Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I would vote for 1C and 2C. That's five votes.

Come on the rest of you guys, get in the thread and vote so we can move on.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

1: C

2: C

Mike and Frank, voting for 1A, I have a question: do you have an specific complaint about 1C? It's exactly the same as 1A, expect that someone can voluntarily decide to accept a lower pick if they want (awarded a 3rd, but take a 4th because they have a PS spot open). I'm curious what people would have against that. There's no dilution (same # of picks taken). Your opponents are voluntarily choosing to pick later than they could.

Also re Mike's suggestion about making 3rd round PS eligible: I indeed can see that that would address my concern, and maybe that's something we should consider in future years. As yet, I don't have enough experience here to have an opinion on it, but I could definitely see that as an option. I agree that this change is enough for this year and that should be considered in the future.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I don't like that teams can drop down to the PS eligible 4th. Don't like it at all.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

1. A
2. B

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

My counter would be that without that option, you will have to tender players too low if you want to pick up a 4th round pick. Say I have two guys I'm matching for sure and one guy who should be a 3rd round tender. I'd go ahead and tender him at a 4th round level, to assure I get a 4th round pick (which is exactly what I did this year with Kevin Curtis). Under option 1C, you can go ahead and tender that guy at 3rd round level and be assured you can get your 4th round pick. Under option 1A, you'd have to tender him at 4th round level, thereby letting someone potentially get a guy for cheaper than he should go for.

Especially if people wonder why you tendered him lower than his market value, then look at your roster and see that you lack a 4th rounder. Now the guy is tendered too low and people realized that you're not matching, so everyone is playing him like a UFA. Option 1C makes people pay closer to the right price due to the proper tender level.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I don't get why you would have an issue with this, yet be for making the entire 3rd round PS eligible. I have no problem with picks being PS eligible if every other team in the league has passed on a player thrice.

Basically, we're talking about a guy earning a 3rd round pick, and is willing to give everyone else in the league one more chance to draft him, and if not, he gets to draft him and put him on his PS. I like this a heck of a lot better than making the entire 3rd PS eligible.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

1a
2c

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

The 3rd round is a wasteland, which is why IMO it should be PS eligible.

I just don't like the cafeteria idea at all. It shouldn't be optional to move down IMO.

BTW, I think you need to clarify in the new rule that points CANNOT be traded and then used to move to a higher pick. It will limit our trades a tad, but so be it.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

The only cafeteria aspect is to be able to move down a round. I just don't get why you support making the entire third round PS eligible, but don't support passing on a 3rd round comp pick for a 4th round comp. Your way guarantees better players are going to make it to the PS (ie, make it easier for teams to wait on players that need time to develop), whereas Jason's idea would make harder by having fewer players to choose from for your PS picks.

You're always going on about how contract years, and which rookie picks to sign, etc should be tough decisions. That we have to make hard decisions come August about who is going to make our team, and for how long. Then, you go and propose that we make it easier to get good players onto the PS. The whole idea of the practice squad, from my memory, was a compromise on the escalating rookie picks where we were going to reward teams who made good, last round picks. Picks where everyone passed on a player at least three times, and sometimes teams have passed on players in the fourth round four or five times. These are the kind of players we should be able to stash and wait on with little risk. Not guys that teams have only had two other chances to draft.

That's just my two cents, anyway. I think it's just a difference of opinion.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

I think pretty much everything that's not a first round pick (and even then...) requires patience. That's why we have a Taxi Squad... so we don't have to play them or have their salary count towards the current cap. 4th rounders should be LONG-SHOTS that we don't have to worry about. I think the 3rd round is fine as is. Sure, there might not be many "keepers" who eventually become starters... but the system we have seems to work right now, IMO.

Re: RFA Compensation Revision Discusion
 

:goodpost: