Franchise Tag

[Deleted]

As we go on year after year will have more and more minor league players on our rosters which will drive down the AAS. I think setting it at $15mil does a few things. It's a high number so people won't be franchising mid caliber players. I mean a franchise tag in my mind is to be used so you don't lose cornerstone players not prevent mid level players from reaching free agency that's what the restricted tag is for. I understand the strategy of a c tag is 8mil a of tag is 16mil I have to decide which players I really want to keep. I just think setting it at 15mil gives you the same goal without all the needless calculations. I want to be able to plan and budget for future seasons and knowing the cost of a franchise tag and not have to wait till the end of the season.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Good points Steve. Andrew I appreciate you saying you'd do all the average salaries per position based on last year's contracts, but I don't think we want to go there. Especially with the fact that so many players have dual eligibility. How would you designate those players at specific positions.

I think $15M per year, up to a max of 5 years, would be a good standard to use for a Franchise Tag. You can choose to only give 2 or 3 years if you want, but that's it. You don't get to use your Franchise Tag 2 or 3 years later on that same player again.

[Deleted]

Nov 15, 2013 9:59:52 GMT -5 Scott (Boston Padres) said:

Good points Steve. Andrew I appreciate you saying you'd do all the average salaries per position based on last year's contracts, but I don't think we want to go there. Especially with the fact that so many players have dual eligibility. How would you designate those players at specific positions.

I think $15M per year, up to a max of 5 years, would be a good standard to use for a Franchise Tag. You can choose to only give 2 or 3 years if you want, but that's it. You don't get to use your Franchise Tag 2 or 3 years later on that same player again.

Sorry to jump in at the last minute, but this makes the most sense to me. As I understand it, this would allow Steve to use his Franchise Tag on Hunter Pence, since when the league started he would have been a free agent at the end of this season.

I am hesitant because 15M is an arbitrary number, but I am not sure how it would really hurt the league later either way.

[Deleted]

would this apply to all DD free agents and throw out the tie to real life contracts?

[Deleted]

Yes anyone who becomes a FA on your roster is eligible to be kept via the franchise tag. I hadn't even thought of Scott's point of other players signing long term deals later but it makes the most sense to just ignore real life contracts. We can set the salary at whatever I picked $15M because I thought it was high enough to give someone pause yet fair enough to not prevent use. I look at this way, we can't act like a real life GM and lock up players early before FA where teams can get players to sign more club friendly deals. At least this way we can have cost certainty on one FA if we wish. I also think you should be able to use it from 1-5 years but you can never use it twice on the same player.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

So in summarizing, at least a few of us seem to be in agreement that:
* Franchise Tag can be used on any Diamond Duos free agent, 1 per season, regardless of real-life MLB contract.
* We'll come up with a standard cost, as we've been discussing $15M per year for up to a max of 5 years.
* Franchise Tag cannot be used twice on the same player.

These Franchise Tag designations/rules should be effective this offseason. Owners are now preparing for 2014 and have started talking trade. Keep in mind, any Franchise Tag on a player that gets traded does travel with the player.


Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using proboards

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

So what are we going with here?

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Here's what we're doing...

1) Any Diamond Duos free agent may be designated with a Franchise Tag. One (1) per team each season.

2) Instead of going with real MLB contract numbers, and to take away confusion of contracts that may have been extended in-season, we will use a standard salary of $15M per season.

3) A team may Franchise Tag a player for up to a maximum of 5 years. A Franchise Tag can only be used on a player once.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using proboards

[Deleted]

What about restricted tags? How many do we get? Also why is the FA process a blind bid process and not similar to how we chose FA last season?

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

I have to update our league rules. How I originally set up the league and the rules was a blind bid process, with RFAs the first week and then a different position of all other FAs each up for offers each week after. Most guys have told me they'd rather do open FA offers on the board like last year and we will do that.

It looks like we'll have 2 Restricted Tags available to use each season.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using proboards

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

Unrelated, but the First Year Draft order is the reverse of this year's standings, correct?

All of what you just posted sounds good to me.

[Deleted]

Sounds good Thanks Scott

[Deleted]

I get that we can tag a franchise player and trade him, but can we:
1) trade for a pending free agent and either franchise or restricted tag him?
2) tag a restricted player and trade his rights to match the highest FA bid?

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

1) Sure. Don't see any reason why you couldn't trade for a FA and then tag him, as long as you have already designated your 1 Franchise Tag.

2) No, you cannot Franchise Tag a player you've already designated as a Restricted Free Agent.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Yes, the 1st Year Player Draft will be reverse order of 2013 final roto standings. Same order every round. Probably looking at 10, maybe 12 rounds. Some teams have plenty of minors spots open; others only have few spots and will be limited in their picks unless they drop guys to open roster spots.

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

Doesn't open bidding on the board almost make the RFA useless? I suppose it can save you 50K or whatever you would need to up the bid, but that seems to me to be the only function if we are not blind bidding.

Doesn't really matter to me, just pointing it out.

[Deleted]

My #2 was meant to ask if we can tag a restricted player and then trade "him" (the right to match)?

[Deleted]

The restricted tag could be substantial if only two teams want a player

Who's to say if you bid up 50k that the other team wouldn't have bid again

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

Ah, good point Andrew. I rescind my question.

[Deleted]

Also if I'm not mistaken with RFA tag you only have to match the total $$ offered not AAS as long as it stays within our formula of not back loading contracts. If I RFA someone I'm not going to put in any bids I'm going to wait till the player closes and then I have the right to either match the contract $$ or let him go. I think the RFA tags are huge

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

I agree with Steve. If you RFA a player, you do not take part in the bidding/ contract offers. Then once the 12-hour clock runs out and player is "sold," the owner who RFA'd then has a chance to match. I'd have to check the rules but don't know if we specified you're matching the exact offer or just AAS and Total.

In response to Andrew's #2, can we trade a player after we RFA him, and then match the highest bidder? I'm not sure we want to go down this slippery slope.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using proboards

[Deleted]

Since the bidding is for a RFA, the GM who held the restricted player has 48 hours to match the winning bid, and may restructure that bid for a total contract amount no less and a term no longer than that of the "winning" bid. If the restricting GM chooses not to match the offer, then the winning bidder is obligated to sign the player - there is NO option to remove or renig on any bid placed.

This answers it right here. You are allowed to restructure an RFA winning bid.

[Deleted]

One question though are we not allowed to bid on an RFA at all? I doubt this will happen but it states if no one bids then you get their real life contract, at that point if no one is bidding I can see a scenario where it might make more sense to put in a bid. Maybe the player only signed a one year deal in real life or maybe they signed a really long expensive one that you don't think is worth it. If no one else wants the player can't you put in a bid at that point and if someone else thinks it's too low they are free to counter it?

[Deleted]

I think you should be able to bid on any player, including one you tag as an RFA

Maybe we should reduce the 48 hours to 24. seems like a long time to keep the supposedly winning bidder waiting.

Can the leading bidder, before the auction closes, increase his own bid on an RFA without adjusting the clock. I could see a situation where you're about to win a player at a really good price and you KNOW the RFA owner will match your bid. May or may not happen, just a thought.

Just so we're clear, I'm not allowed to tag Carlos Beltran for example, and then trade him to Scott? Basically I would be trading the right to match Beltran's high bid. Scott could have 3 restricted players and I would have 1.

[Deleted]

I would vote no on something like that. I would think the proper way is to either tag them yourself and trade them after the bidding is finished or trade them before and let the other owner use one of their tags. I'd equate this to trading cash in a deal which were not allowed to do. Just my opinion.