Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I know we haven't necessarily had that many first round comps... but the potential has always been there. And I've pretty much come to see any pick that's not a first rounder as basically not worth much.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

:agree , that is why I'm only interested in keeping my first pick every year.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

Marques Colsten anyone?

UNDRAFTED

There's talent in the later rounds, it's difficult to decipher, but it's there.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

Granted, Mike. And it's nice to have his services on my roster. However, those pickups are made after we get a chance to see how players do during training camp & preseason... and, in Colston's case, the first week of the NFL season. HOWEVAH... he is the exception, not the rule. I still submit that rounds 2-4 are basically a crap-shoot, and not even in the same galaxy as first round picks. Which is fine, actually. I'm just calling it as I see it.

PS. Sorry about your Bruins tonight. Bummer.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

Bruins? We aint the Bruins!

BUFFALO SABRES

LOL

Anyhow, disappointing loss, but we'll rebound. I expect it to be a long series, probably 7 games.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

My bad... SABRES... I'm rooting for them out here in the islands!

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

We need to vote on this before we get to the point of needing to declare years. With Mike leaving town in a bit, let's hear any final thoughts and I'll post a poll next week.

The proposal from the first thread stands as is, I believe, with the only clarification that the draft picks will be in the same order of the regular rookie picks for that year.

Let's get any final thoughts, or solid tinkering thoughts so we can adjust, vote, and move on.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I'm still on board. No additional concerns. Regarding my issue above, it's not a deal-breaker to me. I made a lot of trades and it will have a little impact on that, but the need to make this change outweighs any small impact on my trading.

For the record, I still prefer the cafeteria-style selection process.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

More debate needed on ordering of picks (from vote thread: http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11163):

I agree with Insects. Though I don't disagree with Freedom's points that the concern is lessened due to there being less picks and bad teams not having as many high value RFAs, I still think it makes sense to go ahead and structure the order in the most fair way and pegging it to amount over tender is the best indication of who lost the most valuable players.

Preds agree. Who else? Maybe we can get some consensus one way or another here and then return to the vote with that consensus.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I also had one other concern that I mentioned earlier. I've spoken to Brian about it and I'm about ready to give up on it as insignificant, but I thought I'd toss it out here and see if anyone else agrees with me. If not, I'll give it up.

Brian explained to me the reasoning against cafeteria-style selection: draft dilution if too many picks are given out (even low ones). I can see the point if someone decided to take eight 4ths rather than one 1st.

However, I guess I'm looking for something a little different than pure cafeteria-style. Under my suggestion above (one 3rd doesn't become two 4ths, but rather one 4th), there's no dilution. I don't think anyone would complain about that. And a team can address a need for a 4th if they have to.

I realize that this may be way magnified in my mind because I actually had no 4ths when I took this team over. Maybe it rarely ever comes up and just seems significant to me. Anyone agree with me?

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

IMO, this all comes back to the devaluation of rd 3 due to the PS elgible 4th.

There are talented players in the 2nd, but it disappears quickly IMO, make the 3rd PS eligible and several problems are solved. Probably should bring that up in another thread.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

Yup, I concur

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I guess I have two thoughts. Can someone explain what we mean by getting away from the cafeteria style. I thought the idea here was you get points for the players losts and then picks have a certain cost so depending on how many points you have you can purchase the picks that you want?

Also, the only issue that I have with doing the dollar thing to determine the order is this. Say I have three great players. I tender two at the first rounder tender (to achieve the maximum number of points). I then tender the third guy at a fifth round tender. I let all three go and the market forces push all three guys above their tendered levels. The third guy however is way above his tendered value. This means that I have a decent number of points to work with and all I have a lot of dollars so that I can move to the front of the line.

I apologize if this is not making sense but I have only had a little coffee and I know from last year that a couple of RB's (might have been in the SAC'd) were tendered around the fifth round but had pretty decent sale prices.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

A valid concern, I'd like to hear what others say on that.

I'm thinking we could go by the value of the RFA tenders on players lost (not the sale price) to determine the order, and in the event of a tie, then turn to the difference in selling price from the tender.

That should resolve your concern about under tendering and again keep the order on track for the value of players that are lost.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

So, to make sure I understand, we're talking about the starting price of each RFA lost? So if I lost a 1st round RB (2400), a 2nd round WR (1200) and a 3rd round QB (400), my points for ordering would be 4,000, and if someone else was at 4000, we'd see who's players sold for more total money (esentially the same thing as difference in selling price since our total tenders start at the same level)?

Fair enough to me. There are a gazillion different ways to figure the order. We just need to pick one at this point.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

Having points you can spend on what round picks you want is what we mean when we are talking cafeteria style. My original intention was not for it to be cafeteria style. I think that opens the door to allow too many picks to be handed out, while granted they would be lower round picks so it wouldn't be as bad as it is now, but I still see it becoming an issue.

