RFA Compensation Revision

[Nittany Dodgers]

I'm not sure who here has been paying attention to the RFA discussion going on the the Frenzy, other than the Frenzy owners among us. So, I'm starting a thread here with a link to that discussion and my proposal for the scale I would like to use for SAC'D.

The basic idea here is that we hand out too many 1st round tenders (especially in the Frenzy) and we need a way to reduce that amount. Instead of a straight comp pick per player lost, I'm proposing getting "points" per player lost, and then getting picks based on the total number of points earned. Please see the Frenzy link for a more detailed explanation:

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10647

Here's the scale I'm proposing for SAC'D:

Tender Level-Points Earned for Player Lost
1st=24 points
2nd=12 points
3rd=8 points
4th=4 points
5th=2 points
6th=1 points

So, if you tendered one first rounder, one third rounder, and one 6th rounder, and declined the match on all three, you'd have 33 points to spend. The Compensation Picks would cost the following:

1st=32 points
2nd=16 points
3rd=8 points
4=4 points
5th=2 points
6th=1 points

So, with those 33 points from above, this team would get a 1st and a 6th round tender (instead of a 1st, 3rd, and 6th).

Here are the actual tendered players lost from last year, and what they would get under the new system:

Team, original comp picks, new comp picks:
Predators, Originally had 1st, 5th, 6th, would have 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th
Needles, Originally 4th, 5th, would have 4th, and 6th
Wallace Clan Originally 1st, 5th, would have 2nd, 3rd, 5th
Nancies Origianlly 4th would have 5th & 6th
Eco Warriors Originally 1st & 6th would have 2nd, 3rd, 6th
Disciples Originally 2nd would have 3rd & 4th
Grief originally 1st, 4th would have 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th
Insects originally 4th, 5th, 6th would have 4th, 5th
Dodgers originally 5th would have 5th
Vibe originally 2nd would have 3rd & 4th

Here's the breakdown for the change:

Level Originally handed out New System
1st 4 0
2nd 2 4
3rd 0 6
4th 4 4
5th 5 6
6th 3 5
Total 18 25

More picks would be handed out, but they would be later round picks for the most part. You'll note under the new system, no 1st round picks would have been earned last year. Two thoughts on that. First, I don't think that is a bad thing, as I think 1st & 2nd round picks are even more valuable in SAC'D, so I think fewer should be handed out. Secondly, as more and more rookie (ie cheap) contracts fill SAC'D rosters, I think there will be more and more money available to spend and bid on higher tendered players, and we'd see the number of high round comps passed out raise if we don't do something like this to cut it off.

[Preds]

I like it. Well done as always Brian. The proposed SACD scale works for me.

[Valencia]

[quote=Nittany Dodgers]I'm not sure who here has been paying attention to the RFA discussion going on the the Frenzy, other than the Frenzy owners among us. So, I'm starting a thread here with a link to that discussion and my proposal for the scale I would like to use for SAC'D.


I agree with this concept... I have been following the threads in the Frenzy League.. The original rules allow for way to many 1st round picks being handed out. It will only get worse in the years to come. It makes top 2nd round picks fall into what would be equal to 3rd round picks.
Just my opinion...
Brett

[Cheezy]

I have read that thread and I love the idea.

There are already 4 Comp picks in SAC'D, and 3 more could potentially happen (Manning, Portis, Shockey).

Being a guy with a suck ass team and a 2.1 pick (which is now the equivalent of 2.5 and could drop as low as 2.8), I'm annoyed by how many comp picks are happening. And it would have been even worse if Burt could add. (J/K)

I would wholly support any changes as documented in the Frenzy thread on this same subject. Good work Brian.

[Liquid Swords]

Great idea. I love it!

[Burt the Butcher]

I like the idea also, but with a twist. I still think that would be too many comp picks handed out. I think that those points should also be offset by RFA's signed. Not necessarily a one-for-one point ratio, but maybe lose 50% of the points for the tender level of RFA's signed. Thus, if you lose a 1st RB, but sign a 1st RB, you only get half the points stated.

And maybe add bonus points for amount over tender the final bid was? That would probably make things more complicated, but guys like LT who are put out as a 1st round tender, than more than double that amount is bid!! Ouch!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

I like the idea also, but with a twist. I still think that would be too many comp picks handed out. I think that those points should also be offset by RFA's signed. Not necessarily a one-for-one point ratio, but maybe lose 50% of the points for the tender level of RFA's signed. Thus, if you lose a 1st RB, but sign a 1st RB, you only get half the points stated.

