6 Draft Pick Compensation for unmatched RFA players tendered on NEW variable scale

[Preds]

If a team chooses to not match a RFA contract, they will be compensated with additional SUPPLIMENTAL draft picks in the upcoming draft each year which will be dependent upon the cb # a player is tendered at. NOTE: the team receiving the unmatched RFA would owe no compensation other than the salary.

1st round tenders by position would have opening bids of: 1200 for QB's, 2000 for RB's, 1300 for WR's, 750 for TE's, 400 for K's and 600 for D/ST's (if a RFA K or D/ST was worth a 1st round draft pick, they better be amazing).

The subsequent levels of tenders would be evenly declining, so the scales would be:

Quarterbacks:
1st round-1200
2nd Round-800
3rd Round-400
4th Round-200

Running Backs:
1st Round-2000
2nd Round-1300
3rd Round-600
4th Round-300

Wide Receivers
1st Round-1300
2nd Round-800
3rd Round-500
4th Round-200

Tight Ends
1st Round-750
2nd Round-400
3rd Round-250
4th Round-150

Kickers
1st Round-400
2nd Round-300
3rd Round-200
4th Round-150

Defense/Special Teams
1st Round-600
2nd Round-450
3rd Round-300
4th Round-225

For example, 13 players have been tendered RFAs and not subsequently matched. Under this scale, this is the compensation they would have received HAD they been tendered at the level stated

Corey Dillon and Edgerrin James, Tim Brown, Troy Brown, and Torry Holt - 1st round compensatory pick
Tiki Barber, Warrick Dunn, Garrison Hearst, and Darrell Jackson - 2nd round compensatory pick
Terrell Davis, Emmitt Smith, Mike Alstott, and Ed McCaffrey - 3rd round compensatory picks
No players at the 4th round level (Due in part to the higher current opening bid levels).

Now, had say Corey Dillon only been tendered as a 2nd, he would not be eligible for 1st round compensation (despite selling at 2200), only a 2nd. The same goes for Tim Brown and Troy Borwn who likely would have been tagged as 2nd round RFA's instead of 1st.

Basically, the process will work as follows:

Of each teams three RFAs, you would label them as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th rounders. The opening bids for them would be their corresponing price from the charts above. Other teams bidding would have to start at or above those prices. Once the bidding concludes, the tendering team can match, or decline to match. If they match, they obviously get the player for the highest bid, and receive no compensation. If they decline, they would get a compensatory pick, at the end of the round of the level they tendered the player. If no one opens bidding up during the RFA period on that player, the tendering team must give that player a contract for the opening bid price, and receives no compensation.

The compensation would be based on the tender given by the tendering team, and would not change no matter how high the biding went (ie, you give player x a 4th round tender, and bidding goes up to 3000, if you decline you still just get the 4th round compensation).

NEW - What will the payscale be for thee supplimental picks? Supplimental picls will be paid at the position scale relative to the x.12 player taken in that same round. So a 1.13 would be paid the same as 1.12 (depending of course on the players position), a 2.14 or 2.16 would be paid the same as the 2.12 scale, etc.

Also note, that in the case of mutiple RFA's not being matched in the same round, the players selling for the higher salary above the RFA tag baseline would receive the higher supplimental pick (starting at x.13). So say 3 players were tendered 2nd round supplimentals but not matched, (an RB tagged at 1300 but sold for 1700, a WR tagged at 800 but sold for 1400, and another WR tagged at 800 and sold at 1000). In this example, the RB sold 400 above the baseline, the 1st WR sold 600 above the baseline, and the 2nd WR sold only 200 above the tagged RFA baseline. In the above case the 1st WR would receive the 2.13 supplimental, the RB would receive a 2.14, and the 2nd WR would get 2.15.

HISTORICAL EXAMPLES
all examples assume the player was tagged at the supplimental compensation stated

in 2003, 6 of the 26 RFA's were NOT matched, they are:
Corey Dillon (say tagged at 1300 but sold at 2200 a difference of 900) would garner a 2.13 supplemental
Tiki Barber (say tagged at 1300 but sold at 1900 a difference of 600) would garner a 2.14 supplemental
Torry Holt (say tagged at 800 but sold at 1250 a difference of 450) would garner a 2.15 supplemental
Darrell Jackson (say tagged at 800 but sold at 900 a difference of 100) would garner a 2.16 supplemental
Emmitt Smith (say tagged at 600 but sold at 830 a difference of 230) would garner a 3.13 supplemental
Ed McCaffrey (say tagged at 200 but sold at 450 a difference of 250) would garner a 4.13 supplemental