Say a team lost 2 1st round tenders and a 2nd round tender. They would have 11 points. My original intention is that they automatically get a 1st round pick, a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick. Say a team only had a limited number of open spots on their taxi squad and didn't really want the 3rd round pick. They could decide to take the 1st and 3 4th rounders to increase their chance of hitting on a guy in the 4th that is worth keeping. I don't like opening the door to that, when if a 4th round pick does hit the contract is going to be uber cheap, and the incentives will be minimal, so we're increasing the chance of getting a lot of cheap contracts back in the league. I think a 4th round player hitting should be as rare as it is now.

That's my concern.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

That's exactly what I'm saying. That should solve Matt's concern IMO.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I agree, I'm not in favor of the cafeteria style pick selection.

But I'll repeat what I said in the other thread, while only somewhat related to this discussion, I think we can reselve the wasteland that is currently the 3rd round by making those players PS eligible as well as the 4th. I still think the success/failure rate will be very low, though slightly improved.

Hell, with all the comps, I'd even consider eliminating the 4th round entirely and making the 3rd the PS round.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

That's a lot of change, getting rid of the 4th entirely.

I have mixed feelings about allowing the 3rd round to be PS eligibile. Currently, the 3rd is undervalued since the player talent is negligible, and they aren't PS eligible, while the 4th is perceived to be worth more because they can go to the PS. I think if we allowed the 3rd to be PS eligible, it would raise the value of the 3rd round picks, but wouldn't then that completely destroy the value of the 4th round? Maybe you're thinking a step ahead and that's why you'd think of just eliminating the 4th round. If we did that, then I think the value of picks for all rounds would up tick a bit since picks would be just that much more scarce. Of course, if we eliminated the 4th, we'd have to reevaluate the revised comp scale and rebalance. I think just making the compensation revision and see how things play out would be enough incremental change for one year. If the reduced picks don't elevate the talent level in the 3rd round next year, I'd be open to looking at making them PS eligible and possibly eliminating the 4th altogether as well.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I guess my point on the 3rd/4th is that when we added the 4th and the PS, we didn't anticipate the amount of picks from the comps, which added nearly a round of picks in and of themselves. With that result, the 4th round picks became nearly completly worthless, and the 3rds became what I at least had anticipated would be the value of the 4ths for the PS.

Thus my feeling that we could either eliminate the 4th and make the 3rd PS eligible, or keep it but also make the 3rd PS eligible due to the dilution.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

In regards to getting rid of the 4th, I'll just quote you and say Marques Colston. The talent is there, it's just harder to find (I think that was the full quote).

I'd rather reduce the number of picks handed out this year, see how many we have, and look at it again next year to see if making the 3rd PS eligible is still what we'd want. Reducing the number of picks passed out in front if the 3rd is going to make a big difference I think.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

1) Like Preds said, I was thinking of RFA comps to be order by the difference of the tender level and final sale price of RFAs lost.

2) I'm in the middle with the cafeteria style. Someone wants 3 extra picks AT THE END OF THE 4th round be my guest.

3) I'm in favor of making the 3rd round PS eligible, then again hopefully with less comp picks it won't be as worthless, but I'd like to see it made PS eligible. I mean even you you did make 3rd round eligible... you can only put 1 player on the PS.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I think cafeteria is the way to go. If someone wants a whole bunch of later round picks that should be allowed. My concern is the diluting of the first couple of rounds of picks not the later rounds.

Also, we could probably look at the past drafts (we have had a bunch and some of them have had a couple of years of NFL experience at this point) to see how valuable the picks in different rounds have been.

Last but not least I think we start changing the number of rounds that might need to be held off until next year as some folks may already have traded fourth rounders...

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

Man, I'm having a hard time following this. I'll go with whatever everyone else thinks is best. (It could be that I'm just getting back into things, having basically been away from the computer for 2 months!)

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

No, it's confusing. I'm thinking the easiest thing to do is just have two separate votes before the whole proposal is voted on as a whole:

1. How are picks awarded?
a. Predetermined picks based on points awarded
b. True cafeteria, being able to buy picks with your points
c. Mix, predetermined picks, but with the option of trading one pick for one lower round pick (ie, exchanging a 3rd round comp for a 4th round comp instead).

2. How will the order of the picks be determined?
a. Same order as the regular rookie draft picks
b. Based solely on dollars over tender of players lost
c. Based first on starting tender level of players lost, dollars over tender to break ties

Any other issues I'm missing here we are not in agreement on?

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

My Votes

1 - option A
2 - option C

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

1 - c
2 - c

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

1- A
2- B - No one will under tender a player they are willing to lose b/c they will get less points towards FA.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

1- B
2- C

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I think you're misunderstanding something. None of the options have any affect on FA.