Tender Levels too Low?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

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.

I'll see what I can come up with after this period is over.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have thought about this as well. However, I would think the only thing that would encourage would be to reduce the amount of player movement. If singing an RFA meant the team winning the bid had to pay a large salary AND give a pick to the team losing the player, I think bids would go down, and players would be retaining players. If we made it where a 1st round tender meant you had to send your 1st round draft pick, no one (or at least rarely) would 1st rounders be bid on. If instead you had to give a lower round pick, then it wouldn't be enough to compensate, and teams would just match.

I do like the idea in theory, but I haven't been able to think of a good fair system that will keep player movement at the level we have.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I do like the idea in theory, but I haven't been able to think of a good fair system that will keep player movement at the level we have.

Off the cuff what about the team that gets the player losses a pick from the round after the compensatory pick. Would not work very well where fourth round comp picks are involved but that is not a major issue. This would also take away "extra" picks and get us closer to having a total of 12 picks per round on average.

For example team A bids on and wins McNabb. Team B does not match and gets a first round comp pick. Team A gets McNabb but forfeits their 2 rounder. This means we are adding picks but offsetting them, the only downside is that it would limit teams from signing more than 1 first round tendered player a year but how often does that happen?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Off the cuff what about the team that gets the player losses a pick from the round after the compensatory pick. Would not work very well where fourth round comp picks are involved but that is not a major issue. This would also take away "extra" picks and get us closer to having a total of 12 picks per round on average.

For example team A bids on and wins McNabb. Team B does not match and gets a first round comp pick. Team A gets McNabb but forfeits their 2 rounder. This means we are adding picks but offsetting them, the only downside is that it would limit teams from signing more than 1 first round tendered player a year but how often does that happen?

I like that. The upside of limiting teams from signing more than 1 1st round tendered players (unless they've traded for additional 2nd round picks) would be that it would limit teams' abilities to slap 1st round tenders on players in hopes of getting the comp, since there would be a smaller market for them. This would work best with higher 1st round tender levels so teams also couldn't flood the market, knowing they have a good chance of getting their players back for the minimum.

Any other thoughts?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Off the cuff what about the team that gets the player losses a pick from the round after the compensatory pick. Would not work very well where fourth round comp picks are involved but that is not a major issue. This would also take away "extra" picks and get us closer to having a total of 12 picks per round on average.

For example team A bids on and wins McNabb. Team B does not match and gets a first round comp pick. Team A gets McNabb but forfeits their 2 rounder. This means we are adding picks but offsetting them, the only downside is that it would limit teams from signing more than 1 first round tendered player a year but how often does that happen?

I think doing that will kill an already slow RFA market.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I don't mean to kill it but I think it might more closely resemble the NFL. Maybe not...

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is an intriguing idea but I would argue that in this type of league 1st round picks are gold and then there's a significant dropoff. Actually the droppoff is very steep starting from the first pick. If a team with a high rookie pick would have to forfeit their first round pick they would be giving up alot more than a team with a low first round pick. The value between 1.1 and 1.10 is simply HUGE in a rookie draft IMO. That would hamstring the crappier teams (no offense Brian , yeah yeah I know where I'm drafting this year I just cant help taking shots at a rival, so sue me) from pursuing RFAs knowing they would be giving up much more than teams that pick later in the round. If we decided to make the the compensatory picks from round 2 or later then it might be interesting. As it stands now first round compensatory picks are really early 2nd round picks anyway. That may have merit but I would be against 1st round compensatory picks being forfeit by the team acquiring the RFA.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Sorry I was not clearer:

For example team A bids on and wins McNabb.
Team B does not match and gets a first round comp pick.

Team A gets McNabb but forfeits their second rounder. This means we are adding picks but offsetting them, the only downside is that it would limit teams from signing more than 1 first round tendered player a year but how often does that happen?

The value of pick 2.1 versus 2.12 is still valid but I would think it is not as great as even 1.1 versus 1.12.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

That would hamstring the crappier teams (no offense Brian , yeah yeah I know where I'm drafting this year I just cant help taking shots at a rival, so sue me)

Big words coming from a team off a 5-9 season. I'll also remind you again that we've won the exact same number of post season games, and you have a full season on me.

I officially move that no West teams can rag on me for being crappy until someone takes the Division Crown from my cold dead hands. Do I have a second to that motion?

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Big words coming from a team off a 5-9 season. I'll also remind you again that we've won the exact same number of post season games, and you have a full season on me.

I officially move that no West teams can rag on me for being crappy until someone takes the Division Crown from my cold dead hands. Do I have a second to that motion?

Oh yeah, well who has more post season losses! IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!! :bag


I will defer to the West Champs for now. You da man Brian! :bow


I'll be coming to reclaim my throne in about 8 months and 7 days though. :drinktoge

PS - I can still make fun of Richard and Frank right?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

PS - I can still make fun of Richard and Frank right?

Of course. What fun would it be if we couldn't?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Um, getting back to the topic at hand...

I think Mike is right in that if we had to give up picks (even if it's a round later), very, very few would bid on RFAs. The net result would be that more teams would keep their RFA players, and thus player movement would NOT happen very much.

It's an intriguing concept, Matt... but I think we'll be fine if we just raise the bid price a bit... and force owners to seriously consider whether or not they can afford to place a RFA tag on a player. If not, the player goes back into the UFA pool, and the entire league can bid on his services the good-old-fashioned-American-way!

[Ypsilanti Undead]

I agree that the 1st-round compensatory picks are a little too common, WRs definitely need to come up, and RBs could probably stand to come up a little.

I don't like the idea of having to give up picks to sign RFAs; often enough, you have to overpay in cbs to get the tendering team to decline the match. No need to raise the price even more.