Tender Levels too Low?

[Nittany Dodgers]

I just wanted to bump this thread to start a little discussion on the current RFA levels (no time like the present). Some original concerns were that 1st round compensatory picks should be a rare thing, and hard to achieve (this was not a universal opinion, but was voiced). In 2004 we had 5 compensatory 1st round picks. So far this year, we are already looking at 4, with 6 more 1st round tendered players not bid on yet. Anyone else feel the tender levels should be bumped up a tad?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I just wanted to bump this thread to start a little discussion on the current RFA levels (no time like the present). Some original concerns were that 1st round compensatory picks should be a rare thing, and hard to achieve (this was not a universal opinion, but was voiced). In 2004 we had 5 compensatory 1st round picks. So far this year, we are already looking at 4, with 6 more 1st round tendered players not bid on yet. Anyone else feel the tender levels should be bumped up a tad?

I would be in favor of increasing the WR tenders... that seems to be where the most movement is occurring.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I agree that it might be worth looking at the position seperately since some of these seem to right on at this point.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I agree that it might be worth looking at the position seperately since some of these seem to right on at this point.

I think RB and QB are good. WR's are too low, maybe 1600 or 1700 for a 1st rd tender level?

[Liquid Swords]

yeah...i agree that we should look at increasing the WR tender levels. I think the RB and QB levels are good too.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I'm definitely talking on a position by position basis.

WRs definitely need to be bumped up. I also feel RBs should be bumped up, but the numbers (so far) don't support me. We'll see what happens with the last few RBs. I'll make that case later if I have to.

QBs and TEs are fine I think as well.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm definitely talking on a position by position basis.

WRs definitely need to be bumped up. I also feel RBs should be bumped up, but the numbers (so far) don't support me. We'll see what happens with the last few RBs. I'll make that case later if I have to.

QBs and TEs are fine I think as well.

Agreed. More than 2 compensatory picks in a round really changes the dynamics of that round, and I feel is too many. So let's bump them accordingly.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by paulsonpatch

Agreed. More than 2 compensatory picks in a round really changes the dynamics of that round, and I feel is too many. So let's bump them accordingly.

Back to your own league, rookie!

Just kidding. :wow

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

WRs should be increased... possibly RBs. Right now the 2000 cbs for a 1st round RB tender are within the "yah that's a decent price for a top RB" range. Maybe the RFA tags should be a bit ABOVE that range, so it really causes the tendering team to stop and consider whether or not they want to slap that tag on the player.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Back to your own league, rookie!

Just kidding. :wow

Hey, never claimed to understand this crap...just wingin it. Need to give me some input when I say something stupid though, since I sound intelligent to me :Alcoholic

And, can you turn down the tagline? We really don't care

[Flaxwless]

I think the RBs and QBs are dead on.... i mean if we raised either, there wouldn't be much of a bididng process, it would be first to bid, wins the rights.

WRs after seeing this years market and last year's I feel the WRs should be bumped up about 200 cbs eahc give our take.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Back to your own league, rookie!

Just kidding. :wow

Buwahahahahaha..I just got it. This is a Frenzy thread, not SAC'd..DOH. :smokin

I still feel they are too low!!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

I think the RBs and QBs are dead on.... i mean if we raised either, there wouldn't be much of a bididng process, it would be first to bid, wins the rights.

Right now, it's almost a no-brainer for people to put a RFA tag on their top-of-the-line RBs. You don't even have to have a possible intention to match, because you know someone's going to bid on them (and take it up quite high) and thus, you'll be compensated.

However, if the first & second round tenders were higher, it might make owners think long & hard about placing an RFA tag on a player. If they place a tag, and no one bids on it, then they'll have to sign the player to that price. If not, the player goes back into the UFA pool and everyone can bid on him. That's why I'd be in favor of upping the 1st two levels for the WRs and RBs... I think QBs and TEs, etc. seem to be okay right now.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by paulsonpatch

Buwahahahahaha..I just got it. This is a Frenzy thread, not SAC'd..DOH. :smokin

I still feel they are too low!!

