RFA Compensation pick order

[Burt the Butcher]

Do we need to discuss this further? I am not sure now, after reading through the comment, whether we should leave the pick order based on CB's above compensation level, or picks be in same order as 1-12 picks, or something else?

My .02 is that it should be left as 1-12 order. Since we are now combining all picks, if I had LT, and a couple 2nd round RFA's, LT has generally gone way over his 1st round level, so my other picks would be weighted heavily on his CB overage. Maybe that's ok, since he is more valuable than other RFA's and if lost, I should be compensated accordingly.

Let's throw this around for a while, and if we need to start another vote on this aspect, we will.

[Flaxwless]

Comp needs to be tied to cb value IMO.

Either final total of all RFAs lost or else based on total of the difference between tender and sale price.

[pacificscrub]

I think it should still be based on draft order. Going worst to first is designed to help the weak get stronger, so I don't see why that wouldn't apply to compensatory picks as well.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by pacificscrub

I think it should still be based on draft order. Going worst to first is designed to help the weak get stronger, so I don't see why that wouldn't apply to compensatory picks as well.

Just to play devil's advocate, the rookie picks are designed as such to help the weaker teams get stronger. The comp picks were set up as partial compensation for the loss of talent. Since they are based on a different premise, the order wouldn't necessarily have to be tied to each other.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Comp needs to be tied to cb value IMO.

Either final total of all RFAs lost or else based on total of the difference between tender and sale price.

one thing I can think of now that I don't like about basing it on CB's like we did before:

Floyds RFA's
LT gets 3000cb over his 1st round tender.
CJ gets 10cb over his 1st round tender.
Reggie Wayne gets 10cb over 1st round tender

I get 2 2nd round picks (theorectical of course, I haven't figured out if this is the correct number of comps)

Bloods RFA's:
Westy gets 1000cb over his 1st round tender
Evans gets 600cb over his 1st round tender
Rudi Johnson gets 700cb over his 1st round tender

Blood gets 2 2nd round comp picks. I will have 1st 2, Blood gets 3 and 4. That hardly seems to be fair that I would get first 2 2nd round picks based soley on a single players high value. But maybe it should?

This scenario brings up another question...both solutions seem to be that one team will always get back-to-back picks, regardless of which way we go. Does this seem fair?

I just can't think of another way to do this without bringing in more complicated chores for some one, and I have enought to keep up with currently.....

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Just to play devil's advocate, the rookie picks are designed as such to help the weaker teams get stronger. The comp picks were set up as partial compensation for the loss of talent. Since they are based on a different premise, the order wouldn't necessarily have to be tied to each other.

I think the NFL does it the same way, based on order of regular picks, and we do try to emulate the NFL where possible.

Maybe we should have based the compensation points given on both level given the RFA, but also a bonus of points based on final bid over the base? An extra point for each 100cb over, up to the points given for that level (to prevent people from giving LT a 4th round comp, and getting an extra 50 points)?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

one thing I can think of now that I don't like about basing it on CB's like we did before:

Floyds RFA's
LT gets 3000cb over his 1st round tender.
CJ gets 10cb over his 1st round tender.
Reggie Wayne gets 10cb over 1st round tender

I get 2 2nd round picks (theorectical of course, I haven't figured out if this is the correct number of comps)

Bloods RFA's:
Westy gets 1000cb over his 1st round tender
Evans gets 600cb over his 1st round tender
Rudi Johnson gets 700cb over his 1st round tender

Blood gets 2 2nd round comp picks. I will have 1st 2, Blood gets 3 and 4. That hardly seems to be fair that I would get first 2 2nd round picks based soley on a single players high value. But maybe it should?

This scenario brings up another question...both solutions seem to be that one team will always get back-to-back picks, regardless of which way we go. Does this seem fair?

I just can't think of another way to do this without bringing in more complicated chores for some one, and I have enought to keep up with currently.....