And maybe add bonus points for amount over tender the final bid was? That would probably make things more complicated, but guys like LT who are put out as a 1st round tender, than more than double that amount is bid!! Ouch!

Burt, couple of thoughts. First, as far as offsetting the players signed, that has been discussed by my concern is what affect this might have on stiffling bidding on other RFAs. Penalizing teams in any way for bidding on RFAs I think will prevent bidding to some degree and will reduce their price. I think the point of the RFA matching rights is to have to pay a premium price. The way you have proposed, the impact would not be major for the lower round tenders, but for a 1st round tender, I would think that would dissuade some bidding, and I cringe at that idea.

As far as a bonus for the final bid, one of the ideas is to seed the comp picks bad on the total bid amounts for the players lost, so that a team that loses an LT would almost assuredly be first in line for the comp picks. I'm not sure if that is significant enough for you or not.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Burt, couple of thoughts. First, as far as offsetting the players signed, that has been discussed by my concern is what affect this might have on stiffling bidding on other RFAs. Penalizing teams in any way for bidding on RFAs I think will prevent bidding to some degree and will reduce their price. I think the point of the RFA matching rights is to have to pay a premium price. The way you have proposed, the impact would not be major for the lower round tenders, but for a 1st round tender, I would think that would dissuade some bidding, and I cringe at that idea.

As far as a bonus for the final bid, one of the ideas is to seed the comp picks bad on the total bid amounts for the players lost, so that a team that loses an LT would almost assuredly be first in line for the comp picks. I'm not sure if that is significant enough for you or not.

As for your 2nd point, I can live with that...like I said, adding more complexity would negate any benefit I can see from doing this.

As to your first point, I guess I can see it the other way. Take last year as an example. In most peoples mind, LT and SA were pretty equal. Say I had the rights to LT and Preds had rights to SA. Suppose we both decided we wanted the other, so we both go 6000. We would both not only get an equal back to the one we lose, on paper, but get an extra 1st round pick to boot. That is what I am looking at when I say they should get a bonus while getting a player of equal value. Maybe only tie it to 1st round tenders.

Maybe I am the only one seeing this, and if so, then I still think something needs to be done, and would wholeheartedly support the change you outlined, and think it is well thought out.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

As to your first point, I guess I can see it the other way. Take last year as an example. In most peoples mind, LT and SA were pretty equal. Say I had the rights to LT and Preds had rights to SA. Suppose we both decided we wanted the other, so we both go 6000. We would both not only get an equal back to the one we lose, on paper, but get an extra 1st round pick to boot. That is what I am looking at when I say they should get a bonus while getting a player of equal value. Maybe only tie it to 1st round tenders.

I'm not sure if you know this but that is EXACTLY what happened in the Frenzy last year. The LT and Alexander owners swapped, and picked up the comps along the way. That was one of the big reasons to redo the whole process in my mind.

The fact that you can't get a 1st round comp under the new system unless you lose at least a 1st AND a 3rd (it's a 1st and a 2nd in the Frenzy, not sure if the scale needs to be adjusted or not) is enough of a hit to me. In the LT/Alexander situation, one owner can't just look at it and say "do I want to keep my player, or get this other player and the 1st round comp" because the 1st round comp is now basically only a 2nd round comp, unless he losses more players. To me that works. That said, I think having some kind of counterbalance to signing players isn't a totally bad idea, I just haven't been able to figure out a good system. Also, looking at last years RFA period, and what would have happened with the picks (no 1st rounders given out) I don't think we are too far off. If you have something solid, I'd definitely look at it though.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm not sure if you know this but that is EXACTLY what happened in the Frenzy last year. The LT and Alexander owners swapped, and picked up the comps along the way. That was one of the big reasons to redo the whole process in my mind.

The fact that you can't get a 1st round comp under the new system unless you lose at least a 1st AND a 3rd (it's a 1st and a 2nd in the Frenzy, not sure if the scale needs to be adjusted or not) is enough of a hit to me. In the LT/Alexander situation, one owner can't just look at it and say "do I want to keep my player, or get this other player and the 1st round comp" because the 1st round comp is now basically only a 2nd round comp, unless he losses more players. To me that works. That said, I think having some kind of counterbalance to signing players isn't a totally bad idea, I just haven't been able to figure out a good system. Also, looking at last years RFA period, and what would have happened with the picks (no 1st rounders given out) I don't think we are too far off. If you have something solid, I'd definitely look at it though.

