Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Regardless of what I said last night, this will be my last post here unless a new issue is brought up. Most of the disagreement I have with your side of the arguement I can chalk up to two reasonable minds seeing things differently, and I'm going to let the rest of the arguement go. This however is just asinine. A 2nd round comp pick isn't enough compensation for letting Marc Bulger go? If his owner felt so, then he should have f'n TAGGED HIM AT A HIGER LEVEL!! That is so f'n basic. You can't play chicked, tagging a player at a lower level, hoping the bids stay low, then when they get up to market level complain becuase you aren't getting enough comp. That argument is just stupid. If you say you should be allowed to get compensation because it's a tangible asset, whatever, we see that differently and I can respect your opinion on that, but to complain about the compensation is just dumb. I'll also remind you that when we agreed to the compensation picks, we never had the intention that the picks would be fully compensatory for losing the rights to the player. It was to encourage player movement, by giving the tendering teams some incentive to let the player go. If we wanted to play gamesmanship with the RFAs, then we should have left it the way it is, and it would have been more like the real NFL. If you want to sign someone else's RFA for a less than significantly over market price, then you have to give your own picks up. I don't see why we want to add 10 or more draft picks to the draft AND have a system where teams have to give up compensation in order to get other teams' RFAs. Why not just have one or the other? That just doesn't make sense to me.
But that's all I have to say on it.
:toast: to the draft this weekend. Finally!
|
We all know RFA doesn't fully compensate, so why stop teams from getting fully compensated? Please address that? Wouldn't you want that oppourtunity?
Now as for having getting comp picks and players..... that's how the system goes. Honestly, I've never liked the comp picks (i'm not sure if I mentioned that in the original thread) as they further devalue the 2nd round picks, picks that were earned by teams.
That's why last year I traded my entire 2005 rookie draft as I saw it merely trading my 2005 1st rounder and 2nd rounder (i thought at that time it would be in the 30+ range) for the 2004 1.5 pick.
Those picks are useless.
Why not tag Bulger higher? Is that his fault? Yes. However, is Bulger worth a 1st round salary? IN jim's opinion no. So he's stuck. What's the best thing for him to do... trade to make up some of that value.
2nd round picks are pretty much useless, back up players. Most 2nd round tenders are STARTERS in the league, so why not attempt to gain fair compensation. If you check 800cbs is above average or near the average of STARTING qbs in our league. There are only handful of guys over 1k and the rest hover between 500-800. SO Jim is tagging Bulger at near market value, but won't get anything near that in return.
I agree we didn't implement a system that fully compensates teams, but why prevent teams from doing so if the market price hasn't been tampered with?