Does the "no tag" rule help this league at this point?

QuikSand · 12-08-2009, 06:15 PM

Since we can reneg all we want, seems to me the main effect of the "no tag" rule here is just with:

(1) guys who are pissed off over playing time or who otherwise won't reneg; and
(2) the guys who don't geta 3yr deal, who are instead signed for just 1yr

Is there anything else we are worried about with the use of the franchise tag? We have no 1yr-and-tag deals allowed for meaningful players, and that seems to have been the biggest problem with the franchise tag elsewhere.

Just an open thought for a league that arguably thrives on limiting its rules to the bare minimum.

gstelmack · 12-08-2009, 07:16 PM

The common usage for me would be guys I give a big deal to, and am then up against the cap in their final year. I end up having to let these guys go to FA, where if I could tag them I'd use it to keep them and sign them to a long-term deal when I do have the cap. With bonus-heavy deals required to land these guys for the first contract, renegs aren't going to drop the cap impact much at all for that first contract, and often raise it that final year when you reneg.

So bringing it back would keep some of these players from making it to FA. Given the catfight over the rookies, I don't know if that truly matters or not.

Tasan · 12-08-2009, 08:13 PM

I think it does matter. We have some bidding wars over talented vets as well, and the fewer of those guys that hit the market the lower the competition overall.

Ben E Lou · 12-09-2009, 05:23 AM

I think I had that rule there originally to avoid the sign-and-tag, before the three-year rule. With the three-year rule, I'm not sure I see a need for this...

Sef0r · 12-09-2009, 05:34 AM

I still like it, it forces owners to try and get a deal done to resign a RFA or try and extend a player going into FA. If you don't resign them or extend them, player should be a FA.

Bako · 12-09-2009, 06:49 AM

I would like the rule to stay as is. Anything that forces us to compete for players in good IMO. I like to see talented players in FA.

Subby · 12-09-2009, 08:18 AM

I like it mainly b/c QS keeps forgetting to extend his good players during their walk year.

Groo · 12-09-2009, 10:23 AM

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. It's a level playing field either way.

My opinion isn't really based on anything, I just like the rule and would like it to stay. The only two scenarios I can see the tag being used are:

1) To keep an unhappy player.
2) To bypass the salary cap... a team that is over the cap can't resign the player, but they can Franchise him.

Both these are team management issues and GMs should have to deal with the consequences of their choices.

TheMeat · 12-09-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subby

I like it mainly b/c QS keeps forgetting to extend his good players during their walk year.

+1!!

But honestly I do like it, I love the fact that this league forces owners to make real decisions about the cap. And like Bako said, anything that increases the players available in FA is good in my books.

12-08-2009, 07:16 PM	#2
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	The common usage for me would be guys I give a big deal to, and am then up against the cap in their final year. I end up having to let these guys go to FA, where if I could tag them I'd use it to keep them and sign them to a long-term deal when I do have the cap. With bonus-heavy deals required to land these guys for the first contract, renegs aren't going to drop the cap impact much at all for that first contract, and often raise it that final year when you reneg. So bringing it back would keep some of these players from making it to FA. Given the catfight over the rookies, I don't know if that truly matters or not. __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

12-08-2009, 08:13 PM	#3
Tasan College Starter Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Houston, or there about	I think it does matter. We have some bidding wars over talented vets as well, and the fewer of those guys that hit the market the lower the competition overall. __________________ 2011 Golden Scribes winner for best Interactive Dynasty

12-09-2009, 05:23 AM	#4
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	I think I had that rule there originally to avoid the sign-and-tag, before the three-year rule. With the three-year rule, I'm not sure I see a need for this... __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

12-09-2009, 06:49 AM	#6
Bako H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bakersfield, CA	I would like the rule to stay as is. Anything that forces us to compete for players in good IMO. I like to see talented players in FA. __________________ DFL and CCFL

12-09-2009, 08:18 AM	#7
Subby lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: sans pants	I like it mainly b/c QS keeps forgetting to extend his good players during their walk year. __________________ Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!! I do shit, I take pictures, I write about it: chrisshue.com Last edited by Subby : 12-09-2009 at 08:18 AM.

12-09-2009, 05:34 AM	#5
Sef0r n00b Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: New Zealand	I still like it, it forces owners to try and get a deal done to resign a RFA or try and extend a player going into FA. If you don't resign them or extend them, player should be a FA.

12-09-2009, 10:23 AM	#8
Groo Mascot Join Date: May 2009	Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. It's a level playing field either way. My opinion isn't really based on anything, I just like the rule and would like it to stay. The only two scenarios I can see the tag being used are: 1) To keep an unhappy player. 2) To bypass the salary cap... a team that is over the cap can't resign the player, but they can Franchise him. Both these are team management issues and GMs should have to deal with the consequences of their choices.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)