Cool...let me think it over and see if I can come up with something tanglible. If not, I think this is a good solution.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I like this but as I noted in the Frenzy I am not adverse to there being some offsetting done for picks signed as well as picks lost (I think this is more along the lines of what the NFL does). I know that some feel that it would restrict bidding but I still feel it is worth considering (though it would not a deal breaker for me since some sort of change is definately needed).

Rough Idea:

I think that a loss of points for signing players makes sense. If you make it the cost of two rounds below the player you signed you get an offset (but not a huge one). For fifth and sixth round signees there would be no offset assessed.

If a team losses two first round players but signs a first rounder. They would net 40 points (48 for players lost and negative 8 points) for the player signed. They could still claim compensation of a first rounder and a third (and they also got a player who was believed to be worth a first round tender).

This seems fair while not a huge penalty but it might help keep the balance going forward.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

One other by product to consider here is that fifth and sixth rounders can be rostered. While it might not happen someone could collect the crap out of the fifth or sixth rounders figuring that they can find one or two gems that will be worth rostering once training camps get going. Not likely but possible.

Also, do we address how these picks will be ordered? Ie five people claim second round picks how is the order of those five picks determined?

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

One other by product to consider here is that fifth and sixth rounders can be rostered. While it might not happen someone could collect the crap out of the fifth or sixth rounders figuring that they can find one or two gems that will be worth rostering once training camps get going. Not likely but possible.

Also, do we address how these picks will be ordered? Ie five people claim second round picks how is the order of those five picks determined?

The order of picks won't change. It should still be based on difference between tendered salary and winning bid salary, just as it is now.

I like the idea a 2 round penalty for RFA's won. I'll wait a week or so to hear other peoples ideas, then create a poll so we can get this set.

I, for one, am not too worried about having extra 5th and 6th round picks. I really don't think you get enough information about these players before August to make this an advantage.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

The order of picks won't change. It should still be based on difference between tendered salary and winning bid salary, just as it is now.

I am not sure how this would work since you are working with points and the points can come from multiple transactions? What I mean is if I can 12 points for declining to match each of my tendered 2nd rounders that gives me 36 points. With this I can "purchase" a first rounder, a fifth rounder and sixth rounder. If someone else gets 36 points by tendering a first rounder, a third rounder and fourth rounder and declining to match and they want to use their points to make the same "purchase" that I am how would you calculate which of us gets to pick first?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I am not sure how this would work since you are working with points and the points can come from multiple transactions? What I mean is if I can 12 points for declining to match each of my tendered 2nd rounders that gives me 36 points. With this I can "purchase" a first rounder, a fifth rounder and sixth rounder. If someone else gets 36 points by tendering a first rounder, a third rounder and fourth rounder and declining to match and they want to use their points to make the same "purchase" that I am how would you calculate which of us gets to pick first?

My thought would be that you add up the total salaries of your RFAs lost, and subtract the total of their starting salaries. There is your value. All 12 teams are ranked on that value, and have the same order each round of comps.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

My thought would be that you add up the total salaries of your RFAs lost, and subtract the total of their starting salaries. There is your value. All 12 teams are ranked on that value, and have the same order each round of comps.

I guess that makes sense and stays in line with what we have done in the past. Thanks!

[Preds]

I for one dont like the penalty for winning RFA's. I think it's going to discourage bidding.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

I for one dont like the penalty for winning RFA's. I think it's going to discourage bidding.

I'd agree. I think reducing the reward for declining RFAs is going to get rid of the worst kind of events (such as two teams signing each others' 1st round tendered RBS and each getting a 1st round comp in the process). I don't think we want to discourage bidding at the same time.

However, if someone wants to do the legwork and put a side by side comparison of what the comps would have looked like for the last couple of years with and without the penality, I'd look at it.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I think reducing the reward for declining RFAs is going to get rid of the worst kind of events (such as two teams signing each others' 1st round tendered RBS and each getting a 1st round comp in the process). I don't think we want to discourage bidding at the same time.

However, if someone wants to do the legwork and put a side by side comparison of what the comps would have looked like for the last couple of years with and without the penality, I'd look at it.