in 2002, 7 of the 21 RFA's were NOT matched, they are:
Edgerrin James (say tagged at 2000 but sold at 2100 a difference of 100) would garner a 1.13 supplemental
Tim Brown (say tagged at 800 but sold at 1290 a difference of 490) would garner a 2.13 supplemental
Troy Brown (say tagged at 800 but sold at 1215 a difference of 415) would garner a 2.14 supplemental
Warrick Dunn (say tagged at 1300 but sold at 1400 a difference of 100) would garner a 2.15 supplemental
Garrisson Hearst (say tagged at 1300 but sold at 1300 a difference of 0) would garner a 2.16 supplemental
Terrell Davis (say tagged at 600 but sold at 1000 a difference of 400) would garner a 3.13 supplimental
Mike Alstott (say tagged at 600 but sold at 650 a difference of 50) would garner a 3.14 supplemental
Ed McCaffrey (say tagged at 200 but sold at 450 a difference of 250) would garner a 4.13 supplemental

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Before I vote on this... let's talk about it a bit more.

Do we want to limit the number of supplimental picks an owner can receive (ie. 1, 2 or all 3)? Or does anyone else see this as a problem?

Also, I'm guessing this would alter things two ways...

1. While being extremely valuable to owners who lose "good" talent... his may actually serve to weaken the draft picks... in that some team who initially has an early 2nd round pick (say 2.1), suddenly find themselves picking, literally 5 or 6 places below that, due to 5-6 "supplimental" picks that are made at the end of round one. There could be a HUGE difference in the talent pool between those 5-6 slots.

And then between the 2nd & 3rd round, I could envision 10-15 supplimental picks each year!

2. (on a much less important note) We'd have to change the draft pick salary scale to accomodate for these "supplimental picks".

We haven't really had much discussion time on this subject... I'd like to talk it out before making up my mind on how to vote.

[Flaxwless]

Opihi has just stolen teh words from my mouth. Those are the exact reasons why I am opposed to draft pick compensation which TACKS on picks between rounds.

1. Devalues the latter round picks.
2. Salary scale

The latter round picks will lose their value because there will be seveveral picks between rounds at least 5 or so. Although, there have been only a handful of RFA not matched each year this is beacuse their has been no compensation. I am sure if draft pick compensation is implemented the number of mid level talents RFA would increase.

I like the idea of an RFA compensation, but I believe that it should come out of the existing 48 draft picks. Nothing in between rounds.

3. It allows the rich to get richer, the poor get poorer.

If an Draft pick compensation is allowed it makes it only gives losing teams 1 viable way to fill their roster, RFA & UFA, because the value of latter round draft picks will become nill. Even if the picks are allocated from the exsisting 48 picks then that means to sign an RFA the losing team has to give up one of their building blocks. It would make it harder for talent to be spread across the league.


Overall I am against RFA compensation as right to match final offer is great compensation anyway, but I could be swayed if the picks come from the exsisting pool.

1. Draft pick value stays the same
2. No need to rearrange draft scales
3. Regulates RFA salaries, maybe even at a discount as teams would determine if they are willing to give up a pick.

There maybe other consequences for the compensation coming from the 48 pick draft, so list them if you will.

I will vote once we talk about this further.

[Preds]

I'm all in favor of more discussion before people actually vote, but before teams start spouting off inaccuracies (sorry Jim ;)) I want you to look again at the historical fact which I posted in the original post.

The fact is over the past 2 years, only 13 players out of 47 went unmatched (6 in 2002 and 7 in 2003). Further, of those 13, only 2 garnered what would be 1st round compensation (1 in each year), and again remember that 1st round pick would come at the END of the round, and would thus be more like a high 2nd. Being the present owner of the 2.1 I'd have no problem dropping a slot (even 2) for a supplimental pick to a team that lost an Edgerrin James or Corey Dillon (the 2 players that would have garnered END of 1st compensation). Nobody is going to lose any value on their 1st round picks, only the 2nd round and beyond will be impacted, mainly the 3rd round.

