TRIAL RULE CHANGE: RFA Tenders not counted against cap once bidding opened on player

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I wanted to revisit this as we have had some owner turnover and I still this makes it almost impossible to improve your team if you have a number of high value RFA's that have been tendered. I know we don't have to tender anyone but once you do it will hamstring a team to not be able to bid on replacement players. Here is the discussion from a few years ago:

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15416

I think once a player of yours is bid on they should no longer count against your cap since at this point you have the ability to decline to match and free up the cap space. The current rules force you to count all your RFA's which essentially limits the number of players you can bid on until one or more of your players sell because it holds you cap space hostage. Not sure if I am clearly explaining my issue with this but I think it greatly hampers a team with high value RFA's.

Anyhow, hopefully we can start a discussion and eventually have another vote since it have been about 4 years since we last discussed this topic.

[Preds]

My initial reaction was understanding Matt's point, however, reading that thread discussion, I think Burt made some good and valid points on how your strategy revolves around how you handle your own RFA's throughout the process.

All that said, I think bidding could be more active in other areas if you are freed of the tender hit once one of your players is bid upon.

I could be swayed either way.

Dang, it's unsual for me not to be overly opinionated on one side or another!

[Burt the Butcher]

It does make things interesting, but I think freeing up your cap the minute someone places a bid on the player, is along the same lines as declaring your intentions. If you are not active in bidding, then someone places a bid on your high-priced RFA, you all of a sudden throw out a couple bids on other high priced RFA, it kind of tips off your intention for your RFA, although its not as blatant as actually declaring your intentions, which I am glad that rule passed.

I was against it before, and would probably still vote against (or for - still do not understand how a yes vote was against it last time). Although its not a hot button, and if others like the change, I would not be too upset.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I don't know if it would tip your intentions but it does keep your options open. If someone bids on my player it allows me to bid on another player. That does not mean I will not retain my player. A lot of it comes down to timing, if my player sells before the player I am bidding on then I might have to decline to match on my player. However, without clearing the cap space I can't really bid until my player sells because I am on the hook for my RFA's cap space.

I think by taking the player off the cap count you give each owner options. A lot of it will come down to when players sell but at least it allows everyone to participate rather than having some owners that need to wait until their RFA's sell to clear the space for them to bid on players. By the time that happens other top options may be off the board.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I don't know if it would tip your intentions but it does keep your options open. If someone bids on my player it allows me to bid on another player. That does not mean I will not retain my player. A lot of it comes down to timing, if my player sells before the player I am bidding on then I might have to decline to match on my player. However, without clearing the cap space I can't really bid until my player sells because I am on the hook for my RFA's cap space.

I think by taking the player off the cap count you give each owner options. A lot of it will come down to when players sell but at least it allows everyone to participate rather than having some owners that need to wait until their RFA's sell to clear the space for them to bid on players. By the time that happens other top options may be off the board.

I'm swaying more towards Matt's side of the discussion on this. I don't think bidding on other options once your players enter the fray is a clear cut indication of your intentions, I think it's more of keeping options open, and will in turn increase bidding elsewhere which is good.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Preds

I'm swaying more towards Matt's side of the discussion on this. I don't think bidding on other options once your players enter the fray is a clear cut indication of your intentions, I think it's more of keeping options open, and will in turn increase bidding elsewhere which is good.

I wouldn't be opposed to a 1 year trial run of what Matt is proposing and then having the rule automatically revert back to the current rules next off-season unless it's renewed in a new vote. Kind of how the NFL occasionally does trial runs on some rule changes for a year or two before making permanent rule changes (i.e. replay for many many years).

[Burt the Butcher]

yah, I can see both sides...like I said, would not be too upset if majority wanted to switch.

Matt, I suppose you should bring this up in SAC'd also. Its nice to keep the basics the same between the two leagues...

[Bounty Hunter]

Good points on both sides of the issue. I like more options as it gives me more chances to make a mistake ;)

[Burt the Butcher]

Since time is running short, how about just putting up a poll Matt?

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Remind how one does this?

[Preds]

I added the poll to this thread.

Couldn't add much detail, but I think it should be a 1 year trial that has to be voted back in next off-season to return.

Also, obviously once a tendering team matches a player, the salary would again count against their cap.

Vote away Peeps!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Really doesn't matter to me. While I ALWAYS make bids based on whether I want a player (and am willing to pay the bidding price)... sometimes (okay, more than sometimes) I'll bid on a player just to make sure that he sells to someone else at a higher price (especially knowing that many RFAs get matched).

I think my intentions will be sufficiently disguised either way. I'd vote for it.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Do 7 yes votes mean that this passes this year (we can revisit again after we see the impacts in 2014 RFA bidding)?

[Burt the Butcher]

Yep, 7 is majority

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

It's that "new math," Matt! ;)

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Yep, 7 is majority

[Liquid Swords]

I'm putting together a new formula in the roster app to account for this so it will be a little easier to determine cap space available. I should have the 2014 app ready and posted by this weekend.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

It's that "new math," Matt! ;)

? Half of 12 is 6...7 is more than 6...that seems to be pretty old math, since I am pretty old

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Just wanted to see if we need to vote here for 2015 and going forward as we noted that last year was a trial and things would revert back to 2013 rules unless a permanent change was approved.

[Liquid Swords]

Yes, we would need to put this up for a vote to make it permanent

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Can we just reset the poll here to 0-0 or do we need a new thread/poll?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Can we just reset the poll here to 0-0 or do we need a new thread/poll?

Can't reset the poll. Create a new one.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Poll posted with link to this thread for reference. Thanks!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Seemed to work fine last year.