, re-signed him to a 3 year deal in RFA, and franchise tagged him twice. That meant that nobody could sniff signing him for 8 YEARS. My hope is that he is past his prime and Enright has a sad about paying $53 for him.
In Adam’s proposal, Julio would have been up for grabs 3 years ago. I think the UFA classes would be much better in this scenario.
The devil on my shoulder says, “What’s my reward for drafting well?” Having Julio for 8 years was one such reward. Getting first rounders from others was another. I’m not sure what the reward is now, other than having a good player for 4-5 years, which I suppose is enough.
I actually really like the idea of the 4th year option. If a rookie does well, you still get him for a rent-controlled fourth year, if you will. Instead of Michael Thomas going for $55 this year, Enright could have had him for $22.14 this year. I guess that would constitute a reward for drafting well. And it’s true to life, as NFL rookies have an option year (albeit in the NFL it’s the 5th year.)
As for allowing the franchise tag just once, I’m also down with that. However, as Ryan said in his email, he has plans to franchise a guy a second time. If that’s the case, this part of the rule could be implemented for the start of the 2021 season (ie, you could do your 2nd-time franchise tag next-year, 2020, but then we’d be ready to kill it following that.)
As much as I’ve wanted RFA to work, it’s been more of a hassle than a joy. The only time compensation is ever tendered, it’s a first rounder, and it’s rare that the owner takes the first rounder over the player. In my vision, teams would be exchanging later round picks for guys, but that just hasn’t happened.
Anyway, this is a long way of saying that I actually support these proposals (surprisingly, as I’ve been a big proponent of RFA in the past.)
Franchise tag: I don’t care, but I agree if we do this that 2nd year tags should be allowed one more year.
UFA: I could get on board with this, but with one change: players that finish in the top 10 have their 4th year salaries treated like holdouts.
Yes I meant RFA. My point still remains on those players that are good enough to finish in the top 10 that they need more than a 25% raise. I guess I’m thinking mainly for offensive skill positions. So yeah, Thomas would’ve cost me $48 or whatever instead of $22, but that still seems fair (at least to the rest of you, who never got a shot at him).
Does anyone else agree? Or does the 25% raise seem enough? Otherwise we have the Derrick Henry’s and Zeke Elliot’s making the same amount …
Jason, I hear you. It will be amazing to see Saquon Barkley and Royce Freeman making (almost) the same amount in Year 4 of their contracts.
HOWEVER, adding a “Top 10 finisher” caveat (or any other caveats) falls into making things needlessly complex. Tim drafted Barkley and gets him cheaply in year 4? Good work! Tim’s reward is a reasonable Year 4 contract for an excellent RB. He’ll be paying Top 3 prices in year 5 and then Market Value in Year 6, though.
In this scenario, Tim got 3 years of a reward. He wants to keep him, pay the man. And then if he wants to franchise him, pay him more. But if franchising twice is an issue when it comes to making the talent pool more diverse, that’s exactly what rfa does. It forces you to pay up or shut up while the guy is in his prime. If I draft a guy, and he’s decent, someone should have a chance at him before he’s 5 years in and banged up. But, if they want him, they have to pay him. It makes more sense than if you draft a guy, or have a shit ton of first rounders (clears throat) you get to hang on to them for 5 years for pennies on the value.
I don’t see how that’s needlessly complex. We already have an established methodology for finishing in the top 10 and not being paid for it (ie, holdouts).
FWIW, I won’t die on a hill for the Franchise Tag thing. It’s in the proposal as a mechanism to allow a drafting owner to keep a player for 5 years but not longer. If we went with 6 years because everyone demands two Franchise Tags, whatever.
My thought process is that the cost of having 2 Tags is that we’d be looking a players hitting the open market at ~28-29 years old instead of ~27-28 years old. That’s a difference in the NFL and might alter owner behavior. As in, I’m more likely to sign a 28 year old to a 3 year deal than a 29 year old and we all know that non-QB player value dips sharply at 30 years old as indicated by AJ Green’s new pact.
You make an excellent point about franchise tags. If owners like Ryan have been counting on using FT1 and FT2 (which makes sense), it is more than reasonable to install that part of the rule when this crop of rookies is in their 4th year.
Complaints stem from this years class being lackluster. Next years class is probably the best ever, I would actually be interested to see how it would play out under the current method
You mean next year’s RFA class? Yeah, it should be better.
My complaint is that the RFA is a waste of time every year regardless of “quality” of the class.
Our efforts to make RFA interesting and fair have been genuine but we end up with a lot of $19 bids, original owners simply keeping players, and owners sitting out rounds of the RFA because they traded their picks. There may be other ways to improve things; this is my proposal.
I prefer to keep Adam in the league and happy. I have no truck with this sort of simplification. But I won’t back down from fielding a full roster of Ks, PNs, and DTs! I may even propose adding coaches who can earn points based on successfully asking for reviews.