No worries, paulsonpatch... glad to have your input!:thumbsup

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Right now, it's almost a no-brainer for people to put a RFA tag on their top-of-the-line RBs. You don't even have to have a possible intention to match, because you know someone's going to bid on them (and take it up quite high) and thus, you'll be compensated.

However, if the first & second round tenders were higher, it might make owners think long & hard about placing an RFA tag on a player. If they place a tag, and no one bids on it, then they'll have to sign the player to that price. If not, the player goes back into the UFA pool and everyone can bid on him. That's why I'd be in favor of upping the 1st two levels for the WRs and RBs... I think QBs and TEs, etc. seem to be okay right now.

Agreed, the whole purpose of the various tenders levels is to have to make a decision on a players value. With a QB, only the most elite QBs are going to bring a 1st round tender. I doubt more than a couple tight ends will garner a 1st round tag. But with RBs, just about every Tom Dick and Harry gets a 1st round tag. Yes, RBs are a more rare commodity, but I still think the number of 1st round tenders should be about equal across the posititions, no more than a couple 1st rounders for each (if that many). I don't think the original intention of the tender idea was to give equal compensation for losing a player, but it was to give some compensation. It was also there to increase player movement, but to not totally devalue later round picks by handing out a half dozen more picks at the end of the 2nd round.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Right now, it's almost a no-brainer for people to put a RFA tag on their top-of-the-line RBs. You don't even have to have a possible intention to match, because you know someone's going to bid on them (and take it up quite high) and thus, you'll be compensated.

However, if the first & second round tenders were higher, it might make owners think long & hard about placing an RFA tag on a player. If they place a tag, and no one bids on it, then they'll have to sign the player to that price. If not, the player goes back into the UFA pool and everyone can bid on him. That's why I'd be in favor of upping the 1st two levels for the WRs and RBs... I think QBs and TEs, etc. seem to be okay right now.

I don't know that I agree with you on RB's... WR's sure, they need to go up, but 2/3 of the way in 3 of the 5 1st rd tagged RB's still don't have an opening bid at the tender.

The 1 RB that did change hands this year thus far was Ahman Green, and I'd say he warrants a 1st rd comp. I can see taking the RB's up to maybe 2200, but no higher than that.

As for the WR's, IMO, does Ward deserve a 1.13? No. Had the tender level been 1700 or something I woulda tagged a 2nd not a 1st. Harrison yes. 1700 seems like a nice breaking point for WR's... that's an increase of 400.

[Mutts]

If we increase RFA tenders, I do not believe this should be done until the 2007 season. I just retained the rights to two top level WR with the knowledge that I would be able to get 1st round compensatories out of them next year if I wish. That was the primary reason it did not hurt me to bid Hines Ward beyond what he was obviously worth. If WR tenders are raised next year, my guarantee of getting a 1st round pick out of Ward is greatly decreased. If I would have know ahead of time that 1st rounders would be raised, say to 1700, there is no way I would have bid Ward that high as his value is obviously decreased. I don't have a problem raising tender amounts, but lets make sure it happens 2 years out to make sure we have a negative effect on as few situations as possible.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

If we increase RFA tenders, I do not believe this should be done until the 2007 season. I just retained the rights to two top level WR with the knowledge that I would be able to get 1st round compensatories out of them next year if I wish. That was the primary reason it did not hurt me to bid Hines Ward beyond what he was obviously worth. If WR tenders are raised next year, my guarantee of getting a 1st round pick out of Ward is greatly decreased. If I would have know ahead of time that 1st rounders would be raised, say to 1700, there is no way I would have bid Ward that high as his value is obviously decreased. I don't have a problem raising tender amounts, but lets make sure it happens 2 years out to make sure we have a negative effect on as few situations as possible.

I see no problem with that since the issue was raised past the start of the RFA period.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

I don't know that I agree with you on RB's... WR's sure, they need to go up, but 2/3 of the way in 3 of the 5 1st rd tagged RB's still don't have an opening bid at the tender.

Do you have a version of this post that is in english?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I'm fine with looking at a "down the road" change. I think Jake is right... I know that my strategy re: tenders, draft picks, etc. is based on our current arrangements.