Looking even deeper into our actual history, over the past 2 years, only 8 RFA players of the 47 that were tagged were signed to contracts over 2000 cb's (3 in 2003 and 5 in 2002), and again of these 8, 2 of them were not matched (1 each season). I think the most increase you'd see here is say half the players over 2000 not being matched, thus likely a max of 2 (a very unlikely 3 supplimentals at the end of the 1st round each year. Big friggen deal to the guy with 2.1 (which just happens to be ME this year BTW). Wanna know who was picked at 2.1 the last 2 years... a very astute Llamas team hit the jackpot with Anquan Boldin (a much bigger surprise than most anyone anticipated) and the year before the Undead saddled themselves with Josh Reed (a suprise in what a disappointment he became after his 1st year). I don't think losing a Edgerrin James for the hit or miss that is Josh Reed vs. Anquan Boldin in unrealistic compensation.

Looking further into our actual history, 7 players out of the 13 that weren't matched would have garned supplimentals at the END of the 2nd round (2 in 2003 and 5 in 2002). Again, all of these supplimentals would essentially be high 3rd round picks. Anyone care to show me how many 3rd rounders are currently impact players the way Tiki Barber and Torry Holt were last year (2 players that would have garnered END of 2nd compensation)? Nobody is even close.

Finally 3 players out of the 13 unmatched players would garner picks at the END of the 3rd round which are essentially high 4th round picks (2 in 2003 and 1 in 2004) and 1 player garned a supplimental at the END of the 4th round (essentially a 5th round pick).

What I like about this concept is that it may actually encourage teams NOT to match. While this may slightly increase the picks at the end of the 2nd or 3rd, I doubt it'll have an huge impact at the end of the 1st. Instead of maybe 1 player garnering 1st round compensation we may have 2). Secondly, I think it will make teams think twice about what they want to bid knowing a match may indeed be passed up in exchange for the pick. Further, I think teams will think twice about how HIGH to bid a player knowing they may be pushing that player to the next plateau... we may see players bid up to 1990, but teams dropping off knowing that another bid knocks the player into 1st round compensation. This IMO will be 1 way to ensure bidding teams are truly interested in the player(s) they are bidding on.

I personally think the salaries paid to RFA's are somewhat inflated over the UFA period (since teams generally have more cap money to play with during thr RFA period which is the opening of the new season). To be honest, I've debated using a strategy of not tagging any players this year and instead rolling the dice in the UFA period. I think using a supplimental pick compensation system will encourageboth bidders and tagging teams to think twice, and may result in slightly lower RFA salaries (more in line with the UFA period) and possibly slighlty more player movement.

As for what salary scale to pay the players at, I would pay them all the same as the x.12 player taken in that same round. So a 1.13 would be paid the same as 1.12, a 2.14 or 2.16 would be paid the same as the 2.12, etc.

Further, I'd be in favor of passing up a 4th round (which I'm actually leaning more against than for lately) to make room for the 6-8 supplimentals each year. NOTE to Brian, I think the addition of a 4th round needs to be a seperate vote.

I also want to point out that when the NFL gives out supplimentals at the end of a round, it does exactly what I'm proposing and moves the rounds back, so supplimentals at the end of round 2 might be picks 65-70 with the 3rd round starting at pick 71 instead of 65.

Finally, I want to point out that I'd be majorly against having to actually give up your own pick if a RFA wasn't matched. This would hugely impact the bidding on RFA's, so much so that RFA's would sell much much cheaper than they currently do IMO. Until last year the NFL had I believe all of 2 or 3 players in the last 3 years move as RFA's, last year we had Coles and Morton move to the Skins, but that was mainly due to Snyder generally being a Jerry Jones wannabe and deciding to shake up the NFL.

If we're going to talk compensation, a supplimental system is the only way to go IMO, and the proposal I've structured is not going to have a huge impact other than slighlty decreasing the value of 2nd round selections, and seeing as only 1 player in each of the past 2 seasons would have garnered a 1st round supplimental it'd be a very limited impact on the 2nd. The 3rd round is the round most impacted by this, with the majority of players garnering end of 2nd supplimentals, and I mean come-on, how much impact does this really have on the draft. Are you really going to tell me that a team that passes on a Torry Holt or Tiki Barber doesn't deserve basically a high 3rd round pick as compensation?

Think about it, the proposal is sound and fair to all IMO.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I should have looked at this poll before I posted in the other thread. I'll say it here again though. I think the scale needs to be ticked up a bit. I think a 1st round compensatory pick should be a rare thing, not a commong thing (Mike, based on your numbers, we'd have 1 1st round compensatory pick each of the last two). I don't think it should be that common. I think it should be compensation in the rare circumstance that a team cannot match due to a player being bid out of a teams range. Not something where a team says "hey, I know i don't want this guy back, but if I tag him, then I'll get a pick out of it." I don't think it should work like that. I think the 1st rounder has to start at least at 2500.

