Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

I've come to believe that anything beyond a first round pick in our rookie is basically not worth a whole lot. Sure, guys can get lucky and draft a Mike Bell in the 4th round (oh yah, that was me!)... but for the most part, anything past the first round falls into the "let's hope something happens in the future" category.

All this goes to say that I wouldn't be upset with this kind of reformatting. It does change how we bid, though. We definitely need to settle on this BEFORE we designate contract years from this crop of RFAs.

Nice idea...

Originally Posted by Popes

I'd suggest that if anyone has a problem with it, it has to take effect in 2009. If there's no one that made trades that make a difference, it would be fine for 2008.

Originally Posted by Popes

I'd suggest that even if the point total takes you up a level, you could still somehow choose the lower level.

Originally Posted by Popes

2. Very minor point: there are some times where you want a lower pick. For example, given that 3rds and 4ths are pretty equal, I wanted to get a 4th this year, not a 3rd, because I have a practice squad opening. Under the current system, I could tag a guy at a 4th. Under the proposed system, I may get too many points and my 4th becomes a 3rd that I don't want. I'd suggest that even if the point total takes you up a level, you could still somehow choose the lower level. Like I said, very minor, but I'd like to see that ability.

Originally Posted by Midnightdew

I like this idea a lot! However, I am also bummed that this proposal came out at this period of time (A time with a lot of trading going on). With deals in the works, this could throw some wrenches in the cogs.

Originally Posted by Midnightdew

One question would be, how do you rank who gets the highest 1st or 2nd? Would it be overall above tender price? Would it be record? Just some thoughts, be it seems to be a good resolution!

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Our original idea was to go with total value of contracts lost, which would keep more in line with the current spirit of the RFA process.

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I know we have discussed this in the past (probably every year) and I think this proposal makes sense. However, I will still throw out what I mentioned before which is that when a team signs a player that they forfeit a pick one round lower than the tender offer. This is a slightly more simplistic (and less holistic) method to your proposal above. However it would keep the total picks in a given year at 48 (at least in the Frenzy).

Not sure which is better but I think something should be done so if there is momentum for Brian's idea than that would work for me.

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Yeah, I think that was the argument before but I figured as long as the topic was open for discussion I would throw it out there again. Another interesting twist (and this more how the NFL does it I think) would be to account for the RFA's each team signs as well as who they lose. Obvisiously this would take a little more tinkering but it might be worth considering. Last but not least is this something that will likely be applied in the SAC'd as well as here?

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

This all makes sense. Maybe after this year's RFA period we can look at the impact of this (or maybe even prior years). I am guessing that you are correct that this would greatly restrict the number of first round comps and I think that is a great thing. Also, is this being considered for the SAC'd?

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Predators lost QB1, RB1
Opihi lost K4
Toxic Waste lost TE2
Rake Fighters lost WR2
Mutts lost RB4
Insects lost RB1
Dodgers lost QB4, WR2

I've given the tender levels different values. 1st round tenders are worth
4 points, 2nd rounders are worth 3, 3rd rounders are worth 2, and 4th
rounders are worth 1. At the end of the RFA period, you add up the total
value of players lost, and you get comp picks based on your point total (I
did it so as not to deduct points for players acquired so not as to
discourage bidding). The point levels for comp picks would be:

8 points = 1st round comp
4 points = 2nd round comp
2 points = 3rd round comp
1 point = 4th round comp

The new compensation for the teams above:

Predators: 1 1st round comp (versus 2 1st round comps)
Opihi: 1 4th round comp (same)
Waste: 1 3rd round comp, 1 4th round comp (versus 1 2nd round comp)
Rake Fighters: 1 3rd round comp, 1 4th round comp (versus 1 2nd round comp)
Mutts: 1 4th round comp (same)
Insects: 1 2nd round comp (versus 1 1st round comp)
Dodgers: 1 2nd round comp (versus 1 4th round comp & 1 2nd round comp)

Net Change:

Comp Picks Given Original My Proposal
1st 3 1
2nd 3 2
3rd 0 2
4th 3 4
Total 9 9

Originally Posted by Nittany DOdgers

Anyway, I looked at the older roster apps. The 2005 app on the site
appears to be last updated at an early point in the 2006 RFA period, so I
don't have record for 2005, but I did 2004. (I don't think we had comp
picks in 2003).

