SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No

[Burt the Butcher]

Vote here to revise the way RFA compensation works or not.

A yes vote would be to revise the RFA compensation so that it is based on points for RFA's lost, rather than a simple pick for each player lost based on Comp deignation. The revised points earned would be:

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
==============================================

A NO vote would be to leave RFA Compensation as it cuurrently is.

[Flaxwless]

Those who voted against... why?

[pacificscrub]

What is the point of having a 1st round tender if you can't get a 1st round compensatory pick? Can you imagine how this would go over if it were proposed in the NFL?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by pacificscrub

What is the point of having a 1st round tender if you can't get a 1st round compensatory pick? Can you imagine how this would go over if it were proposed in the NFL?

I think it was discussed (maybe in the Frenzy) that the terms would be changed to a "first level tender."

[pacificscrub]

Again, point being that I thought the idea was to emulate the NFL. Even if that's not the case, allowing teams to dump lesser players (those who will probably only reach a 2nd or 3rd round tender) in order to gain a 1st round pick doesn't sit well with me. I've never seen a league that allows that kind of move.

Be that as it may, it's obvious that the majority of the league doesn't agree with me. That being the case, how do we determine the order of the compensatory picks since our current value over tender method will no longer apply.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by pacificscrub

Again, point being that I thought the idea was to emulate the NFL. Even if that's not the case, allowing teams to dump lesser players (those who will probably only reach a 2nd or 3rd round tender) in order to gain a 1st round pick doesn't sit well with me. I've never seen a league that allows that kind of move.

Be that as it may, it's obvious that the majority of the league doesn't agree with me. That being the case, how do we determine the order of the compensatory picks since our current value over tender method will no longer apply.

You'd have to let 2 2nd rounders and a 3rd rounder go in order to get a 1st. Other than that, at least one first rounder would have to be let go.

I think that the order should be the same as the order of the regular picks. Seems to be the fairest thing.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

I think that the order should be the same as the order of the regular picks. Seems to be the fairest thing.

I thought the consensus was that the order would be determined by the total money over the tender level for all RFAs lost by a team would determine the order? But maybe I'm just confusing SAC'D and Frenzy discussion. Either way is fine with me I guess. Doesn't make a huge difference in strategy or outcome.

[Burt the Butcher]

Passed to Revise

[Burt the Butcher]

OK, the order of the comp picks never really got resolved....if anyone wants to discuss this further, I am open, since we all kind of dropped the ball here, and we now have new people....

Should the comp picks be based on rookie draft order, or based on the amount of winning bid over tag level? And if so, should it be all picks lost added together, and the highest amount gets highest pick throughout, or some formula to try and make it more fair?

[Flaxwless]

Based on amounttotal amount over tendered carried through out. Why make it harder than it needs to be?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Based on amounttotal amount over tendered carried through out. Why make it harder than it needs to be?

IMO, it should be as follows:

critera A - how were the points accumulated?
that is, did a team acquire 36 points for say a 1st rd comp by declining 2 1st rd players (giving them 48 points and rd 1 and 2 comps), or did it take the team parting with a 1st rd tender and a 2nd tender to accumulate the 36 necessary for a 1st rd comp? The team that parted with the higher level tenders should get the higher pick.

critera B - in the event of a tie after applying the method above, look at the differential from the tender amount to the sale amount of the RFA's being used to acquire the HIGHEST comp pick of the players involved (note, once a player is used for a higher comp, they can't be used as a tiebreaker for their leftover points for the lower pick with any remaining points that may be used for the 2nd pick).

critera C - if still tied, revert to draft order as the tie breaker

[Burt the Butcher]

I like Mikes way. It doesn't reward a team for one single player all the way through their picks.

The least complicated way would be to leave the picks in order of the rookie draft, btw, not by dollars over tender.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

I like Mikes way. It doesn't reward a team for one single player all the way through their picks.

The least complicated way would be to leave the picks in order of the rookie draft, btw, not by dollars over tender.

That's exactly what my thinking was. Trying to get it as close as possible to the old system, where your players differential only counted towards that one pick. Since points can be combined, the old tie-breaker system needs to be tweaked... I think what I suggested gives the same end result.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

IMO, it should be as follows:

critera A - how were the points accumulated?
that is, did a team acquire 36 points for say a 1st rd comp by declining 2 1st rd players (giving them 48 points and rd 1 and 2 comps), or did it take the team parting with a 1st rd tender and a 2nd tender to accumulate the 36 necessary for a 1st rd comp? The team that parted with the higher level tenders should get the higher pick.

critera B - in the event of a tie after applying the method above, look at the differential from the tender amount to the sale amount of the RFA's being used to acquire the HIGHEST comp pick of the players involved (note, once a player is used for a higher comp, they can't be used as a tiebreaker for their leftover points for the lower pick with any remaining points that may be used for the 2nd pick).

critera C - if still tied, revert to draft order as the tie breaker

Works for me... anything that puts record/draft order at the bottom. Compensation picks should be based on RFAs lost... not performance from the previous season.

[PencilGeeks]

I disagree.. a stronger team can 'afford' to lose higher valued RFA's so NOT factoring in the existing draft order in some manner will only hurt weaker teams. Also, points are points, I don't see why there should be a difference between 'spending' a 1st and 2nd compensentory points to get a 1st round pick should be any different than 'spending' 3 2nd round compensentory points.

Having said all that, I am with Burt: simple is best. Spend the points how you want and then seed it based on current draft order (or rather on draft order as it should be based on the prior season, before trades, etc.. worst to first).

[Preds]

Originally Posted by PencilGeeks

I disagree.. a stronger team can 'afford' to lose higher valued RFA's so NOT factoring in the existing draft order in some manner will only hurt weaker teams. Also, points are points, I don't see why there should be a difference between 'spending' a 1st and 2nd compensentory points to get a 1st round pick should be any different than 'spending' 3 2nd round compensentory points.

Having said all that, I am with Burt: simple is best. Spend the points how you want and then seed it based on current draft order (or rather on draft order as it should be based on the prior season, before trades, etc.. worst to first).

The draft is there to reward weaker teams. The RFA process is an entirely different animal.

Let's use a draft scenario.

The 1.1 team bids 6900 for LT, Burt lets him go (a staggering 3700 above the tender). Meanwhile the 1.1 loses some lessor 1st rd tender (say TE Tony Gonzalez for 500 over the tender). Add in some 2nd rd talent to both so they equal out at a 1st rd comp.

Your saying that 1.1 should get the 1.13 pick ahead of Burt, who has lost significantly more?

And what about teams that lose 2 1st rd tenders, by that alone havent they already given up more than a team that loses a 1st and 2nd?

You cannot bring the draft order into this, at least not in the 1st couple tie-breakers. Doing so is vastly unfair to the teams that lose the superior talent.

[PencilGeeks]

But we ARE talking about the draft NOT the RFA bidding process. This is about how the RFA tender is compensenating the loss of a player to FA by assigning point values in the DRAFT...

Obviously the RFA bidding is about 'perceived' value, not actual value. The actual value will not be known until after the season has been completed. If a team tenders a TE at a 1st round level and the player is lost then the 'perceived' value is 1st round.. simple as that. It is the winner of the RFA who has to deal with the whether the actual value paid is correct or not so I don't see how that should impact the draft. To say a team losing Gonzo over a team losing LT is losing 'superior' talent is ENTIRELY subjective and certainly should not be factored into the compensetory process IMO.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by PencilGeeks

But we ARE talking about the draft NOT the RFA bidding process. This is about how the RFA tender is compensenating the loss of a player to FA by assigning point values in the DRAFT...

Obviously the RFA bidding is about 'perceived' value, not actual value. The actual value will not be known until after the season has been completed. If a team tenders a TE at a 1st round level and the player is lost then the 'perceived' value is 1st round.. simple as that. It is the winner of the RFA who has to deal with the whether the actual value paid is correct or not so I don't see how that should impact the draft. To say a team losing Gonzo over a team losing LT is losing 'superior' talent is ENTIRELY subjective and certainly should not be factored into the compensetory process IMO.

You're not getting my point, The shitty teams have already been rewarded via the draft with higher picks. The RFA comp process isn't to reward them a 2nd time.

The RFA comp system is to lesson the blow for losing talent, and it's always been measured by the value of the player lost (as measured by the salary paid in the winning bid as compared to the tender level comped). The comp system has NEVER had anything to do with the overall composition of the team itself. It's aplayer valuation, and it rewards comps based on the valuation lost.

The Draft Order and RFA Compensation system have NEVER been related, nor should they be.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by PencilGeeks

But we ARE talking about the draft NOT the RFA bidding process. This is about how the RFA tender is compensenating the loss of a player to FA by assigning point values in the DRAFT...

Obviously the RFA bidding is about 'perceived' value, not actual value. The actual value will not be known until after the season has been completed. If a team tenders a TE at a 1st round level and the player is lost then the 'perceived' value is 1st round.. simple as that. It is the winner of the RFA who has to deal with the whether the actual value paid is correct or not so I don't see how that should impact the draft. To say a team losing Gonzo over a team losing LT is losing 'superior' talent is ENTIRELY subjective and certainly should not be factored into the compensetory process IMO.

I don't understand how basing RFA comp pick seeding to dollar sign is "subjective"... seems like simple economics to me: a good is put on the open market and the market as a whole decides the "value" of an object. Just because in the end only one owner wins the player, doesn't mean the entire market (the other 11 owners) didn't play a role in setting the market value. If the market is willing to pay 6900 for LT and only 2000 for Gonzalez ... then I don't see how one can say Gonzalez is worth equal or mor ethan LT? If he was he would get paid the same then.

[PencilGeeks]

Lol this is going to be fun! Clearly Chaff, er Flax, you don't understand the real economics behind putting together a fantasy football team. And clearly Preds is too close to the rules to see how they are really tied together!