[Liquid Swords]

intriguing idea...i kinda like it but i think if this is voted in favor of the additional 4th round we've been talking about adding should be dropped like Mike said to make room for the supplementals.

my 2 cents

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I am in favor but I would still like to see the fourth round of the draft. Not sure how many supp picks would be needed each year but I can't imagine there would be that many that would mess with the draft. Basically, any fourth round supp pick would be after the "draft" was over.

Please note I did not vote on this yet. Wanted to see some more discussion first.

[Preds]

OK, to answer Brian's post on the compensation salaries I used in my proposal.

I did some more research, and broke the players down in increments of 500 for every player that sold from 1000 to 3000+over the past 2 years.

Our historical data shows that only 3 RFA's have sold for 2500 plus (1 in 2003 and 2 in 2002) and of those all 3 were matched. 5 Players were sold between 2000 and 2499, and 2 of those 5 were not matched.

5 players were sold between 1500 and 1999 (all in 2003) and only 1 went unmatched.

Finally, 16 players sold between 1000 and 1499 (5 in 2003 and 11 in 2002). Of these 16, 1 went unmatched in 2003, and 5 went unmatched in 2002.

Anyhow, here are the results with names:

Players sold in 2003 (N) = Not Matched
1000          1500          2000             2500          3000+
Canidate      Barber (N)    Dillon (N)                     R Williams
Gannon        Holmes        M Faulk
Ward          Garner
Buress        J Lewis
Holt (N)      R Moss

Players sold in 2002 (N) = Not Matched
1000          1500          2000             2500          3000+
Hearst (N)                  E James (N)      R Moss        M Faulk 
T Davis (N)                 C Martin
Gannon                      A Thomas
Troy Brown (N)
Tim Brown (N)
J Smith
A Smith
Dunn (N)
Key Johnson
Booker
F Taylor

What this shows me is that historically, it would be EXTREMELY rare for a player to sell as a RFA over 2500 and not be matched. Too rare in fact. I don't think my 2000 plateau is too low, but I can be swayed to increase it to say 2250, but I think 2500 is too high.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Mike, here's another idea to complicate things, scale based on position. Here's why; I think I could be convinced that Randy Moss at the 1500-2000 is worthy of 1st round compensation, while Corey Dillon at the 2000-2500 range is not. I cannot phathom a quarterback ever going for over 2000 (well, close maybe), but I think we can agree that if a Manning, Culpepper, etc, was not matched in RFA, they would be the kind of player that would be worthy of 1st round compensation.

How about this idea (just throwing it out for conversation, not really a proposal since i haven't thought through the details), but how about a system like the NFL restricted free agent process. There could be three or four levels of tenders available to offer to a RFA. A 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round tender, each with different opening salary bids. That puts a little more onus on the team offering the tender to be willing to take the player back, and makes it a little riskier if they want to get a 1st rounder out of it. Look at RBs for example. If you want to get a 1st round compensatory pick if you decide to not match an RB, you give him a 1st round tender, with an opening bid at 2250 (or whatever level we decide). If he gets bid up from there, and you don't match, then you get a 1st rounder. however, if you've misjudged the market, and no one ups him, you have to pay him the 2250.

The way I like this better is that there is more risk involved, and it would be harder for a team to get something for nothing. Say a team has three stud RBs, two under contract and one expired. Normally, since he won't want that player back, or can't afford to bring him back, he won't RFA him, or he only will because he think's he'll go for a higher salary. Under the original proposal, we're going to reward him with a potentially high draft pick, when he never even considered bringing him back. If we have different levels of tenders, there is more risk involved in getting the compensation, and that to me makes it a little more palatable.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
Mike, here's another idea to complicate things, scale based on position. Here's why; I think I could be convinced that Randy Moss at the 1500-2000 is worthy of 1st round compensation, while Corey Dillon at the 2000-2500 range is not. I cannot phathom a quarterback ever going for over 2000 (well, close maybe), but I think we can agree that if a Manning, Culpepper, etc, was not matched in RFA, they would be the kind of player that would be worthy of 1st round compensation.