Team Lost Original comp New comp
Undead WR3 3rd 3rd
Predators WR2 2nd 3rd, 4th
Freedom QB1 1st 2nd
Opihi WR1 1st 2nd
Waste RB3,WR2,WR1 1st, 2nd, 3rd 1st, 4th
Swords RB3 3rd 3rd
DerbyCars WR4 4th 4th
Insects RB3 3rd 3rd
Chasers RB1,RB2,QB3 1st, 2nd, 3rd 1st, 4th
Dodgers RB1 1st 2nd

Net Change Original New
1st 5 2
2nd 3 3
3rd 5 4
4th 1 4
Total 14 13

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

2008 is fine by me, that's next season right?

The proposal sounds like a good idea, but I think it somewhat limits some of the values of tender levels. By going to this type of system it will remove "value" tenders like I did for Driver this year tendeirng him 3rd round comp and I thought he may potentially sell lower than 2nd.

I think a quick fix would be to base it on final value of player contracts sold, with something like for every 1,000 is something like 1 pt and so forth and create teh scale that way.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm not sure I follow you here. I don't see how this would remove the potential "value" tenders (I'm not sure I even know how you're defining that), but the higher you tender a player, you're still going to get higher compensation than a lower tender, it's just lower than it is now. Basically, a 3rd round comp isn't even affected by the new system. Just the 1st's primarily.

If we did it based on the final value of the players sold for, we'd totally lose the different tender levels, which I think is a large part of the strategy, and also puts some ownus on the tendering team to assess some amount of value. Otherwise, for a guy on the border between worthy of a 1st or 2nd round tender, there is no risk involved. I think there should be some risk and the tendering team should have a responsibility to set a minimum threshhold for a players value.

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

You mean 7 just in the frenzy. This very much sucks and basically makes second round picks more like third rounders. I think your proposal should be seriously for both league (SAC'd and Frenzy) for next year's RFA period.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Just to add a little more fuel to this fire, we're up to 7 1st round compensation picks handed out so far. There are still three more 1st round tendered RFAs active or yet to be bid on.

This, IMHO, sucks. We need to make sure we don't lose track of this.

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

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.

Originally Posted by Urza's Ragers

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

Originally Posted by Preds

Marques Colsten anyone?

UNDRAFTED

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

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

Originally Posted by Popes

I am concerned about this getting implemented now and becoming active for 2008. The reason is that I am talking about trading my 2008 2nd round pick. I wouldn't be happy if I traded it, under the assumption that it was less valuable, then it become more valuable after I traded it. I'd suggest that if anyone has a problem with it, it has to take effect in 2009. If there's no one that made trades that make a difference, it would be fine for 2008.

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Like the comp order to be based on the total difference between tender level and final price.

Comp picks are not for rewarding crappy teams, they are to fairly compensate or mitigate the loss of a player.

Originally Posted by Popes

2. Very minor point: there are some times where you want a lower pick. For example, given that 3rds and 4ths are pretty equal, I wanted to get a 4th this year, not a 3rd, because I have a practice squad opening. Under the current system, I could tag a guy at a 4th. Under the proposed system, I may get too many points and my 4th becomes a 3rd that I don't want. I'd suggest that even if the point total takes you up a level, you could still somehow choose the lower level. Like I said, very minor, but I'd like to see that ability.

Originally Posted by Popes

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?

Originally Posted by Popes

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.

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

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.

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

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?

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

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!)

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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?

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

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.