2019 Season Discussion

Moderator: TrueDawg

Multiple Scorgasms
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby Multiple Scorgasms » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:43 pm

Has minimum bid increases been discussed? Is it still the same as before but based on the guaranteed amount? For example Ertz is currently at 35k/21k guaranteed so it'd be 1k increments to 25k, and if it passes 25k gtd, 2k increments?

Also, this bit from the rules, I can't remember seeing this before: "The franchise tag may be rescinded under 2 conditions: 1) Bidding has not ended on the player, and 2) the player has not received any bids"

What's the deadline for rescinding the tag? Within 48 hours of applying or ... ?

Xulu Bak
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:08 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby Xulu Bak » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:44 pm

TrueDawg wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:08 am
Xulu Bak wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:25 am
This loophole applies to both the FT/TT, but because of the compensation clause, is far more egregious when used with the FT. Given the rule change as I currently understand it...

Owner A uses the FT on player X. For simplicity sake, let's say the FT $ is 40K. 20% guaranteed would be 8K.
Owner A & B negotiate compensation and announce as much in the thread.
Owner B bids 5 years, 10K guaranteed. 20% of 10k is 2k, times 5 is 10k. 10K > 8K.
If no other owner is willing to risk minimum compensation to make a "reasonable bid," then owner B gets a premium player on an absurd contract.

Yes, that's an extreme example, so maybe the league could intervene in that case, but there's a grey area somewhere. Where that grey area begins and ends will be vary from owner to owner.

Assuming the FT "starting point" is one year, fully guaranteed, would eliminate that loophole (5 years x 20% = 100%), but be inconsistent with contract structure for all other contracts, and could be unfair to the controlling owner, especially if say, that player gets hurt during pre-season. That would also make bidding on FT players even rarer, since you'd either have to go well above the starting point, which is already very high, or guarantee a five year contract.

If we're assuming the FT/TT just continue to function as they did before, with a "starting point" but no assigned guaranteed money until the bidding ends, then that's completely inconsistent with all other bidding under this rule change.
Yeah I don't think the "normal" bidding rules (simply offering more guaranteed money) should apply to FT/TT players.

What we should do is make FT/TT contracts fully guaranteed, like the NFL. Then you can't simply throw out some lowball 5 year contract offer to exceed the current 20% guarantee.
Ok, but unless we make an exception for the FT/TT, then you have to either bid 5 years, or go way over the "starting minimum," since we're locked into 20% guaranteed. That's why I'm trying to get clarity...

If it's not fully guaranteed, there's a huge loophole to be exploited (with little way around it because of the compensation clause of the FT). If it is fully guaranteed (and following the 'guaranteed money is king' principle), then the extremely rare event of a FT bid would become almost impossible to justify.

To be clear, I think the FT/TT should be treated as a 1-year fully guaranteed contract, absent a bid, which only needs to exceed the "starting point" for base contract. That'd be an exception to the rule, but one that could be addressed next year (or beyond) if/when we have more time in the offseason to include the capacity to assign guaranteed %.

OnABloodbuzz
Captain
Captain
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby OnABloodbuzz » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:38 pm

TrueDawg wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:55 am
OnABloodbuzz wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:59 pm

Because we've added the variable of years to the bidding process rather than deciding when/after matching. The salary might be good, but the years might not be what you're looking for.

Like my bid on Bell, the current owner might be happy to pay that for 3 or 4 years rather than 2 because they like the player or it increases trade opportunities down the road.
What do variable years have to do with it? This is how it works in the NFL. And it doesn't really matter whether its "what you're looking for".

The transition tag basically makes the player a RFA. And that allows them to negotiate with other teams. And the tagging team has the right to match the offer the player signs. That's why we started seeing "poison pill" contracts that made it very difficult or impossible for the team to match.