How about this idea (just throwing it out for conversation, not really a proposal since i haven't thought through the details), but how about a system like the NFL restricted free agent process. There could be three or four levels of tenders available to offer to a RFA. A 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round tender, each with different opening salary bids. That puts a little more onus on the team offering the tender to be willing to take the player back, and makes it a little riskier if they want to get a 1st rounder out of it. Look at RBs for example. If you want to get a 1st round compensatory pick if you decide to not match an RB, you give him a 1st round tender, with an opening bid at 2250 (or whatever level we decide). If he gets bid up from there, and you don't match, then you get a 1st rounder. however, if you've misjudged the market, and no one ups him, you have to pay him the 2250.

The way I like this better is that there is more risk involved, and it would be harder for a team to get something for nothing. Say a team has three stud RBs, two under contract and one expired. Normally, since he won't want that player back, or can't afford to bring him back, he won't RFA him, or he only will because he think's he'll go for a higher salary. Under the original proposal, we're going to reward him with a potentially high draft pick, when he never even considered bringing him back. If we have different levels of tenders, there is more risk involved in getting the compensation, and that to me makes it a little more palatable.

I think your idea has great merit and makes sense to integrate into my proposal. Can you work some more specific numbers so we could see how this would function?

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Brian, yet another fine idea!!!

I think this will work very well and will help keep things in check in terms of expectations and values.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Preds
I think your idea has great merit and makes sense to integrate into my proposal. Can you work some more specific numbers so we could see how this would function?

Which idea? The different scales based on position, or the different levels of RFA tenders?

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers


Which idea? The different scales based on position, or the different levels of RFA tenders?

The different levels of RFA tenders.

Actually, why not both? The roster app shows the average salaries for the top 5 players, we could probably use that as a guide.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Mike, I know you've posted some of the information here, but can you send me a complete list (if you have it ) of all RFA transactions (final price, matched/not matched)?

I'll get to work on it.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
Mike, I know you've posted some of the information here, but can you send me a complete list (if you have it ) of all RFA transactions (final price, matched/not matched)?

I'll get to work on it.

Actually I just referenced the RFA forum for all my data. You have to sift through all the players sold for the 2003 RFA's (which there are less than 30), however there is a real nice summary thread from the 2002 season.

[Nittany Dodgers]

OK, I've come up with what I think is a consistent way to determine the opening bid for 1st round tenders for each position; the max rookie contract amount. Thus, 1st round tenders by posisition would have opening bids: quarterbacks at 1200, running backs at 2000, wide receivers at 1100, tight ends at 750, at kickers at 400 (since we don't have rookie scales for kickers, and if a rfa kicker was worth a 1st round draft pick, he better be amazing). The subsequent levels of tenders would be evenly declining, so the scales would be:

Quarterbacks:
1st round-1200
2nd Round-800
3rd Round-400
4th Round-200

Running Backs:
1st Round-2000
2nd Round-1300
3rd Round-600
4th Round-300

Wide Receivers
1st Round-1100
2nd Round-700
3rd Round-400
4th Round-200

Tight Ends
1st Round-750
2nd Round-400
3rd Round-250
4th Round-150

Kickers
1st Round-400
2nd Round-300
3rd Round-200
4th Round-150

For example, 13 players have been tendered RFAs and not subsequently matched. Under this scale, this is the compensation they would have received:

Corey Dillon and Edgerin James, Tim Brown, Troy Brown, and Torry Holt-1 round compensatory pick
Tiki Barber, Warrick Dunn, Garrison Hearst, and Darrell Jackson-2nd round compensatory pick
Terrell Davis, Emmitt Smith, Mike Alstott, and Ed McCaffrey-3rd round compensatory picks
No players at the 4th round level (Due in part to the higher current opening bid levels).

Personally, I think this spread looks pretty good. Thoughts?

Edited to add: I suppose I should have a little discusion on how this would work. Of each teams three RFAs, you would label them as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th rounders. The opening bids for them would be their corresponing price from the charts above. Other teams bidding would have to start at or above those prices. Once the bidding concludes, the tendering team can match, or decline to match. If they match, they obviously get the player for the highest bid, and receive no compensation. If they decline, they would get a compensatory pick, at the end of the round of the level they tendered the player. If no one opens bidding up during the RFA period on that player, the tendering team must give that player a contract for the opening bid price, and receives no compensation.