In the above scenario, I think we should determine the order, then everyone's comps for the round go in that order for their first pick, and then cycle through the order for everyone who has a second pick. So in the above scenario, the Floyds would get 1 and 3, and the Bloodsuckers would get 2 and 4.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

I think the NFL does it the same way, based on order of regular picks, and we do try to emulate the NFL where possible.

Maybe we should have based the compensation points given on both level given the RFA, but also a bonus of points based on final bid over the base? An extra point for each 100cb over, up to the points given for that level (to prevent people from giving LT a 4th round comp, and getting an extra 50 points)?

I think this would defeat the purpose of our intention of reducing the number of picks handed out as well as how high the picks are.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

In the above scenario, I think we should determine the order, then everyone's comps for the round go in that order for their first pick, and then cycle through the order for everyone who has a second pick. So in the above scenario, the Floyds would get 1 and 3, and the Bloodsuckers would get 2 and 4.

I concur with Brian's thoughts on this.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I think this would defeat the purpose of our intention of reducing the number of picks handed out as well as how high the picks are.

I'd have to check with the actual figures, but I doubt it would make that big of a difference for most of the players. If I was to lose LT, I would think he'd be worth a 1st round comp pick, and adding the bonus for going almost twice the starting price would give me that. But I am not married to the idea. It was just something I threw out to try and compensate the fact that if I lose LT, and Blood loses Rudi, he gets the same comp round as I do, even though Rudi sells for 200 over, and LT sells for 3K over, I just get the higher pick. But I guess that is no different than it was before.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

I'd have to check with the actual figures, but I doubt it would make that big of a difference for most of the players. If I was to lose LT, I would think he'd be worth a 1st round comp pick, and adding the bonus for going almost twice the starting price would give me that. But I am not married to the idea. It was just something I threw out to try and compensate the fact that if I lose LT, and Blood loses Rudi, he gets the same comp round as I do, even though Rudi sells for 200 over, and LT sells for 3K over, I just get the higher pick. But I guess that is no different than it was before.

Exactly. In trying to reduce the number of 1st round picks being handed out, the consensus was (based on the revised system passing) that teams should lose multiple first round talent players in order to get a 1st round comp.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Exactly. In trying to reduce the number of 1st round picks being handed out, the consensus was (based on the revised system passing) that teams should lose multiple first round talent players in order to get a 1st round comp.

Makes sense...I'll drop that part of the argument.....

Still not much discussion on order being based on normal pick order, or based on combined CB's over initial bid placement....

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Makes sense...I'll drop that part of the argument.....

Still not much discussion on order being based on normal pick order, or based on combined CB's over initial bid placement....

There's no reason IMO to change the order from the previous system we had in place, highest amount over tender.

Brian's idea to cycle through all eligible teams before seeding a 2nd pick in the same round works for me.

[pacificscrub]

I like Brian's cycling through the draft order for each extra pick teams have.

One thing that I will point out is that on the one hand, people point towards trying to emulate what the NFL does, but on the other hand we add things like compensatory points rather than compensatory picks based on FA's lost, which the NFL does not do. I understand the logic for this was to reduce the high draft picks some teams were getting, but if we really do want to try and emulate the NFL where possible, then let's do it. For compensatory draft picks awarded for FA's lost in the NFL, the picks are placed at the end of the applicable round based on their draft order. I say we stick to that or Brian's idea, whichever is more palatable to the league.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by pacificscrub

I like Brian's cycling through the draft order for each extra pick teams have.

One thing that I will point out is that on the one hand, people point towards trying to emulate what the NFL does, but on the other hand we add things like compensatory points rather than compensatory picks based on FA's lost, which the NFL does not do. I understand the logic for this was to reduce the high draft picks some teams were getting, but if we really do want to try and emulate the NFL where possible, then let's do it. For compensatory draft picks awarded for FA's lost in the NFL, the picks are placed at the end of the applicable round based on their draft order. I say we stick to that or Brian's idea, whichever is more palatable to the league.

I think we try as bets possible, but we have to make changes for a fantasy football league.