As for Mike's point about RBs... we'll have to see how the other RBs get played out... whether they get bid on, or if the tendering owners get the contracts at that price. If the latter is the case, then we may not need to increase the RBs.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I would be in favor of anything that decreases the amount of 1st round compensatory (I love that word) picks. To take an example of the NFL, how often does a Franchise player change teams(2 1st round picks)? Or even the highest tender for an RFA(1st and a 3rd)? Its pretty rare. You can probably name all the players that have changed teams by this method in that last 5 years on one hand.

I debated briefly if I should slap a 1st round tender on Lamont Jordan (I probably should have but I forgot to take into account Frank's homer premium). That's the kind of decision that makes this league so fun. I love this aspect of strategy in this league. Although, the flip side would be less RFAs changing teams but I think most people tag someone with the intent to match(if the price is right). At least that's how I lean towards operating.

Also, I have no problem with starting this in 2007 since Jake and possibly others have already planned things for next year based on the current setup.

[Preds]

I've spent about an hour drving around town this evening, and have been thinking about my last post.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Brian and some of the others. Maybe we should raise the RB tenders as well (I still think the QB tenders are about right). Maybe 2400 for a 1st rd RB tender? 1700 for WR's?

As for implementing this in 2007, I can see Jake's point and have no problem with waiting to fix it more than 1 season out.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Brian and some of the others. Maybe we should raise the RB tenders as well (I still think the QB tenders are about right). Maybe 2400 for a 1st rd RB tender? 1700 for WR's?

I'd probably recommend 1800 for WRs... since that's still "low" for what many WRs are going to be paid this season.

2400 or even 2500 for RBs would probably work.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Glad to see you coming around to the dark side Mike (if I can steal that from you). I'm not set on an exact number for either WRs or RBs, I just know they both need to be raised. I'll do some historical analysis over the course of the season and we can set some numbers sometime in the future. I don't think we are in any hurry on this as long as we get it done before next season. Glad to see the boards so active again.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

I'd probably recommend 1800 for WRs... since that's still "low" for what many WRs are going to be paid this season.

2400 or even 2500 for RBs would probably work.

Man, you're pushing the limits with 1800/2500 IMO. My suggestion would be that we wait until early 2007 to set specific salaries. At that time we could average out the RFA bids at each position for the last 4 seasons and adjust to final numbers from there. I think the league is still going through some big changes because of recently installed rules, and I'm not sure we're out of the woods yet. We may be able to read trends a little more clearly after next year's RFA period.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

No rush... looking at trends is a good idea.

[Flaxwless]

I'm a homer for the Raiders but I wouldn't have paid more than 2k for Jordan. He's nearly the same price of Portis the next two years and he should be just as good and be a Raider. Only reason I bid on him.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

Man, you're pushing the limits with 1800/2500 IMO. My suggestion would be that we wait until early 2007 to set specific salaries. At that time we could average out the RFA bids at each position for the last 4 seasons and adjust to final numbers from there. I think the league is still going through some big changes because of recently installed rules, and I'm not sure we're out of the woods yet. We may be able to read trends a little more clearly after next year's RFA period.

Doesn't that put people in the same position you are in this year had we moved to up the salaries next? While people would still know in 2006 that prices will be going up, not knowing exactly what point that would be does cause some uncertainty. Maybe it's not a big deal. Just thinking out loud, but I would think we would want raises in place for 2007 prior to the 2006 bidding.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Doesn't that put people in the same position you are in this year had we moved to up the salaries next? While people would still know in 2006 that prices will be going up, not knowing exactly what point that would be does cause some uncertainty. Maybe it's not a big deal. Just thinking out loud, but I would think we would want raises in place for 2007 prior to the 2006 bidding.

If that's the preference, its fine with me. My thoughts were that we would have a process in place so that everyone knew exactly where the new tender amounts would be coming from, i.e. an average of the last 4 years + 20% for example. You're the numbers man though Brian. If you think we have enough history at this point, give it a go.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Not sure how the NFL does it but aren't some teams given compensatory picks for their losses and in other cases the signing team forfeits picks. Would we want to try and incorporate this as it might add another level to the strategy if it costs the signing team something more than just cyberbucks? Again, this is something we could try and hammer out for 2007 not 2006.