Rules

[Deleted]

All,

I'm in the middle of revising the rules to make them tidy and clear. I have a question, and I may have more later. But for now...

"1 Franchise Tag may be used each season as a Prospect Tag if preferred. This applies to a PP contract that is expiring. The prospect tag will be worth 3M for the next season and 5M for the season after that."

This states "a PP contract that is expiring." I could have sworn we also allowed managers to use a franchise tag on a PP contract that wasn't expiring. Am I smokin' something here?

Thanks,

Shawn

[Brewers GM (Larry)]

Think your smokin something Shawn . I don't remember anyone applying a prospect tag before PP was up.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2015 20:50:15 GMT -5 Brewers GM (Larry) said:

Think your smokin something Shawn . I don't remember anyone applying a prospect tag before PP was up.

Probably, Larry. I was in another league that had an almost identical structure to this one until last year, but a few of the rules were different. I still get the rules mixed up between the leagues. Now that I think about it, maybe that was a special rule in that league.

[Angels GM (Jason)]

Yes we allow someone to franchise a player before PP is up but you can't use a prospect tag before pp expires.

[Deleted]

Another question. Is this even relevant today?

Here are the guidelines for the tag holder on deciding the years of the contract.

If AAS <= $3M, 1 - 6 years.
If the offer is 400k - 749k you can only keep them for a maximum of 3 years at this salary, but you have the option to raise it to 750k and keep them 4-6 years
If AAS > $3M, 2 - 6 years
If AAS > $6M, 2 - 6 years
If AAS > $9M, 3 - 6 years
If AAS > $12M, 3 - 6 years
If AAS > $15M, 4 - 6 years

This seems to be indicating how a franchise can restructure a contract upon matching an RFA winning bid. However, the RFA rules state that a contract cannot be restructured for more years than the winning bid. So if the above is indeed for the matching team, they need to be revised. If the winning bid was AAS $9M and three years, the matching franchise can't change it to six years as indicated above.

[Deleted]

Separate from the above question, I need a clarification. I reworded the item about when a franchise has to give up multiple same round picks:

"If a franchise gives up multiple same round picks as compensation (for example, the Reds win two separate RFA players at AAS $10M, suggesting the loss of two 2nd-round picks), the first franchise that declined to match will receive the winning franchise's pick, and subsequent teams will receive two compensatory sandwich picks in the same round."

However, I also want to add to this information about what happens if the franchise that won the RFA player does not have a pick to give because it was traded at an earlier point. I assume the rule is the same: if the winning team doesn't have a pick to offer, the franchise that lost the player gets two compensatory sandwich picks. True? If not, what's the rule?

[Deleted]

AS for RFA. The team who had the Restricted Tag can add years at the same AAS. So if that was stated somewhere else that was wrong.

For the picks, that will never happen. Those picks cants be traded until after RFA

[Deleted]

Feb 22, 2015 20:06:39 GMT -5 @jordan said:

AS for RFA. The team who had the Restricted Tag can add years at the same AAS. So if that was stated somewhere else that was wrong.

Are you sure? The rules state in two locations that the winning team may not add years.

First: Here

Since the bidding is for a RFA, then pursuant to Rule 12, 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.

Second: Here

The "restructured" contract must, however, still have the same average annual salary, but may not add additional years to the contract.

Please advise.

Feb 22, 2015 20:06:39 GMT -5 @jordan said:

For the picks, that will never happen. Those picks cants be traded until after RFA

Ah, crap. You're right. Totally forgot. Thanks!

[Deleted]

This became the new rule and the old was not updated to reflect it. The intent with this rule was to allow stretching the contract as well as reducing it.

Here are the guidelines for the tag holder on deciding the years of the contract.

If AAS <= $3M, 1 - 6 years.
If the offer is 400k - 749k you can only keep them for a maximum of 3 years at this salary, but you have the option to raise it to 750k and keep them 4-6 years
If AAS > $3M, 2 - 6 years
If AAS > $6M, 2 - 6 years
If AAS > $9M, 3 - 6 years
If AAS > $12M, 3 - 6 years
If AAS > $15M, 4 - 6 years

[Deleted]

If that's the case, I'll be sure to update the rule set I'm revising to reflect that.

[Deleted]

I have another rules discrepancy.

The RFA rule states the following (reworded by me):

The average annual salary (AAS) that a franchise bids will require a certain minimum number of years for the bid to be valid. The minimum contract term is based solely on the offer's AAS and is determined as follows:

If AAS = $0.4M to $3M, then a minimum one-year deal is required.
If AAS = $3M+ to $6M, then a minimum two-year deal is required. (Total contract will range from $6,000,002 to $12M)
If AAS = $6M+ to $9M, then a minimum three-year deal is required. (Total contract will range from $18,000,003 to $27M)
If AAS = $9M+ to $12M, then a minimum four-year deal is required. (Total contract will range from $36,000,004 to $48M)
If AAS = $12M+ to $15M, then a minimum five-year deal is required. (Total contract will range from $60,000,005 to $75M)
If AAS = $15M+, then a minimum six-year deal is required. (Total contract will be at least $90,000,006)

However, the third post of the free agent rules states the following (not yet reworded):

The maximum salary that may be offered in a one year contract is 15M
Average Annual Salaries >15M must be offered a minimum of 2 years.
Average Annual Salaries >18M must be offered a minimum of 3 years.
Average Annual Salaries > 22M must be offered a minimum of 4 years.
Average Annual Salaries exceeding 25M annually must exceed 4 years in length.

These two rules essentially conflict with each other. Since I've been in this league, I've been using the first set of rules as stated in the RFA rule, not the second set of rules.

The first should be used for all bids, RFAs and free agents alike, yes? If this is NOT the case, why do we have one set of bidding rules for RFA and a different set for free agents?

[Deleted]

The 1st set of rules supercede the 2nd set during RFA. The regular FA rules are not broken by the RFA rules, the RFA rules are just stricter due to the nature of taking someone else's tagged player.

[Deleted]

Huh. Today I learned... Well, I'll make that part clear in what I'm updating.

However, I'd be in favor in the future of just making the first set the overall rules, simplifying free agency. It seems overly complicated to have two sets of rules.

[Deleted]

I'm almost finished with the rules update. One more question: have we been awarding a prize for winning the league, as indicated here? I haven't seen anyone public choose which prize they chose. If we've actually gifted these out, it's good for at least spreadsheet purposes for teams to document on their team history of they took the extra salary cap.

[Deleted]

As far as I know yes. Generally the tag is chosen.