5 Sign and trade deals - Passes 9-2

[Nittany Dodgers]

Should we outlaw sign and trade deals?

The idea here is that the RFA tag has been abused, and the system as it is run is collusionary and anti-competitive (that may be overstated, but you get the idea). Various practices have happened that, some believe, affect the true market value of RFAs. To outlaw these manuevers, it is proposed that we ban sign and trade deals of RFAs. To implement this ban, we would prohibit the trading of RFAs (acquired either through matching or non-matching of the highest bid) until the start of the in season free agency period.

For more detail of the debate, please see the following thread:

http://vbb.predatorsfootball.com/sho...&threadid=3640

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I'm in favor of baning sign-n-trade deals. I know the NFL does it, but I'd like to see the RFA bidding process be allowed to work itself out.

After re-reading the discussion thread cited above, one of the other suggestions was a form of draft pick compensation. I'm assuming that's no longer part of the proposal, since it wasn't listed above. I'm fine with just prohibiting the trading of RFAs until the in-season period.

Opihi have voted in favor of this outlaw.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Jim, I didn't include my draft pick compensation as part of the proposal for a couple of reasons. First, it didn't generate much discussion, so I didn't think there was too much support for it. Secondly, this thread was pretty weak overall, and I was trying to find a consensus proposal in each of these threads, and none really existed here. Thus, I just went with the barebones proposal that was initially suggested. Personally, I still like the draft pick proposal, but I didn't really think through it too much, so if this doesn't pass (even if it does), and we want to tinker with it more, I'd like to revisit it again in the future.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

no problem by me for revisiting this, whether it passes or fails...

[Nittany Dodgers]

Dodgers vote in favor of this ban. The market price of players salaries is one of the foundations for the leage competition. We also are working to determine rookie salaries, possible franchise player salaries (and who knows what else in the future) on the market price of players. When factors, other than demand, work to influence the contract value of players, it undermined the best interests of the league (IMHO).

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I voted in favor of the ban for reasons already stated in the discussion thread.

[Preds]

I'll continue to hijack this thread by backing support for a draft pick compensation scale for players lost as RFA's.

I openly admit I'm not in favor of restricting these types of trades, but if it does pass I like the idea of getting supplimental picks like the NFL gives away.

Basically, I'd propose that we assign supplimental picks as follows:

First off, the higher the contract the RFA is sold for would relate to the higher supplimental (which would be added to the end of the round)

Contracts over 2000 = 1st round supplimental
Contracts from 1000-1999 = 2nd round supplimental
Contracts from 500-999 = 3rd round supplimental
Contracts from 1-499 = 4th round supplimental

[Preds]

I did a little research on this, 1st off ony 2 RFA's have ever been signed and traded, and both were in 2002.

The 1st was Jimmy Smith who I aquired in a sign and trade deal from the then Devil Hounds

The 2nd was Marty Booker who I acquired in a sign and trade deal from the Dodgers.

Anyhow, I can live with this, and infact endorse it if instead we implement a compensation scale for RFA's lost.

Using the proposal I outlined in the previous thread, the results of the past 2 RFA periods would have been as follows:

Again here is the scale:
Contracts from 2000+ = 1st round supplimental
Contracts from 1000-1999 = 2nd round supplimental
Contracts from 500-999 = 3rd round supplimental
Contracts from 1-499 = 4th round supplimental

The higher the contract the RFA is sold for would relate to the higher supplimental (which would be added to the end of the round). Ties would be broken by giving the higher pick to the RFA that sold first.

in 2003, 6 of the 26 RFA's were NOT matched, they are:
Corey Dillon (2200) would garner a 1.13 supplemental
Tiki Barber (1900) would garner a 2.13 supplemental
Torry Holt (1250) would garner a 2.14 supplemental
Darrell Jackson (900) would garner a 3.13 supplemental
Emmitt Smith (830) would garner a 3.14 supplemental
Ed McCaffrey (450) would garner a 4.13 supplemental

in 2002, 7 of the 21 RFA's were NOT matched, they are:
Edgerrin James (2100) would garner a 1.13 supplemental
Warrick Dunn (1400) would garner a 2.13 supplemental
Garrisson Hearst (1300) would garner a 2.14 supplemental
Tim Brown (1290) would garner a 2.15 supplemental
Troy Brown (1215) would garner a 2.16 supplemental
Terrell Davis (1000) would garner a 2.17 supplimental
Mike Alstott (650) would garner a 3.13 supplemental
Ed McCaffrey (450) would garner a 4.13 supplemental

[Mutts]

I voted for the ban. I like where Mike is going with the supplemental idea as well.

[Flaxwless]

I voted to ban sign and trade deals as well.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I voted that these deals should be allowed. By waiting a month or two I am not sure that we really are restricting anything.

I must admit that Mike's idea of a supplimental pick intrigues me and I would be willing to vote in favor of this (even if it means repealing my yes vote above).

[Preds]

Originally posted by Philadelphia Freedom
I voted that these deals should be allowed. By waiting a month or two I am not sure that we really are restricting anything.

I must admit that Mike's idea of a supplimental pick intrigues me and I would be willing to vote in favor of this (even if it means repealing my yes vote above).

Matt, whether this passes (which is likely) or fails really has little to do with the my supplimental compensation idea for lost RFA's.

As for that proposal, come join the dark side (as I told the Insects ;)).

I put a lot of thought into writing that proposal and backed it up with historical fact. The supplimental compensation picks are sound and will not adversly effect the 1st round at all, and will only have limited impact on the 2nd round (maybe push picks back 1 or 2 picks). The 3rd round is the round most impacted by this (with the majority of supplimentals coming in at the end of the 2nd round), but then again, we're talking the 3rd round, no studs yet have emerged from the 3rd round. In fact the best 2 players so far have been an emerging Bryant Westbrook who was CUT year 1 (he's now entering his 3rd year), and Doug Jolley who excelled year 1 and regressed in his sophmore season.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Feel free to bring me to the dark side. Though I doubt my one vote will make a difference. Yes, I know somewhere a Rock the Staffer just felt a pang of regret over not being able to reach this Gen X voter!!

[Liquid Swords]

voted

[Nittany Dodgers]

I'm not against the idea of compensation for non-matched RFAs (actually, if I remember correctly, it was my idea ;) ), but I'd like to see those numbers ticked up a bit. I think the threshold for 1st rounders should be at least 2500, my original proposal was 3000. Mike, you illustrated the numbers for RFAs not matched, but I really think we need to consider those players that were matched as well to get a better picture. I think we're going to set up a faulty system if we just look at the players not matched, and try to work the numbers from that. I don't think giving someone a compensatory 1st round selection should be a common thing. I think it should be a rare thing, making it a factor in the decision, but not making the decision easy.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
I think the threshold for 1st rounders should be at least 2500, my original proposal was 3000... I don't think giving someone a compensatory 1st round selection should be a common thing. I think it should be a rare thing, making it a factor in the decision, but not making the decision easy.

I'm just getting around to reading today's emails (hey, it's still 9am here in the islands, and this is my day off!)... so I haven't read all of the other threads... but this is more along my concerns... we can't make it too easy to get a first round pick. It should be very rare. I don't think I'd have as much a problem if the picks came between the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Voted in favor of the ban.

[Popes]

I was just reading some old RFA rules threads.

FYI, to save someone doing likewise in the future some time, it looks like the thread below has moved to:

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3640

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

For more detail of the debate, please see the following thread:

http://vbb.predatorsfootball.com/sho...&threadid=3640