Ultimately, based on the 2007 RFA period, it does not look like penalizing teams for signing players would make much of an impact. There would be 155 points (across the board with the penalty) versus 178 with no penalties. Probably not conclusive since strategy may have been a bit different but I think using the points without the penalty should resolve the issues we saw with so many first round comps diluting the picks in the later rounds. Anyhow, here are the numbers:

36 Chambers- 0 points (12 points with no signing penalty)
Declined: B. Urlacher (8), M. Hasselbeck (4)
Signed: T. Owens (-8), J. Shockey (-8), A. Vinatieri (0)

Bloodsuckers- 0 points (1 point with no signing penalty)
Declined: C. Chambers (1)
Signed: T. Holt (-8)

Clan- 0 points (0 point with no signing penalty)
Declined: None
Signed: A. Gates (-8)

Clowns- 47 points (48 point with no signing penalty)
Declined: A. Gates (24), P. Manning (24)
Signed: M. Hasselbeck (-1)

Dodgers- 19 points (24 point with no signing penalty)
Declined: R. Moss (24)
Signed: B. Urlacher (-2), R. Barber (-1), K. Jones (0), A. Wilson (-2)

EcoWarriors- 28 points (28 point with no signing penalty)
Declined: T. Holt (24), R. Barber (4)
Signed: None

Gunslingers- 0 points (4 point with no signing penalty)
Declined: K. Jones (2), J. Taylor (2)
Signed: P. Manning (-8), R. Moss (-8), E. James (-1)

Nancies- 8 points (8 point with no signing penalty)
Declined: A. Wilson (8)
Signed: None

Needles- 28 points (28 point with no signing penalty)
Declined: J. Shockey (24), E. James (4)
Signed: None

Preds- 25 points (25 point with no signing penalty)
Declined: T. Owens (24), A. Vinatieri (1)
Signed: C. Chambers (0)

Vibe- 0 points (0 point with no signing penalty)
Declined: None
Signed: J. Taylor (0)

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Ultimately, based on the 2007 RFA period, it does not look like penalizing teams for signing players would make much of an impact. There would be 155 points (across the board with the penalty) versus 178 with no penalties. Probably not conclusive since strategy may have been a bit different but I think using the points without the penalty should resolve the issues we saw with so many first round comps diluting the picks in the later rounds.

After looking at the numbers, I'm unsure how I feel about it. There was little impact, so is it necessary? But, since there was little impact, do I feel strongly against it? I guess not. My only concern would be if there was a situation where a team was watching their points closely, and decided not to bid on a player because they didn't want to risk signing them and seeing their compensation level go down. I'm on the fence here.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

I for one dont like the penalty for winning RFA's. I think it's going to discourage bidding.

I thought we were all pretty savvy players here. Why would anyone pass on a 1st round comp RFA if it means they might get a lower round rookie pick? I just don't see anyone doing it.
The biggest hit is for signing 1st round comp RFA's. Why should you be rewarded bonus points if you decide to swap out Larry Johnson for LT? Or you'd rather have Torry Holt and let Marvin Harrison go? You are still getting a top player and you get bonus points to boot?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

I thought we were all pretty savvy players here. Why would anyone pass on a 1st round comp RFA if it means they might get a lower round rookie pick? I just don't see anyone doing it.
The biggest hit is for signing 1st round comp RFA's. Why should you be rewarded bonus points if you decide to swap out Larry Johnson for LT? Or you'd rather have Torry Holt and let Marvin Harrison go? You are still getting a top player and you get bonus points to boot?

But what if you lost Rudi Johnson cause you have Henry, Jacobs, and Mike Turner in the wings and then end up signing Antonio Gates? I'd be pissed if I lost points.

I'm against to points subtracting from your RFA unless it is tied to same position. If you lose an RB but sign an RB.. subtract points. Not if you lose a RB and sign a TE or from another position.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

But what if you lost Rudi Johnson cause you have Henry, Jacobs, and Mike Turner in the wings and then end up signing Antonio Gates? I'd be pissed if I lost points.

I'm against to points subtracting from your RFA unless it is tied to same position. If you lose an RB but sign an RB.. subtract points. Not if you lose a RB and sign a TE or from another position.

I agree with that....I just don't agree that that alone would make you think twice about bidding up Gates. That's hogwash.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

I agree with that....I just don't agree that that alone would make you think twice about bidding up Gates. That's hogwash.

It wouldn't, but it is stupid to penalize me for having depth on my team so that I am able to lose an RB in order to improve other areas of my team.

I'm for the proposed system, minus the points subtracting for RFAs signed UNLESS the points subtracted are tied to poistions lost/signed.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

It wouldn't, but it is stupid to penalize me for having depth on my team so that I am able to lose an RB in order to improve other areas of my team.

I'm for the proposed system, minus the points subtracting for RFAs signed UNLESS the points subtracted are tied to poistions lost/signed.

I would be fine with that.

[Burt the Butcher]

I agree with you both...seems to be little impact, and it wouldn't make sense unless it was position for position. So let's not bother with the deductions for RFA's signed, since it seems like more complication than it's worth.