|
Post by Magic GM (Zach) on May 20, 2012 16:25:20 GMT -5
Hey, I noticed a part in the rules about franchise tags that may be flawed.
Ok, so what is wrong, is with the injured players.
Take I don't know, Derrick Rose or Andrew Bogut. Both are terrific players, top fantasy options (when healthy). The problem is, they weren't healthy. They were injured for a major part, which could make their rank very low. When a team franchises him, he may fall in the 100-150 range, and won't get the pay that is appropriate for him.
Make sense? My thought is we take the average of the top 3 or 5 payed players at their position and make that the salary. That way deciding franchise tags and tagging injured players isn't that easy.
|
|
|
Post by Trail Blazers GM (Landon) on May 20, 2012 16:49:58 GMT -5
Averaging is the way I am doing it in my league and that's how other leagues do it. I say top 5 players averaged at a position
|
|
|
Post by Spurs GM (Bryan) on May 20, 2012 18:07:05 GMT -5
I do see zachs point tho It wouldn't be fair to pay rose so less when he's a top 2 fantasy pg
|
|
|
Post by Suns GM (Mike) on May 21, 2012 0:09:20 GMT -5
I disagree because for a few reasons. First off, franchising is only for one year so it wouldn't be to big of a problem. Also if they were injured so bad that they fell that low in the rankings than there is a huge risk associated with franchising them so I don't think that there ranking should be adjusted. Also I think the rankings should be a little different because I don't think the top ranked player (James or Durant) should be franchised at the same rate as the 25th best player. So I think the top ten players should be franchised at 18 million and then 10-25 at 16 million and than everything else the same
|
|
|
Post by threegsid on May 21, 2012 6:31:32 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of the sentiment that parts of the franchise tag should be adjusted in order to better match the contract to the player.
But one problem, I have personally is the franchise only being 1 year in length. How else are we going to keep our players with that length only? Going to be a lot of turnover with it only 1 year in length. It's basically not letting us give a deal to our guys without everybody else having the chance to run up the salary to a large amount. I think we should have a way we can get long term deals for our teams players where we don't have to risk losing them in free agency.
|
|
|
Post by Suns GM (Mike) on May 21, 2012 10:16:34 GMT -5
I disagree because if we made a way for u to make it a long term contract then that would destroy FA.
|
|
|
Post by 76ers GM (Oren&Bryn) on May 21, 2012 10:36:38 GMT -5
i think we should be able to choose ONE player after THIS year to extend for a certain amount of time not that long but a few years because people who drafted cp3 bynum will have to loose their BEST player and it makes it somewhat unrealistic
|
|
|
Post by Spurs GM (Bryan) on May 21, 2012 10:42:23 GMT -5
They chose those players knowing that they could lose them
|
|
|
Post by 76ers GM (Oren&Bryn) on May 21, 2012 10:47:49 GMT -5
i know but it makes it unrealistic because in the real NBA they wont let them go to FA without trying
|
|
|
Post by Suns GM (Mike) on May 21, 2012 10:48:05 GMT -5
If players know they could extend them longer than a year, guys like Dwill would have gone a lot earlier.
|
|
|
Post by threegsid on May 21, 2012 10:48:29 GMT -5
I disagree because if we made a way for u to make it a long term contract then that would destroy FA. Not necessarily. By long term, I meant having the option for it being 1- 3 years. I don't see how that would kill FA, as we still only have 1 franchise tag after every season. There will still be plenty of free agents to go around. And if you're than thinking that alot of "star" players won't be in FA then, alot of teams wouldn't be able to keep them anyway with the hard cap.
|
|
|
Post by Suns GM (Mike) on May 21, 2012 10:51:32 GMT -5
Well if you could franchise them for three years that would hurt FA because lets say for example you have three players, I once contract ends now, a second that ends in a year and a third that ends in two years. If you franchise each one of these players all three of them will enter FA later.
|
|
|
Post by threegsid on May 21, 2012 10:55:47 GMT -5
Well if you could franchise them for three years that would hurt FA because lets say for example you have three players, I once contract ends now, a second that ends in a year and a third that ends in two years. If you franchise each one of these players all three of them will enter FA later. Very true. But, again, most teams will not be able too, depending on the player, for the reason of the hard cap at 65 mil. My main reason of disliking the whole 1 year franchise tag is for the reaon that it give basically zero continuity on my team. It'll be a rush to free agency every season essentially. And to a point beyond that, in all of the leagues I have been like this, be it whatever sport, but any 30 team league I have ever been in when it comes to free agency, only a handful of teams, usually 15/16 participate and the other teams that don't are left to the wayside. But that is a whole 'nother topic haha
|
|
|
Post by Suns GM (Mike) on May 21, 2012 10:59:59 GMT -5
Agreed. But that is why u draft player with long contracts. Also you could just bid on them in FA and win them for a long term contract and problem solved. Also more players in FA will make the offseason (slowest time in league) more active.
|
|
|
Post by Warriors GM (Ethan) on May 21, 2012 12:38:10 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly disagree with having a multi-year franchise tag. That's simply making the players who expire able to be retained without regard to how the league was started. Owners went into the commencement knowing and planning with it. I also agree with Mike about activity in offseason. Finally, to address the realistic argument, it's not realistic to keep players away from FA as such tagging doesn't exist in the NBA.
|
|