*Biding my time until OL stats become available.
🙏
So I voted NO on both of those but I have since changed my mind. Yeah, I’m allowed to do that so I don’t wanna hear a word about it lol..anyway, after some actual heavy thoughts about it I would like to change my vote to YES on rule number 1
And I’m completely indifferent on rule number 2 so I don’t care.
I think if you take away the RFA, then you take away one modality in which the owner is being rewarded for good drafting. I feel like the normal 25% raise “option year” is a good substitute reward. And in the case of Barkley and Freeman, they likely wouldn’t be making the same money in year 4, because the option would be exercised on Barkley but not Freeman, who would go into the free agent class and hope to garner a few bucks.
I agree with Adam that even with good players in the RFA class, the RFA has been lackluster. Aside from Pershey’s outbidding everyone to the tune of like $40 for Arthritic Knee Gurley, nothing interesting ever happens and the $19 shit drives me bonkers.
I wanted Michael Thomas this year and $55 plus the #2 pick wasn’t enough. I don’t see deals getting much sweeter than that, and thus the trend of owners keeping their guys will continue. Why not just let them keep their guys with the 4th year option rather than going through this theater?
Part of my opinion is swayed by the fact I have to eat $55 when next years class (arguably the best ever) will be untouchable. I had big plans to bid. It’s full of guys I actually want. Big money was going my to be thrown around. I do understand the current system doesn’t work as-is though. We need like varying thresholds or the ability to add more compensation or something. Anyway, give me Thomas for $22 and you’ll have my vote … 😉
Also, if this was the 2017 class, I would’ve taken your offer of the 1.02. I wouldnt even know who to take this year …
I mean, we could say that this upcoming draft class would be the first to do the 4th year option (in 2022.) We could carry on the regular RFA system for 2020 and 2021 since those guys were drafted under those rules.
I’m fine either way, should the rule change take effect.
I realize that Enright is joking when talking about changing his vote by changing the RFA rules for Michael Thomas, but honestly, why not?
A) All the info is already in place
B) It’s an easy fix
C) Virtually everyone benefits
Step 1: The 2019 RFA worksheet has all the tagged players listed and the 2018 salary x .25 increase prices are listed. Players get those salaries. This is a big win for lots of owners. ‘Zeke goes to the Banthas for $23.73 instead of $59; Thomas goes to the Pirates for $23.73 instead of $55.
Overall the Banthas, Pirates, Dream Team, Revolution, Lumberjacks, and Silvertips all save cap space. The Colliders and Marauders see no change in cap.
Step 2: Contracts are changed from 3 years to 1 year. So, the cap benefits in Step 1 are balanced some by sending those players to UFA earlier.
Step 3: There were only two players that weren’t kept: Oregon’s DT Buckner and Fransburg’s LB Jones. Those players get traded back for the compensatory picks
That’s it!
No, I don’t think it should be retroactive if it passes.
Because…
Sounds good. I like much of Josh’s reasoning. Voted Yes, but do not feel strongly about limiting Tags to 1 year.
I think the 4th year at normal increase is a good reward for drafting well, especially since the jump does vary quite a bit by position once FA hits.
The main thing driving rfa right now is the first three days (est). After these, nobody gives a shit. This gets interesting because the players are worth actual money. I agree with Enright (that sentence hurt) in that 4th year that finishes top 5 should be rewarded. Or, allow restructuring for a long term deal at big $$. The argument that a franchise tag should only be one year is reasonable when speaking of this scenario. However, we trade, we make two year deals, some players explode out of nowhere, and something these things happen in their last year before you can restructure a contract. You as an owner put up with them when they sucked but now can’t get two extra good years from them?
So, my opinion…not that it matters, as I’m looking above and reading the writing on the wall, is this. Scrap RFA if it’s overly complicated. Move to a 4th year option (paid at player value) and allow two franchise tags, because if you’re going to give someone 5 years instead of 6, give em 6, who cares. Because, like I said, if I opt into a 4th year with a guy who finally gets the starting job half way through it, I want more than playoffs one year and then the next. I want to be rewarded for waiting as much as I’m rewarded for drafting.
I’m late to this party. I agree with Hammond’s interest in being rewarded for drafting well. A cheap 4th year is that reward. Especially since some WRs are just starting to come into their own, so a team has not really reaped those benefits yet. Whereas having Saquan on your team for the first three years at a low low price is marvelous, waiting for WRs to mature getting that (maybe) 1 year of goodness out of him before being faced with some Enright/Brinks truck jamming up his value.
I really don’t see a reason to limit the Franchise Tag. We only get to use one per team so it isn’t really be abused broadly, and you usually will be paying top dollar for that. To get to keep your draftee for 5 years seems totally reasonable, and there should be plenty of tread on the tires for many players going into UFA after that 5th year.