Franchise Tag

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Hi guys. Question has come up recently about whether or not you can Franchise a player that has either:
1) Agreed to a real-life MLB contract extension during the season, thus he's not a free agent anymore as he was expected to be when we finalized our inaugural season Diamond Duos contracts/salaries.
2) Already agreed to a real-life MLB contract this offseason.

Some discussion has come up to suggest that the Franchise Tag was to be a "gamble" so to speak where you'd have to designate that tag not knowing what the player's real-life contract will be, assuming that player has not signed a deal yet. He's a would-be free agent in Diamond Duos and should also be in real-life MLB as well. After looking at the Franchise Tag section in our League Constitution, I don't actually see language to support one side or the other. The rules as they are now read:

Franchise Player:You will have the ability; at the end of the year to name a "franchise player(s)" (see below). This player, although having his Diamond Duos contract expire, will not be eligible for free agency within our league and will be forced to sign with the same team. In this specific case ONLY, the franchise player will have to assume the real life contract he receives. In this case, "real-life" acts as an arbitrator of sorts in determining a fair market value for the player. This can either improve or hinder your team depending on how much the player signs for. If the new "real-life" contract puts a franchise over the salary cap maximum, the GM will receive a notice from the commissioner's office after which time he/she will have 72-hours to correct the problem.

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

I have wondered about this rule for a while. What happens to a guy who was signed to a different length Diamond Duos contract originally. For example, when Michael Bourn becomes a free agent after next season in our league, he will still be under his Indians contract in real life. Can he then not be franchised? Or would you pick up where he currently resides in his Indians contract.

In regards to the specific question, I think it is unfair for a manager to lose his ability to franchise simply because his player signs early. Not a huge deal for Marlon Byrd, but Wainwright is a different animal. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I'm not sure that it is basing contracts on real life contracts.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Good point Drew. You won Bourn (right?) in our free agent bidding for 2 years. You had him at $14M in 2013 and have him for $21M in 2014. He would be a Diamond Duos free agent after next season, AND under our rules you should have the option of designating him as your 1 Franchise Tag next season. But he is already under a multi-year deal with the Indians.

My assumption would be that if you wanted to Franchise him, then you'd assume the rest of his MLB contract, he becomes your 2015 Franchise Tag, and all of your other free agents are up for grabs (including any player that you may deem a Restricted FA).

[Deleted]

so when we bid on free agents, we're now supposed to take into account their real contracts?

Back when we were making the rules we decided to limit the impact of real life on the league, and there was definitely the idea of a "gamble" being passed around. In addition, the language of the Franchise Tag signals that the player has to yet to sign a real life contract:

1) "This can either improve or hinder your team depending on how much the player signs for." This implies the player has not yet signed, and the only reason it is a question of improving or hindering your team is because you don't know what the amount will be and how many years. If you did, the franchise tag would certainly be helping your team, or else you wouldn't use it.

2) "If the new "real-life" contract puts a franchise over the salary cap maximum, the GM will receive a notice from the commissioner's office after which time he/she will have 72-hours to correct the problem." Again, signaling uncertainty because he has yet to sign the contract.

3) "In this specific case ONLY, the franchise player will have to assume the real life contract he receives"

Receives, not has received, whether thats the past year like Pence or 2 or more years in the past like Bourn.

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

So in the case of Wainwright, your only option to keep him is to RFA him, is that what we are saying? No option to Franchise him?

[Deleted]

well I'm saying something different than what Scott is saying, but under what I'm saying, I shouldn't be able to keep Wainwright

[Deleted]

We also have another scenario with H.Pence. My plan was to franchise him, he signed a long term deal during the season. Some argue he's no longer a FA therefore I can't keep him. My opinion is that under our rules he was a FA so if I keep him I assume his real life contract since there is nothing different I could have done to avoid this, just the same if I didn't want to keep him I should have that right. It's no differnt than my situation with J.nathan he has a team option for 14 Texas in real life declined it I'm planning on picking it up. As for Waineright. If he was in last year of contract this past season and someone wants to franchise him so be it they should have that right. Just my 2 cents

[Deleted]

Nov 13, 2013 11:05:19 GMT -5 @stevelblc said:

We also have another scenario with H.Pence. My plan was to franchise him, he signed a long term deal during the season. Some argue he's no longer a FA therefore I can't keep him. My opinion is that under our rules he was a FA so if I keep him I assume his real life contract since there is nothing different I could have done to avoid this, just the same if I didn't want to keep him I should have that right. It's no differnt than my situation with J.nathan he has a team option for 14 Texas in real life declined it I'm planning on picking it up. As for Waineright. If he was in last year of contract this past season and someone wants to franchise him so be it they should have that right. Just my 2 cents

I think that's the result of letting real life dictate what happens in our fantasy league. Sometimes it works out for you, sometimes it doesn't, but its out of our control. There's nothing you could have done, but that doesn't warrant altering the rule. The tag was just for players who were DD and MLB free agents at the same time after the season.