The transition tag is not just another way for you to keep a good player. You're putting the player on the market. You're exposing him... with no compensation. If someone else wants him more than you, he'll make an offer you can't or don't want to match.
The variable of years were brought up because until this change (as far as I'm aware) the controlling owner had total power over that portion of all renegotiated, transition tag and franchise tag (those with bids) contracts.
I wanted to know if this was still a thing and if so, what mechanism we might use.
Apparently it's not, so all good, move on.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:33 pm

Xulu Bak wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:44 pm
Ok, but unless we make an exception for the FT/TT, then you have to either bid 5 years, or go way over the "starting minimum," since we're locked into 20% guaranteed. That's why I'm trying to get clarity...

If it's not fully guaranteed, there's a huge loophole to be exploited (with little way around it because of the compensation clause of the FT). If it is fully guaranteed (and following the 'guaranteed money is king' principle), then the extremely rare event of a FT bid would become almost impossible to justify.

To be clear, I think the FT/TT should be treated as a 1-year fully guaranteed contract, absent a bid, which only needs to exceed the "starting point" for base contract. That'd be an exception to the rule, but one that could be addressed next year (or beyond) if/when we have more time in the offseason to include the capacity to assign guaranteed %.
Ok... but I already explained how its really a non-issue for transition tagged players, because that's basically RFA.

And nobody ever bids on franchise tagged players. If someone submits some bull$hit lowball offer on one this year we'll know something's up. And its something we can work on for next season (although it still won't matter cuz nobody bids on FT players).

Xulu Bak
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:08 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby Xulu Bak » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:53 am

TrueDawg wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:33 pm
Xulu Bak wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:44 pm
Ok, but unless we make an exception for the FT/TT, then you have to either bid 5 years, or go way over the "starting minimum," since we're locked into 20% guaranteed. That's why I'm trying to get clarity...

If it's not fully guaranteed, there's a huge loophole to be exploited (with little way around it because of the compensation clause of the FT). If it is fully guaranteed (and following the 'guaranteed money is king' principle), then the extremely rare event of a FT bid would become almost impossible to justify.

To be clear, I think the FT/TT should be treated as a 1-year fully guaranteed contract, absent a bid, which only needs to exceed the "starting point" for base contract. That'd be an exception to the rule, but one that could be addressed next year (or beyond) if/when we have more time in the offseason to include the capacity to assign guaranteed %.
Ok... but I already explained how its really a non-issue for transition tagged players, because that's basically RFA.

And nobody ever bids on franchise tagged players. If someone submits some bull$hit lowball offer on one this year we'll know something's up. And its something we can work on for next season (although it still won't matter cuz nobody bids on FT players).
:wall:

I'm out. Sorry everyone. That should have been my position from the start, but I was willing to stick around for continuity sake. However, I don't care enough to deal with the half-baked manner in which this rule change has been implemented. I've been asking questions for a week, largely to position myself for such a bid, but the clock has been run out (to negotiate the supporting moves) by non-answers.

User avatar
jimscafs25
Starter
Starter
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:54 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby jimscafs25 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:28 am

Xulu Bak wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:53 am
TrueDawg wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:33 pm
Xulu Bak wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:44 pm
Ok, but unless we make an exception for the FT/TT, then you have to either bid 5 years, or go way over the "starting minimum," since we're locked into 20% guaranteed. That's why I'm trying to get clarity...

If it's not fully guaranteed, there's a huge loophole to be exploited (with little way around it because of the compensation clause of the FT). If it is fully guaranteed (and following the 'guaranteed money is king' principle), then the extremely rare event of a FT bid would become almost impossible to justify.

To be clear, I think the FT/TT should be treated as a 1-year fully guaranteed contract, absent a bid, which only needs to exceed the "starting point" for base contract. That'd be an exception to the rule, but one that could be addressed next year (or beyond) if/when we have more time in the offseason to include the capacity to assign guaranteed %.
Ok... but I already explained how its really a non-issue for transition tagged players, because that's basically RFA.