Maybe I am not getting your point Preds because you don't have one? How can you say that the RFA Tender system and the draft are NOT tied together when you 'lessen the blow for losing talent' by rewarding compensatory DRAFT picks?! It makes no sense.

Which begs the question, now that I think about, do we need to 'lessen the blow for losing talent'?! Does the NFL reward teams for losing talent? I can't remember that happening. And actually here, Chaff, er Flax, brings inadvertently brings up a valid point: ECONOMICS.

The natural market 'reward' for letting talent go is having the cap space to make a splash in the rest of the FA market where-as the risk the winning team runs is NOT having the cap space to do anything else. And that is the 'trick' isn't it?... Drafting rookie talent, picking up rising FA and structuring smart contracts, yes? Boo-freaking-hoo that you lost a player to someone who is willing to pay/risk more; toughen up butter-cup!

As the 'noob' I am just trying to understand the reasoning (or lack there-of) behind such a complicated system! I say we scrap it all together, but obviously that is a question for another season... So I guess my final word on this is whatever! Implement whatever kind convoluted and goof-ball system you want... I abstain from this vote.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Does the NFL reward teams for losing talent?

I think the answer here is yes (though maybe not in the same fashion that we do). The NFL has compensatory picks that provide picks for players lost in Free Agency (though they do factor in players acquired as well).

There has been a lot of history here (that obvisiously you are privy to) but I think that the system in general has evolved nicely to meet the needs/desires of the majority of owners.

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Preds

IMO, it should be as follows:

critera A - how were the points accumulated?
that is, did a team acquire 36 points for say a 1st rd comp by declining 2 1st rd players (giving them 48 points and rd 1 and 2 comps), or did it take the team parting with a 1st rd tender and a 2nd tender to accumulate the 36 necessary for a 1st rd comp? The team that parted with the higher level tenders should get the higher pick.

critera B - in the event of a tie after applying the method above, look at the differential from the tender amount to the sale amount of the RFA's being used to acquire the HIGHEST comp pick of the players involved (note, once a player is used for a higher comp, they can't be used as a tiebreaker for their leftover points for the lower pick with any remaining points that may be used for the 2nd pick).

critera C - if still tied, revert to draft order as the tie breaker

Sounds good to me

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by PencilGeeks

Lol this is going to be fun! Clearly Chaff, er Flax, you don't understand the real economics behind putting together a fantasy football team. And clearly Preds is too close to the rules to see how they are really tied together!

Maybe I am not getting your point Preds because you don't have one? How can you say that the RFA Tender system and the draft are NOT tied together when you 'lessen the blow for losing talent' by rewarding compensatory DRAFT picks?! It makes no sense.

Which begs the question, now that I think about, do we need to 'lessen the blow for losing talent'?! Does the NFL reward teams for losing talent? I can't remember that happening. And actually here, Chaff, er Flax, brings inadvertently brings up a valid point: ECONOMICS.

The natural market 'reward' for letting talent go is having the cap space to make a splash in the rest of the FA market where-as the risk the winning team runs is NOT having the cap space to do anything else. And that is the 'trick' isn't it?... Drafting rookie talent, picking up rising FA and structuring smart contracts, yes? Boo-freaking-hoo that you lost a player to someone who is willing to pay/risk more; toughen up butter-cup!

As the 'noob' I am just trying to understand the reasoning (or lack there-of) behind such a complicated system! I say we scrap it all together, but obviously that is a question for another season... So I guess my final word on this is whatever! Implement whatever kind convoluted and goof-ball system you want... I abstain from this vote.

Fair enough. I see your point, but before you got here noob, as owners we decided that the "natural" market reward did not offer enough incentive to decline RFAs or fair compensation for losing players.

Way before you even heard of a contract league or understood the terms "cap hit" or "renegotiation" we had a couple of RFA periods WITHOUT the compensation system and you know what happened? RFAs rarely left their original teams. Owners did not want to part with studs and get free-cap space to sign bums as other studs were signed onto teams already.

So the RFA compensation system was introduced and we have been constantly tinkering to make it fair. We have done away with direct compensation and this year institutted a points system that seems to be working perfectly. RFAs change teams now b/c owners are more willing to let them go since they'll recieve cap space AND some type of compensation through the draft.

You're a n00b.... now instead of trying to change the entire system, why don't you just answer the simple question laid at your feet.

[pacificscrub]

I will put out more or less the same argument that I tried last season on this topic. While compensatory picks in the NFL are meant to reward teams for talent lost, these picks are based on two things: A) the round of the pick is based on that player's performance the following season. I would equate this to the tender level we assign them since we can't wait for a season to see how the player actually plays. B) after picks have been assigned specific rounds, then the comp picks for each round are assigned based on draft order. Now if the NFL is obviously awarding these picks in a fashion designed to reward worse teams over better ones IN ADDITION TO THE DRAFT ITSELF, then why don't we?