Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Here's my last comment. I actually made this before, but it was either missed, or ignored (it could very well be the latter, for good reason!).

The one difference that I see between not allowing a decline as value in and of itself... is that when an owner declines to match a RFA, he already will receive compensation. It makes no sense to me to be able to get a league compensatory pick for declining, and then extracting another pick, player, etc. for simply declining.

Now, if it's part of a larger deal (like you'll be giving a gallon of milk with those drugs), then it seems a bit more "fair," and not an attempt to skirt the spirit of the league.

I'm going to bed. Aloha.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Preds

And I continue to contend... What is so wrong with that?

If I win the bid on Favre and Jake says "hey I'm matching, but if we make a deal on something I'll let you have him..." I have 2 options, negotiate, or call the bluff (which it very well may or maynot be). What's the problem here?

Now if a player sell ridiculously high as compared to my perceived value of him (Hines Ward comes to mind) do you really think the winning bidder is going to pay more?

After Ward sold, I through a side deal out to Jake that we had discussed earlier for Clarence Moore (I offered my 3.11 FWIW while Jake originally was asking for a 4th). Anyhow he knew I was full of shit on not matching Ward and essentially laughed in my face when I sent him a PM saying "hey Jake, lets pull the trigger on the previous deal we discussed and I'll decline on Ward."

Again, was he hijacked? Nope. Was he bullied? Nope. My only leverage was tying up his cap for 3 days, because if he needed the space he was stuck till I declined or let the match period expire.

Is using time to your advantage going to be next on the Frenzy war crimes hit list?

Flat out these deals with the winning team should totally be allowed IMO.

I went out of my way to not even attempt to hide it, why, because IMO it's a totally legit, strategic move for BOTH parties.

Sorry if I lead you believe that I thought there is anything wrong with trying to get max value for your guy. What I'm saying is that there is no strategy aspect to this once its known and everyone does it. So you're not losing any strategy if we take it away. That's my argument. If everyone is doing it, its not really strategy. I gaurantee you that if this is allowed and acceptable it will become norm behavior for the tendering team to inquire about getting more for an RFA, even if they always had the intention of declining the match. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing this. I guess RFA compensation is not enough, the tendering teams should look for more if they can get it.

In the grand scheme of things this is relatively minor in my opinion. I just want clarity on how the league, overall, feels about the issue so we can clarify this and move on. Looking forward to a great season and the passion in Frenzy is why I love it so much.

:drinktoge

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Yikes, threw up a little red flag and sunddenly we are setting records for postings. I can agree that we all want to get maximum value for our assets but trying to hold the match/not match as leverage seems to be against the spirit (if not the letter) of the rules we established. Clearly the decision to go down the road of making a side deal (or combination deal) is the perogative of the teams involved but I think as the rules are currently written we need to think about either adding this in as a strategic option or outlawing.

Especially since every loophole I have ever tried to take advantage of has become a noose around my neck !

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Especially since every loophole I have ever tried to take advantage of has become a noose around my neck !

, actually had you not included 2006 picks on a deal consumated before April 1 you had won the Rogers debate

[Ypsilanti Undead]

I went to bed last night thinking about this debate, and logged in before work to post my thoughts. But doggone if I didn't spend all that time reading everything posted since last night, and was late getting out the door without writing anything! How is it you guys have time to form a whole 'nother league?

So here are my thoughts, hopefully organized in a way that will make sense to y'all.

First of all, I simply can't see how trading the right to decline straight up is illegal, but legal if part of a group package. I don't see how it stands up to logical scrutiny.

Moving on. Let me attempt to formulate the value of matching vs. the value of declining, from the tendering team's point of view:

The value of RFA match = market value – high bid

The value of RFA decline = high bid - market value + trade offer + league compensation

I can't see why, under any circumstances, the tendering team should be able to extract extra value through trading the right to decline AND get compensation from the league. So if this tactic remains legal, I definitely think, in the future, the compensatory pick should be forfeited by doing so.