And nobody ever bids on franchise tagged players. If someone submits some bull$hit lowball offer on one this year we'll know something's up. And its something we can work on for next season (although it still won't matter cuz nobody bids on FT players).
:wall:

I'm out. Sorry everyone. That should have been my position from the start, but I was willing to stick around for continuity sake. However, I don't care enough to deal with the half-baked manner in which this rule change has been implemented. I've been asking questions for a week, largely to position myself for such a bid, but the clock has been run out (to negotiate the supporting moves) by non-answers.
What's stopping you from bidding what you want? Put your bid in and expose the loophole you believe has been created.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:56 am

Xulu Bak wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:53 am
:wall:

I'm out. Sorry everyone. That should have been my position from the start, but I was willing to stick around for continuity sake. However, I don't care enough to deal with the half-baked manner in which this rule change has been implemented. I've been asking questions for a week, largely to position myself for such a bid, but the clock has been run out (to negotiate the supporting moves) by non-answers.
We knew this was going to be an experiment. I said as much when i put it up for a vote. I can't see all ends... All the potential impacts of such a big change and all the crazy bull$hit ways people will attempt to skirt the written rules. It may end up being horrible and maybe we revert back next year. Or maybe we make new rules and tweak existing ones to improve it. I don't know.

As it relates to FT and TT... Yeah some of that needs to be fixed (like making them fully guaranteed). Although you're making way too big a deal out of it. Nobody bids on FT players. It just doesn't happen. And transition tagged players are basically RFAs... So there's no reason someone wouldn't outbid some lowball offer.

If you wanna bounce.... Cool. We'll find someone else.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:34 am

Multiple Scorgasms wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:04 pm
Is the deadline to bid on a TT/CR guy 48 hours from the start of the league year? (or 48 hours from the last bid if there's one I assume)
The league year opened Wednesday... So any bidding threads posted before them were early, which is okay but the clock on them didint officially start til the league year opened.

So bidding on a player ends 48 hours from the league year opening, or 48 hours from the last bid... Whichever is later.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:44 pm

Ok... I just got home from vacation today.

I'll put the Ertz / Evans issues up for a vote.

I'll try to get everything updated on MFL as soon as I can.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:08 pm

Ironically, Xulu quitting has fvcked up the FT / TT period worse than the rule change... :lol:

Multiple Scorgasms
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby Multiple Scorgasms » Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:01 am

We might be able to find a replacement. This forum has a lot of hardcore owners like us who would enjoy a detailed league: https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com ... m.php?f=10

We need to fix the transition tag for next year. The current owner not being able to extend isn't fair, especially if someone comes in and makes a huge 1-year bid that no one else outbids. The two points of the TT are 1) saving money over the FT, and 2) being able to get more years, up to 5. Apparently now you can get screwed on both of those, and yet you still have to take the risk of losing the player with no compensation.

The argument "you're matching the contract, like the NFL does" ... pretty sure if a team offered an RFA 3 years, $60m, $20m guaranteed, his current team could happily give him 5 years, $100m, $60m guaranteed if it wanted to.

User avatar
jimscafs25
Starter
Starter
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:54 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby jimscafs25 » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:25 am

I'd support allowing owners to bid on their own tagged players next season.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:46 am

Multiple Scorgasms wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:01 am
We need to fix the transition tag for next year. The current owner not being able to extend isn't fair, especially if someone comes in and makes a huge 1-year bid that no one else outbids. The two points of the TT are 1) saving money over the FT, and 2) being able to get more years, up to 5. Apparently now you can get screwed on both of those, and yet you still have to take the risk of losing the player with no compensation.

The argument "you're matching the contract, like the NFL does" ... pretty sure if a team offered an RFA 3 years, $60m, $20m guaranteed, his current team could happily give him 5 years, $100m, $60m guaranteed if it wanted to.
In the NFL, the player SIGNS a deal with another team. The controlling team either matches the offer he signed or lets him walk. That's why we started seeing "poison pill" contracts. Once he's signed a deal with another team, there's no "oh we'll offer you this instead"

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:48 am

jimscafs25 wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:25 am
I'd support allowing owners to bid on their own tagged players next season.
We can discuss this. I'm open to it.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:19 am

Ok... everything that's transpired so far should be up to date on MFL. Please check that its correct.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests