Re: 5 Sign and trade deals
 

I just wanted to bump this thread to start a little discussion on the current RFA levels (no time like the present). Some original concerns were that 1st round compensatory picks should be a rare thing, and hard to achieve (this was not a universal opinion, but was voiced). In 2004 we had 5 compensatory 1st round picks. So far this year, we are already looking at 4, with 6 more 1st round tendered players not bid on yet. Anyone else feel the tender levels should be bumped up a tad?

Re: 5 Sign and trade deals
 

I would be in favor of increasing the WR tenders... that seems to be where the most movement is occurring.

Re: 5 Sign and trade deals
 

I agree that it might be worth looking at the position seperately since some of these seem to right on at this point.

Re: 5 Sign and trade deals
 

I think RB and QB are good. WR's are too low, maybe 1600 or 1700 for a 1st rd tender level?

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

yeah...i agree that we should look at increasing the WR tender levels. I think the RB and QB levels are good too.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I'm definitely talking on a position by position basis.

WRs definitely need to be bumped up. I also feel RBs should be bumped up, but the numbers (so far) don't support me. We'll see what happens with the last few RBs. I'll make that case later if I have to.

QBs and TEs are fine I think as well.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Agreed. More than 2 compensatory picks in a round really changes the dynamics of that round, and I feel is too many. So let's bump them accordingly.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Back to your own league, rookie!

Just kidding. :wow

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

WRs should be increased... possibly RBs. Right now the 2000 cbs for a 1st round RB tender are within the "yah that's a decent price for a top RB" range. Maybe the RFA tags should be a bit ABOVE that range, so it really causes the tendering team to stop and consider whether or not they want to slap that tag on the player.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Hey, never claimed to understand this crap...just wingin it. Need to give me some input when I say something stupid though, since I sound intelligent to me :Alcoholic

And, can you turn down the tagline? We really don't care :D

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I think the RBs and QBs are dead on.... i mean if we raised either, there wouldn't be much of a bididng process, it would be first to bid, wins the rights.

WRs after seeing this years market and last year's I feel the WRs should be bumped up about 200 cbs eahc give our take.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Buwahahahahaha..I just got it. This is a Frenzy thread, not SAC'd..DOH. :smokin

I still feel they are too low!!

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Right now, it's almost a no-brainer for people to put a RFA tag on their top-of-the-line RBs. You don't even have to have a possible intention to match, because you know someone's going to bid on them (and take it up quite high) and thus, you'll be compensated.

However, if the first & second round tenders were higher, it might make owners think long & hard about placing an RFA tag on a player. If they place a tag, and no one bids on it, then they'll have to sign the player to that price. If not, the player goes back into the UFA pool and everyone can bid on him. That's why I'd be in favor of upping the 1st two levels for the WRs and RBs... I think QBs and TEs, etc. seem to be okay right now.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

No worries, paulsonpatch... glad to have your input!:thumbsup

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Agreed, the whole purpose of the various tenders levels is to have to make a decision on a players value. With a QB, only the most elite QBs are going to bring a 1st round tender. I doubt more than a couple tight ends will garner a 1st round tag. But with RBs, just about every Tom Dick and Harry gets a 1st round tag. Yes, RBs are a more rare commodity, but I still think the number of 1st round tenders should be about equal across the posititions, no more than a couple 1st rounders for each (if that many). I don't think the original intention of the tender idea was to give equal compensation for losing a player, but it was to give some compensation. It was also there to increase player movement, but to not totally devalue later round picks by handing out a half dozen more picks at the end of the 2nd round.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I don't know that I agree with you on RB's... WR's sure, they need to go up, but 2/3 of the way in 3 of the 5 1st rd tagged RB's still don't have an opening bid at the tender.

The 1 RB that did change hands this year thus far was Ahman Green, and I'd say he warrants a 1st rd comp. I can see taking the RB's up to maybe 2200, but no higher than that.

As for the WR's, IMO, does Ward deserve a 1.13? No. Had the tender level been 1700 or something I woulda tagged a 2nd not a 1st. Harrison yes. 1700 seems like a nice breaking point for WR's... that's an increase of 400.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

If we increase RFA tenders, I do not believe this should be done until the 2007 season. I just retained the rights to two top level WR with the knowledge that I would be able to get 1st round compensatories out of them next year if I wish. That was the primary reason it did not hurt me to bid Hines Ward beyond what he was obviously worth. If WR tenders are raised next year, my guarantee of getting a 1st round pick out of Ward is greatly decreased. If I would have know ahead of time that 1st rounders would be raised, say to 1700, there is no way I would have bid Ward that high as his value is obviously decreased. I don't have a problem raising tender amounts, but lets make sure it happens 2 years out to make sure we have a negative effect on as few situations as possible.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I see no problem with that since the issue was raised past the start of the RFA period.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Do you have a version of this post that is in english?

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I'm fine with looking at a "down the road" change. I think Jake is right... I know that my strategy re: tenders, draft picks, etc. is based on our current arrangements.

As for Mike's point about RBs... we'll have to see how the other RBs get played out... whether they get bid on, or if the tendering owners get the contracts at that price. If the latter is the case, then we may not need to increase the RBs.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I would be in favor of anything that decreases the amount of 1st round compensatory (I love that word) picks. To take an example of the NFL, how often does a Franchise player change teams(2 1st round picks)? Or even the highest tender for an RFA(1st and a 3rd)? Its pretty rare. You can probably name all the players that have changed teams by this method in that last 5 years on one hand.

I debated briefly if I should slap a 1st round tender on Lamont Jordan (I probably should have but I forgot to take into account Frank's homer premium). That's the kind of decision that makes this league so fun. I love this aspect of strategy in this league. Although, the flip side would be less RFAs changing teams but I think most people tag someone with the intent to match(if the price is right). At least that's how I lean towards operating.

Also, I have no problem with starting this in 2007 since Jake and possibly others have already planned things for next year based on the current setup.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I've spent about an hour drving around town this evening, and have been thinking about my last post.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Brian and some of the others. Maybe we should raise the RB tenders as well (I still think the QB tenders are about right). Maybe 2400 for a 1st rd RB tender? 1700 for WR's?

As for implementing this in 2007, I can see Jake's point and have no problem with waiting to fix it more than 1 season out.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I'd probably recommend 1800 for WRs... since that's still "low" for what many WRs are going to be paid this season.

2400 or even 2500 for RBs would probably work.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Glad to see you coming around to the dark side Mike (if I can steal that from you). I'm not set on an exact number for either WRs or RBs, I just know they both need to be raised. I'll do some historical analysis over the course of the season and we can set some numbers sometime in the future. I don't think we are in any hurry on this as long as we get it done before next season. Glad to see the boards so active again.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Man, you're pushing the limits with 1800/2500 IMO. My suggestion would be that we wait until early 2007 to set specific salaries. At that time we could average out the RFA bids at each position for the last 4 seasons and adjust to final numbers from there. I think the league is still going through some big changes because of recently installed rules, and I'm not sure we're out of the woods yet. We may be able to read trends a little more clearly after next year's RFA period.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

No rush... looking at trends is a good idea.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I'm a homer for the Raiders but I wouldn't have paid more than 2k for Jordan. He's nearly the same price of Portis the next two years and he should be just as good and be a Raider. Only reason I bid on him.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Doesn't that put people in the same position you are in this year had we moved to up the salaries next? While people would still know in 2006 that prices will be going up, not knowing exactly what point that would be does cause some uncertainty. Maybe it's not a big deal. Just thinking out loud, but I would think we would want raises in place for 2007 prior to the 2006 bidding.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

If that's the preference, its fine with me. My thoughts were that we would have a process in place so that everyone knew exactly where the new tender amounts would be coming from, i.e. an average of the last 4 years + 20% for example. You're the numbers man though Brian. If you think we have enough history at this point, give it a go.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Not sure how the NFL does it but aren't some teams given compensatory picks for their losses and in other cases the signing team forfeits picks. Would we want to try and incorporate this as it might add another level to the strategy if it costs the signing team something more than just cyberbucks? Again, this is something we could try and hammer out for 2007 not 2006.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I'll see what I can come up with after this period is over.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I have thought about this as well. However, I would think the only thing that would encourage would be to reduce the amount of player movement. If singing an RFA meant the team winning the bid had to pay a large salary AND give a pick to the team losing the player, I think bids would go down, and players would be retaining players. If we made it where a 1st round tender meant you had to send your 1st round draft pick, no one (or at least rarely) would 1st rounders be bid on. If instead you had to give a lower round pick, then it wouldn't be enough to compensate, and teams would just match.

I do like the idea in theory, but I haven't been able to think of a good fair system that will keep player movement at the level we have.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Off the cuff what about the team that gets the player losses a pick from the round after the compensatory pick. Would not work very well where fourth round comp picks are involved but that is not a major issue. This would also take away "extra" picks and get us closer to having a total of 12 picks per round on average.

For example team A bids on and wins McNabb. Team B does not match and gets a first round comp pick. Team A gets McNabb but forfeits their 2 rounder. This means we are adding picks but offsetting them, the only downside is that it would limit teams from signing more than 1 first round tendered player a year but how often does that happen?

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I like that. The upside of limiting teams from signing more than 1 1st round tendered players (unless they've traded for additional 2nd round picks) would be that it would limit teams' abilities to slap 1st round tenders on players in hopes of getting the comp, since there would be a smaller market for them. This would work best with higher 1st round tender levels so teams also couldn't flood the market, knowing they have a good chance of getting their players back for the minimum.

Any other thoughts?

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I think doing that will kill an already slow RFA market.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I don't mean to kill it but I think it might more closely resemble the NFL. Maybe not...

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

This is an intriguing idea but I would argue that in this type of league 1st round picks are gold and then there's a significant dropoff. Actually the droppoff is very steep starting from the first pick. If a team with a high rookie pick would have to forfeit their first round pick they would be giving up alot more than a team with a low first round pick. The value between 1.1 and 1.10 is simply HUGE in a rookie draft IMO. That would hamstring the crappier teams (no offense Brian :D, yeah yeah I know where I'm drafting this year I just cant help taking shots at a rival, so sue me) from pursuing RFAs knowing they would be giving up much more than teams that pick later in the round. If we decided to make the the compensatory picks from round 2 or later then it might be interesting. As it stands now first round compensatory picks are really early 2nd round picks anyway. That may have merit but I would be against 1st round compensatory picks being forfeit by the team acquiring the RFA.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Sorry I was not clearer:

For example team A bids on and wins McNabb.
Team B does not match and gets a first round comp pick.

Team A gets McNabb but forfeits their second rounder. This means we are adding picks but offsetting them, the only downside is that it would limit teams from signing more than 1 first round tendered player a year but how often does that happen?

The value of pick 2.1 versus 2.12 is still valid but I would think it is not as great as even 1.1 versus 1.12.

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Big words coming from a team off a 5-9 season. I'll also remind you again that we've won the exact same number of post season games, and you have a full season on me.

I officially move that no West teams can rag on me for being crappy until someone takes the Division Crown from my cold dead hands. Do I have a second to that motion?

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Oh yeah, well who has more post season losses! IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!! :bag


I will defer to the West Champs for now. You da man Brian! :bow


I'll be coming to reclaim my throne in about 8 months and 7 days though. :drinktoge

PS - I can still make fun of Richard and Frank right? :moon:

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Of course. What fun would it be if we couldn't?

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

Um, getting back to the topic at hand...

I think Mike is right in that if we had to give up picks (even if it's a round later), very, very few would bid on RFAs. The net result would be that more teams would keep their RFA players, and thus player movement would NOT happen very much.

It's an intriguing concept, Matt... but I think we'll be fine if we just raise the bid price a bit... and force owners to seriously consider whether or not they can afford to place a RFA tag on a player. If not, the player goes back into the UFA pool, and the entire league can bid on his services the good-old-fashioned-American-way!

Re: Tender Levels too Low?
 

I agree that the 1st-round compensatory picks are a little too common, WRs definitely need to come up, and RBs could probably stand to come up a little.

I don't like the idea of having to give up picks to sign RFAs; often enough, you have to overpay in cbs to get the tendering team to decline the match. No need to raise the price even more.