|
|
Post by Eagles GM (Joe) on Jan 7, 2023 18:04:03 GMT -5
Is there a way to make it so if you didn’t draft a player but he’s traded to you at a stage where he’s beyond contract extension you could use both FT (average of the top 10) then extend him (adding 50%) to actually resign the player to the next 3 years? obviously past that if you FT them again it would count as the 2nd FT and thats it. In the NFL the franchise tag is used to buy more time to negotiate a long term deal with a player so this would be more along the lines of the spirit of the franchise tag anyway. The player you’d be doing it for would probably become the highest paid player at his position so it would have to be something to consider on that end as well but just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Panthers GM (Jesse) on Jan 7, 2023 19:15:33 GMT -5
Chief was talking to me in chat about this. It’s an interesting idea and would function closer to the real use of the tag in the NFL. The main detriment is those players would be taken out of the free agent pool entirely. Like you said though, that extension contract would be massive. FT rate plus 50% is a lot of money to invest in a player, but it would probably be worth it to tag a Patrick Mahomes like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagles GM (Joe) on Jan 7, 2023 21:17:55 GMT -5
Chief was talking to me in chat about this. It’s an interesting idea and would function closer to the real use of the tag in the NFL. The main detriment is those players would be taken out of the free agent pool entirely. Like you said though, that extension contract would be massive. FT rate plus 50% is a lot of money to invest in a player, but it would probably be worth it to tag a Patrick Mahomes like that. Cheaper to just extend him right away but if someone hadn’t tagged say a WR that you picked up in the last year of a contract and he plays out of his mind I could see it being worth it to try to tag and extend then |
|
|
|
Post by Ravens GM (Nate) on Jan 9, 2023 23:31:30 GMT -5
I do like the idea of having an extension option after the FT. Usually, tags are used on starts wanting a new contract, so maybe we could find a number, say, you FT a LB at 7mil (I think that's close to what this year's is), and extend him, maybe we could say it has to be the average of the top 3 paid players at the position, just as an example. Something that isn't crazy priced, but that is at or near the top of the position pay. Or maybe the contract has to be equal to the top salary plus a certain amount, thus resetting the market? I think a FT plus 150% would never happen for a player, but I'd love to see the idea of being able to FT a guy for a year so that you can extend them, especially if you trade for them, as a way to get closer to the NFL rules. Yes it takes a guy out of FA, but there's significant contract that goes with that, which will free up others. And maybe we drop the second FT all together? One tag, and an extension if you'd like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browns GM (Dan) on Jan 10, 2023 8:07:17 GMT -5
Honestly if we were to add this I think it'd need to be using both a FT and your Extension to do, and it would need to cost what it says on the tin. Average of the top 10 for the tag and then a 150% raise for an Extension. Not sure we'd need to limit it to traded players only that way.
Would we then honour the tag and an additional 3 years or would the extension be the full contract?
That way we only see it happening in rare situations and we don't take even more players out of a FA pool which has players tagged, extended, and RFA'd out of.
Will it be useful? In most cases absolutely not, but if you want to keep Mahomes for 3 years at $25m, Jefferson at 17.5m, or Kelce at 11.5m then thats up to you.
It might shift tag prices much higher, but then again if these players hit FA then they might be signed at that salary anyway.
The main issue would be do we want to remove these top players from FA for basically their entire careers? Thats why we removed 2nd extensions last season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagles GM (Joe) on Jan 10, 2023 14:43:21 GMT -5
That’s why I said players who hadn’t been extended yet it basically qualifies for guys on a rookie deal because the fact is I wouldn’t think we would allow this after 1 extension already. This is simply in the case that a player blows up while either on a 1 year deal or at the end of a rookie contract and they get traded away where the new owner had no power to extend. Yes it would need to use both FT and EXT tags for it. Some people may see the value in this as the salary caps will be expanding in the coming years. Getting a Justin Jefferson now at 17.5 may hurt but at the end of those 3 years he might be a little bit of a bargain at that price. It’s just an idea but I thought it would add an interesting wrinkle to it all
|
|
|
|
Post by Raiders GM (Chief) on Feb 17, 2023 6:10:09 GMT -5
I agree there is a need to extend a player on the franchise tag. It is completely counterintuitive to pay someone that much and let them walk with no chance to extend them all while calling them your "franchise" player.
Even if it is limited in some way. This is Dynasty, if I can only FT 1 player and EXT 1 player each year then how can I build a dynasty?
Tagging with FT should allow one more year to re-assess the player, the position, your team, and if you choose to do so then extend that FT player either during the year or the next year.
I don't think 150% on top of the FT is appropriate. Maybe 110% instead and a player the FT-EXT player will have a higher guarantee on their contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steelers GM (Rahh) on Feb 19, 2023 19:52:03 GMT -5
Following suit, need more! More tags, more extensions, make franchise players great again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagles GM (Joe) on Feb 20, 2023 10:23:40 GMT -5
Adding more tags and more extensions would make Free Agency less relevant. I’m not arguing for more tags or more extensions just a way to combine the 2. I’ll give an example:
Last season I was traded Derwin James. James was on the last year of his deal and had not been extended. If I could have I would have used my FT and extension to keep him here but instead ended up trading him away at the deadline because I wouldn’t be able to keep him anyway after the year was over.
I’m looking for something to help these rare situations. Not looking to change the way Legacy is run in regards to its number of extensions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raiders GM (Chief) on Feb 20, 2023 16:39:57 GMT -5
While I want more tags and more extensions, I 100% agree with the need to be able to extend a FT player.
A team should be able to FT a player, and then use that year to determine if they want to extend them or not. That is what the purpose of the FT is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ravens GM (Nate) on Mar 6, 2023 3:01:27 GMT -5
Not in favor of more extensions, but the FT+Extend I think needs to be a thing more to mirror the NFL. Plus it may boost FA in the sense someone has to use both on one guy rather than two separate ones.
|
|