RFA comp pciks are for talent lost = generally the most talented players cost more, so we should have the order based on total cbs lost or total value of sale over tender and that would carry out through out the draft.

All theses extra points, rotations, etc.. is just more work and doesn't do much IMO.

JUST KISS!

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

I think we try as bets possible, but we have to make changes for a fantasy football league.

RFA comp pciks are for talent lost = generally the most talented players cost more, so we should have the order based on total cbs lost or total value of sale over tender and that would carry out through out the draft.

All theses extra points, rotations, etc.. is just more work and doesn't do much IMO.

JUST KISS!

Well, the simplest way would be to keep the order as it already is, rather than add a new order at the end of each round.

It sounds like majority want the order based on total CB's over, so we'll stay with that. And if more than one pick per round, the rotation stays throughout the round, so no one gets 2 picks in a row (unless they are last and only one with 2 picks)

[pacificscrub]

Unless people are contacting you directly Burt, how do you see a majority for value over tender? Reading through the above posts, it looks to me like these owners fell into these categories:

Value over tender:
Flax


Previous draft order:
Clowns
Nittany

Preds actually started with value over tender, but then posted that he liked Nittany's idea of previous draft order, so I'm not sure if he is firmly on one side or the other. Likewise I'm not sure where you fall Burt. Either way, I don't see a decisive decision either way.

[Burt the Butcher]

From Dodgers first post, it sounded to me like he was in favor of using the cb over tender method (although he did preface it with "playing devils advocate"). Preds stated that he was in favor of keeping it like it has been, which is cb over tender.

I guess that would also be my preference, to keep it as it has been, cb over tender.....thus it sounds like you were the only one stating to make it in Draft order....

[Preds]

It absolutely shoud be value over tender. There is no reason to change that. You lose a stud guy like LT vs. say a McGahee, you should get the higher comp. The RFA process has nothing to do with aiding weaker teams in the draft order, it's to supliment value lost to the teams that lose players, with the players who lose the most getting the better compensation.

IMO, this part shouldn't even be up for discussion. Clarification of the process sure, but that part of the system wasn't broke and isn't what we were trying to fix.

[pacificscrub]

Originally Posted by Preds

The RFA process has nothing to do with aiding weaker teams in the draft order, it's to supliment value lost to the teams that lose players, with the players who lose the most getting the better compensation.

No it's not, at least not in the NFL. The NFL gives compensation to any team based on a tender offer to FA's or RFA's. While those picks are assigned to the end of a particular round based on the tender amount given to the FA/RFA, ALL of the compensatory picks are then slotted by those teams' draft order, not by how much above the tender offer their former players have been signed. As I stated above, if we're doing our own thing, then fine. But if people want to keep our system in line with the NFL, then slotting by draft order is the way to go.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

From Dodgers first post, it sounded to me like he was in favor of using the cb over tender method (although he did preface it with "playing devils advocate"). Preds stated that he was in favor of keeping it like it has been, which is cb over tender.

I guess that would also be my preference, to keep it as it has been, cb over tender.....thus it sounds like you were the only one stating to make it in Draft order....

You're right, I was primarily playing devil's advocate in pointing out there was a justification to have two different orders.

That said, I don't feel extremely strongly one way or the other. I'm fine with keeping the rookie draft order, as it would aid the less fortunate teams. I'm also fine with re-ordering based on dollars over tender of players lost, and if I had to vote that is how I would.

[pacificscrub]

Ok. If most owners (at least those responding) are for value over tender, then go with that.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by pacificscrub

No it's not, at least not in the NFL. The NFL gives compensation to any team based on a tender offer to FA's or RFA's. While those picks are assigned to the end of a particular round based on the tender amount given to the FA/RFA, ALL of the compensatory picks are then slotted by those teams' draft order, not by how much above the tender offer their former players have been signed. As I stated above, if we're doing our own thing, then fine. But if people want to keep our system in line with the NFL, then slotting by draft order is the way to go.

I was referring to our RFA process having nothing to do with the draft order. It was never intended to be setup that way. The setup of the value over tender was intentional.