Joe Nathan had a player option and we decided at the beginning we would only recognize club options.

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

I agree with you Andrew that, by the word of the current rules, that is how this should be handled. I guess I am questioning the current rules. I am not sure it makes any sense to keep players tied to their real life contracts. This will create a mess going forward as guys get extensions and options etc. By changing the Franchise rule to something else now, I don't think it hurts anyone (no one based their strategy on Wainwright/Pence/Byrd happening into contracts. People in the future will certainly base strategy on the ability to retain their free agents, which I don't believe should be dictated by how quickly a guy signs. I certainly like the idea of being able to retain one of your guys who reaches free agency without competition, but I think we should go ahead and create a better system of doing so.

[Deleted]

Guess I'm confused. When league was created pence was in last year if his deal and I was told if I want to franchise him I can and I'll get whatever contract he signs for. But since he signed a new deal during the year I can no longer do that? Does that make any sense to anyone? We were only using real life contracts to set the base for the league once the season started he was the property of the Texas giants not the SF Giants which is why I belive I should be able to franchise him.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

First off, good conversation guys. I have several thoughts here. Not the 10 Commandments, but my quick 10 thoughts and points I want to throw out there...

1) First and foremost, I want this to continue to be a league that all of us enjoy!
2) There's no way we're always going to be able to make all 15 guys (100% of the league) happy with rules and decisions, but as long as it's most of us we should be ok.
3) I want to make sure we're getting as close to 100% participation and activity as possible. Since August I have replaced 5 inactive owners and supposedly have 5 new guys who are excited about the league and the teams they've each chosen to take on. Hopefully we'll start to see posts by all members.
4) I want to make sure our rules are viable moving forward, so if we need to change or tweak some along the way (this offseason, maybe next year too), that's ok.
5) Aside from getting our league off the ground last year, I don't think we need to tie players to real-life contracts once their initial deal is up, based on the contracts we assumed as initial keepers.
6) I do want to keep this Franchise Tag option which allows each team to keep a player who normally would be up for free agency. I tend to agree with Andrew that when I wrote the rules it was basically assuming a new MLB contract wouldn't be in place yet. Does this mean we should only be able to Tag a guy whose DD contract and MLB contract are up? I'm not sure which is why I added this poll.
7) I tend to agree with Drew and think it doesn't really hurt any team now to amend the Franchise Tag rule now so we're all clear moving forward, and I am definitely open to how we should word this language.
8) To address Steve's question about Pence, I guess it's a tough call but we have to decide on how we're going to word our Franchise Tag rule moving forward. Heading into 2013, anyone that owned Pence would have assumed his contract was up after the season and he'd be a potential Franchise Tag option. So he gets an extension in season and now what? This is primarily the reason I wanted to ask everyone if we should be able to Tag a player in a situation like this.
9) I don't want this to be difficult. I don't want issues with real-life contracts affecting our fantasy league. It was a good basis to choose our initial 30 out of 40 players based on their MLB contracts last winter, but as each season goes on we'll be getting closer and closer to all of those initial deals expiring.
10) I may be leaning towards Andrew's suggestion of allowing a Franchise Tag on a player who's DD contract is up AND has yet to sign a new MLB contract, but that's not actually how I voted already, and I certainly want to hear what the league has to say.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Oh, and PS to Steve - nobody's going to be sympathetic with you my friend. You're the defending champion, took the winner's share of the pot, and everyone's gunning for you. Do you really want Pence that badly?

See you in Florida at Spring Training buddy!

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

What if we changed to make the Franchise Tag a standard cost, similar to the MLB qualifying offer or the NFL's franchise tag. We could make it something standard so that everyone knew what they were agreeing to when they placed the tag on someone. So maybe a franchise tag is a 4 year 60 mil offer or something like that?

I'm just very weary of linking the league to reality, as I think it makes it more and more complicated as time goes on.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

I think Drew's idea about a standard Franchise Tag cost is a real good one. If we could agree on the amount - like he says 4 years for $60M, or maybe a 3 years, $39M tag (sound familiar anyone?), I think this would be a nice solution and give each of us the ability to retain one player who'd otherwise be a FA.

This still doesn't answer the question though about whether or not someone could Franchise Tag a player who's already signed - either from an extension in season (i.e. Pence) or a brand new offseason deal that's occurred recently (i.e. Byrd).