The compensation would be based on the tender given by the tendering team, and would not change no matter how high the biding went (ie, you give player x a 4th round tender, and bidding goes up to 3000, if you decline you still just get the 4th round compensation).

The same scales could be used without the tender system, but I'd like to put a little ownus on the tendering team.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

At first glance I thought the numbers should be a little bit higher. However, I think this scale will work well and will provide teams that are losing “superstars” some compensation. I do think that based on this years FA’s we will see quite a few first round tenders (my early estimate would be 6). However, not all of these players will be switching teams so it is not likely that all of them will generate first round supplemental picks.

This should also cut down on the bidding process as most RFA players values will be more closely set based on the perceived market.

Nice work, I think this will continue to make this one of the best and most interesting leagues going.

[Preds]

hmm, I have no problem with the QB and RB scales, the TE and K scales are fine as well.

I do think the WR scale should start a tad higher at say 1300 (maybe even 1400). Tim Brown and Troy Brown are not what I'd consider 1st rd supplimental worthy, although Holt who sold at 1250 was worth a 1st, but sold for only 1250 for various reasons. I think if a team had to guarentee 1300 for a 1st tender, they may not tag a Tim Brown or Troy Brown at that level, but would possibly tag a player like Holt or Moss as a 1st.

I can say that had this scale been in place last year, I would not have tagged Dillon as a 1st round tender, but would have as a 2nd (which is about right).

I think the numbers work well if we just bump up the WR's by 200 in the 1st round, and maybe 100 in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Mike, I'd probably agree with you that Brown and Brown were not worthy of 1st round tenders, however Tim had 91-1165-9 the previous year and Troy had 101-1199-5. Those are good numbers but I doubt the owning team would have tagged them as 1st rounders. Since they didn't match, they wouldn't have wanted to pay 1200 for those players, and it would have been risky tagging them that high.

However, I am in no way married to the 1100 figure. I only started there to be consistent with the other positions starting at the rookie contract max.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

At first I was leaning against the compensation for RFA matched but I like this tendering idea. It does put the onus on the team with RFAs to try and judge the market worth and adds a bit of strategy as well.

Also Mike, I believe RFAs are a bit higher than UFAs because these players are more in demand, otherwise the team would not have placed the RFA tags on these players.

I agree with Mike that the WR tender price seemed a tad low. 1250 or 1300 seems about right. Also, are we to assume that defense/special team "players" cannot be tagged? Just curious since they were left off.

If we do propose this then removing the 4th round of the rookie draft would make sense as well.

[Preds]

I've updated the initial post for this proposal to reflect the suggestions from Brian, Joe, Matt, and myself (WR's start at 1300).

I personally think putting some onus on the tendering team is a great idea, and more in line with the NFL.

If you want 1st round comp for a RB, then you have to guarentee a 2000 cb salary (which would be the starting bid).

I think the various tender levels will add even more strategy to the RFA process, but teams that do take the tender risk will still recive some form of compensation for their loss and the risk they took.

I love it and think with the changes that have been suggested it's a votable proposal.

Regarding D/ST, I say we use 150% of the Kickers scale. A defense better be damned good to warrant 1st round compensation, and a salary of 600 would merit that IMO. I'll add it to the proposal.

As for a 4th round, that has it's own poll and I think it can be addressed seperatly. We'll even vote a 4th rounder in (regardless of the supplimentals) or we won't. I'd be willing to wager though that some (if not most) teams will look at these 2 proposals in tandem and will vote no on one and yes on the other.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

This is something I can vote for! I was worried that a team who's "floundering" mid-season, could take on a "bloated" contract of a player from another team (or, probably less likely, could bid up a player rediculously high) FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of not matching them in the RFA period and getting a "free pick" in the first round.

This proposal, however, is excellent... I have no problems with this. OPIHI have voted in favor.

But dang, you guys got a heck of a lot more free time than I do, to be able to do all this research!!! ;)

[Preds]

Originally posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi
This proposal, however, is excellent... I have no problems with this. OPIHI have voted in favor.

But dang, you guys got a heck of a lot more free time than I do, to be able to do all this research!!! ;)

, I think the passion and dedication to this league is what makes it so great. I'm willing to invest time to make this league the best it can be, and each year I believe we've made huge strides in growing this league into one of the most competitive and realistic I've seen. I think people get passionate and involved so much in the rule discussions (in March for Pete's Sake!) because they do care about what this league is and will become down the line (at least I hope they do)!

