Franchise Tag

I would like to propose an amendment to rule 24 of the league's constitution:

"You may use a franchise tag on one player from your team who's contract is about to expire. The tag would give the player a one year contract worth an average of the top 4 contracts from the previous year +10%. Ex, let's say the top four rb contracts were 65, 65, 60, and 56 for the 2013, at the end of 2013's season you wanted to franchise a rb. You would have to give him a contract of, [(65+65+60+56)/4]*1.1=67.65, 67.65 for the year 2014. You would have to announce intention of using the tag before 4:00pm EST February 20th."

I propose:

You may use a franchise tag on one player from your team who's contract is about to expire. The tag would give the player a one year contract worth an average of the top 4 contracts at that position from the previous year +10%, OR 120% OF THE PLAYER'S PREVIOUS-YEAR CONTRACT, WHICHEVER IS GREATER...

Example:

Let's say that Julio Jones' contract is worth $150, about to expire, and the tag's cost for WRs is 143.03. Instead of paying the 143.03 derived by the original formula, tagging Jones would require a one-year contract worth, 150*1.2 = 180, because 180 > 143.03.

Rationale:

1 - This is the way the NFL does it. From its inception, this league has strived to model the NFL in every way possible. This crucial nuance has, for too long, been overlooked.

2 - You should never receive a discount for franchising a player. By the very formula from which it's derived, the top 2 players at every position will always receive a discount if they are franchised under the current tag's number.

3 - High variance positions, such as TE, create scenarios of excessive value for top-end-talent playing under the tag. In addition to a lack of competition in regards to these players' price, the intention of league rules has also been subverted in regards to contract length. While league rules limit a contract to 5 years, an owner can effectively sign a player for as long or short as they want under the current tag and receive no penalty.

I believe this rule-change is in the best interest of competition. The NFL agrees, which is why franchises like the Washington Redskins are debating the exceptionally reasonable repercussions of franchising Kirk Cousins for a second consecutive year. In this league's short history, dynasties have already been built by exploiting this loophole. It's time to correct it.

Your math is wrong on #2, but other than that, I'm in favor of putting this to a vote. Dan and I actually had this written out last year, but since we seem to struggle getting 10 votes for even one rule proposal, we felt two would be overwhelming for you guys.

Where is my math wrong? I got Dan's permission to put this to a vote a couple weeks ago, just haven't gotten around to it. Four votes already, though, is a good start!

There could theoretically be a situation where the top paid is so much higher than the rest they could actually make it so the second didn't receive a discount.  Still relatively true enough to count as a valid reason.

As a point of fact, only 2 positions this year grant a discount to the owner of the 2nd highest paid player at the position, QB and K. However, all EXCEPT running back offer a discount to the owner of the highest paid player. Also, I knew Dan approved it, I was voicing my favor for this as an owner. I actually want to expand on this point as well: Many of us have "that player" that they can get at a discount in perpetuity until that player declines to the point it is not worth it to franchise him anymore. Having "that player" may seem like a very good reason to vote to reject this proposal. But I want to remind everyone that this league is now beginning it's 8th year, and the careers of players generally don't last that long. And so maybe you have an Aaron Rodgers or Rob Gronkowski, and if this rule passes, it hurts your team in the short term. But those guys won't be around forever, and there may come a time when someone else has "that player" and you don't, and you'll look back and wish this rule were implemented. I urge everyone to vote to "ACCEPT" this rule proposal, because you are capable of looking past the short term.

^^^
I could not agree more!

(Yeah, I was aware of that; but, I didn't know how to word that without confusing the point lol. Also, you could have a top-4 grouped so closely together that the 10% increase bumps the top guy over his previous year's contract.)

bump

I voted...

Bump

Please Clap...I mean vote...

You know what'd be cool?...

A vote?

Smartest answer Brandon will ever give!!!

9/10 have bid, and yet we have 5 votes. C'mon guys we can do better than this

VOTE OR DIE!

Does a long term view recover my draft picks that I traded with the value of franchising Gronk every year factored in? No it doesn't. If I knew the rule would be changing all the sudden he isn't worth it.

Well, there is a "no" vote option...

That was your door to convince me....

I made my best case a few posts ago. There will be a time you don't have Gronk (it may even come soon based on his health the last couple years) and wish that someone else in your division wasn't getting a major steal by abusing the franchise tag. As it stands, this rule doesnt even hurt you that badly, TE is so criminally undervalued anyway a 20% bump on the average of the top 4 is still a steal for Gronk.

I know I was always voting yes but wanted you to bend over backward for me haha!

Stop playing with my emotions! I went from bummed about AJ Green to happy that someone is capable of looking past 1 year into the future

If it's better for the league then I will always do what is better for this to be fun and realistic....unlike some people *cough* Cat *Brandon*

Also it was just a bonus that the NFL does it this way, helped sway my vote a little more. Now about that bidding over the cap. I am a vote for "No voting over the cap" but believe there needs to be some leeway in between bids out there. Like allowable to 20 points over your cap. But 20-25 points max.

one more vote yes...or 4 more no...please just vote...this poll is damn near 3 months old

This is why we can't have nice things...4 people haven't voted in over 3 months...we need a dictatorship...