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

OK, now I have a question. Not sure how I didn't relate this to Diamond Duos, but I must have been caught up in the season. So I think I'm in the same boat as Steve is with Pence. I have Pedroia who signed a long-term extension last July. I originally kept him with his previous contract that went through 2015.

So our poll here is all about this issue, right? Will I be able to Franchise Tag Pedroia after 2015, maybe with one of our new standard numbers Drew brought up, or is there no way I can Tag him because he's already signed in real life? I guess this is where we all don't feel like we need to be tied to the real MLB contracts.

One thing I'm pretty sure is that I don't assume the new Pedroia extension and Steve doesn't assume Pence's extension, correct?

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

My thought would be that whenever the contract ran up for your player, you would be able to retain him with the franchise tag, regardless of what had happened previously. Maybe there would be an increased cost to retain a guy for a 2nd franchise term (seems unlikely to happen, but we should think about it anyway).

I would say either way, you do not assume Pedroia/Pence's new deals unless we decide to maintain the current rule, but allow guys to tag previously extended/signed guys. Again, I am not in favor of that idea, but that is how it is currently written.

[Deleted]

I like Drew's idea. I would just decide what a franchise year is worth and then let owners offer what they want. IE - each franchise year is 15 mil so if I want a player for 4 years it's 60Mil and maybe cap it at 5/6 years max. We'd also have to decide if you can tag someone multiple times.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

If we do this, that is similar to MLB. We could say $15M a year, and I think 5 year max for a Franchise Tag. I also think you should get one shot and not allow multiple times. If you want to keep a player that would otherwise be a free agent, and you want him for a long time, then assign a Tag for 4 or 5 years and that's it. None of these oh I'll tag him for 2 years now, and then use it again in 2 years for another 3.

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

Yea, I think that's fair.

[Deleted]

I proposed that at the begining and it was shot down.

Another idea I proposed at the begining that would 1) not be overly arbitrary 2) not depend on real life is using the franchise tag as it is used in the NFL. You get a one year contract at the average salary of X highest paid players at the position.

I think deciding on $15 million is arbitrary and benefits those who have stars now that are free agents. We might decide to bump it up the next year when we see the inflated amount our free agents sign for in DD, and then that will hurt the teams next year who have stars becoming free agents. This also makes it strategic to franchise your "best" player rather than the best "value", so it would kind of take away from the strategy.

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

This is a good point as well. Doing it that way just makes it a matter of who is going to put in the work to make those calculations for each position.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Again, a good idea but WAY too much work. When is that average salary calculated? And who would do that?

Maybe we lay out a plan that a Franchise Tag in '14 is $10M/yr, then '15 is $12.5M/yr, then '16 is $15M/yr and cap it at that? I don't know. Just an idea. I like the thought of an overall standard Franchise Tag amount for all players. Keeps it simple.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using proboards

[Deleted]

I could do the calculations on the franchise tag. It would have to be calculated at the start of the season so it includes players that were eventually released (Lincecum for example) and probably we'd have to use AAS because we allow the salary fluctuations.

This system has the same downside as the one where we say the amount is X in the sense that the system would encourage you to tag your best player, but at least this system will be reflective of our DD salaries rather than being arbitrary, and as a result, too high or too low

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

What if we did a multiplier/divider of the salary cap for a given year. Like a franchised guy costs 8% of that year's salary cap or something. That way it escalates with our contracts and restrictions. So for this upcoming year's 175 mil cap, a franchise guy costs you 14 mil. Still doesn't help only franchising your best guy, but it's something.

Or we could give 2 franchise options- 1 for a longer period costing more money and 1 with shorter control but also a lower cost. Thus, you can determine how important a guy is to you.

[Deleted]

Nov 14, 2013 20:09:04 GMT -5 Drew (Chicago Blue Jays) said:

What if we did a multiplier/divider of the salary cap for a given year. Like a franchised guy costs 8% of that year's salary cap or something. That way it escalates with our contracts and restrictions. So for this upcoming year's 175 mil cap, a franchise guy costs you 14 mil. Still doesn't help only franchising your best guy, but it's something.

Or we could give 2 franchise options- 1 for a longer period costing more money and 1 with shorter control but also a lower cost. Thus, you can determine how important a guy is to you.

I like the second part of what you said but I didn't say it for fear of making it any more complicated. With this we would definitely need the restriction of only being able to use any tag on a certain player once.

In regard to the first point, I wasn't really talking about the salary cap, but the inflation we'll have in the free agent market. When there are a lot of players making the minimum, there will be more money to spend on the same number of free agents. This is a function of any keeper league, and with our setup, the inflation could really go anywhere over the next few years before stabilizing.