I'll add that Brian has been an invaluable asset to the league (both with his time and his opinions), and is often a great devil's advocate to clearify the process and build the strongest proposals we can.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Preds
, I think the passion and dedication to this league is what makes it so great. I'm willing to invest time to make this league the best it can be, and each year I believe we've made huge strides in growing this league into one of the most competitive and realistic I've seen. I think people get passionate and involved so much in the rule discussions (in March for Pete's Sake!) because they do care about what this league is and will become down the line (at least I hope they do)!

I'll add that Brian has been an invaluable asset to the league (both with his time and his opinions), and is often a great devil's advocate to clearify the process and build the strongest proposals we can.

I'll second that notion that this league setup and owners are the best I've seen. It's a lot of fun to put this energy in and tinker, so I'm happy to have a bunch of guys as interested as I am.

As to the amount of time I have to spend on this, I just got a raise and promotion, so I don't have to worry about work for another 9 months when we start thinking about reviews again.

I should probably start focusing my time on my roster instead of the rules, since I inherited a championship game team and promptly ran into into the ground with the second overall pick this year.

[Liquid Swords]

excellent proposal...my vote is in

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Great work all, my vote is in

[Preds]

I just want to note that I edited the proposal to clearify that teams would not be giving up their oown picks if a team chose not to match a player, but that the picks would be supplimental at the end of the rounds.

I also clearified the process for how supplimentals would be awarded when multple RFA's were not matched in the same round.

Here's the process, if this changes anyone's vote let me know. Thanks.

In the case of mutiple RFA's not being matched in the same round, the players selling for the higher salary above the RFA tag baseline would receive the higher supplimental pick (starting at x.13). So say 3 players were tendered 2nd round supplimentals but not matched, (an RB tagged at 1300 but sold for 1700, a WR tagged at 800 but sold for 1400, and another WR tagged at 800 and sold at 1000). In this example, the RB sold 400 above the baseline, the 1st WR sold 600 above the baseline, and the 2nd WR sold only 200 above the tagged RFA baseline. In the above case the 1st WR would receive the 2.13 supplimental, the RB would receive a 2.14, and the 2nd WR wold get 2.15.

HISTORICAL EXAMPLES
all examples assume the player was tagged at the supplimental compensation stated

in 2003, 6 of the 26 RFA's were NOT matched, they are:
Corey Dillon (say tagged at 1300 but sold at 2200 a difference of 900) would garner a 2.13 supplemental
Tiki Barber (say tagged at 1300 but sold at 1900 a difference of 600) would garner a 2.14 supplemental
Torry Holt (say tagged at 800 but sold at 1250 a difference of 450) would garner a 2.15 supplemental
Darrell Jackson (say tagged at 800 but sold at 900 a difference of 100) would garner a 2.16 supplemental
Emmitt Smith (say tagged at 600 but sold at 830 a difference of 230) would garner a 3.13 supplemental
Ed McCaffrey (say tagged at 200 but sold at 450 a difference of 250) would garner a 4.13 supplemental

in 2002, 7 of the 21 RFA's were NOT matched, they are:
Edgerrin James (say tagged at 2000 but sold at 2100 a difference of 100) would garner a 1.13 supplemental
Tim Brown (say tagged at 800 but sold at 1290 a difference of 490) would garner a 2.13 supplemental
Troy Brown (say tagged at 800 but sold at 1215 a difference of 415) would garner a 2.14 supplemental
Warrick Dunn (say tagged at 1300 but sold at 1400 a difference of 100) would garner a 2.15 supplemental
Garrisson Hearst (say tagged at 1300 but sold at 1300 a difference of 0) would garner a 2.16 supplemental
Terrell Davis (say tagged at 600 but sold at 1000 a difference of 400) would garner a 3.13 supplimental
Mike Alstott (say tagged at 600 but sold at 650 a difference of 50) would garner a 3.14 supplemental
Ed McCaffrey (say tagged at 200 but sold at 450 a difference of 250) would garner a 4.13 supplemental

[Flaxwless]

voted yes.

I like this idea a lot.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Great work, gentlemen! This sounds like fun!

[Nittany Dodgers]

The Insects brought up an issue that I don't think we've addresssed. How are the supplimental picks going to affect the salary scale? (Maybe this was addressed, and I just missed it). I would think for simplicity's sake we could just have the supplimental picks be the same base salary as the #12 pick of the corresponding round, with obviously 1st round picks having 1st round bonuses apply.