Now, to expand on a point someone else has already made. Trading the right to decline an RFA is essentially the same as matching and then trading an RFA (with two differences; see below), and is therefore, to my mind:

1. definitely contrary to the essence of the rule as currently written;

2. certainly permitted by the letter of the rule;

1. debatably (I think I just made up a word) in accordance with or in violation of the spirit in which the rule was adopted.
   

So let's concentrate on that third one, with the goal of re-writing the rule to keep the essence and the letter in sync. What problem was this rule meant to solve? Tampering with the bidding process and the effect of artificially lowering salaries.

Consider the scenario Joe proposes: every team with a tendered RFA will contact the high bidder on that RFA with a trade offer to extract more value. This is an entirely feasible scenario, since it's in every tendering owner's interest to do so.

Knowing this, it is in every bidding team's interest to calculate in advance the value of the trade offer they would have to make, and lower their bids accordingly. The effect is exactly what we tried to eliminate: salaries for RFAs are artificially lowered because, unlike UFAs and rookies, their market value is determined by their salary AND the trade value required to sign them.

To summarize:

1. Trading right to decline should be explicitly outlawed in the future because it will have the net effect of lowering RFA salaries.
   
2. If it is not outlawed, then teams trading their right to decline should not receive league compensation in the form of a draft pick.
   
3. Whether it is allowed or outlawed, the same rule should apply whether the decline is part of a package deal or not.
   

All right, there it is, go ahead and pick it apart!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead

Snip

We have so much more time to post because we don't put nearly this much thought or effort into our dozens of posts.

I agree with most of what you said. I like the idea of forfeiting league compensation if you extract added value from a trade.

I also still have not heard a non-rationalized reason why it is different to trade a "decline" promise as part of a larger trade, but not straight up, but I know that horse has been beat to death.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead

Consider the scenario Joe proposes: every team with a tendered RFA will contact the high bidder on that RFA with a trade offer to extract more value. This is an entirely feasible scenario, since it's in every tendering owner's interest to do so.

Knowing this, it is in every bidding team's interest to calculate in advance the value of the trade offer they would have to make, and lower their bids accordingly. The effect is exactly what we tried to eliminate: salaries for RFAs are artificially lowered because, unlike UFAs and rookies, their market value is determined by their salary AND the trade value required to sign them.

I think you're majorly reaching with that statement. When I bid on RFA's the 1st thing I think of is what will be the owners breaking point. I know if I bid the guy high enough (for example Houshmandzadeh), the tendering team is gonna let em walk. Wheras, if I think I can go with a borderline bid and HOPE for a decline, I run the risk of making the player too attractive for the owner not to match. Now that owner comes back to me and says he willing to talk... fine. I know I tried to get the guy on the cheap, but to really get the guy to part with him I'm gonna have to pony up something extra.


Yet had I just bid above market value (Ward, Housh, others) I know that's it's difficult for the tendering team to match and can basically cal their bluff if they come asking for more.


I just don't buy that this can or will impact the market in any way. If I really want a guy, I'm gonna overprice him to the market to ensure a decline (it happens all the time with the RFA's). If I'm trying to sneak him through on the cheap (something that also happens quite a bit... ex. Henry, Favre, Barlow), I have to expect the owner's gonna match, and if I REALLY want the player I might have to part with something extra.


Now why do you ask am I trying to sneak guys on the cheap? Because these players generally have more risk/reward than others. They're not necessarily sure things. You're hoping the other team values them less than you do.


BTW, you should have come to me on Marvin... you mighta extracted something from me, particularly since I thought Chad was gonna be the one you let go.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

BTW, you should have come to me on Marvin... you mighta extracted something from me, particularly since I thought Chad was gonna be the one you let go.

Mike, you keep telling all of us that we should have come to you to work an extra deal with our RFAs - I think that's part of the point. Many owners did not consider such a trade to be an option, as they thought the ban on trading of RFAs put in place last year would translate to a match/decline trade strategy as well. Its one thing to utilize strategy that noone has ever thought of before, that's creativity... its another thing to utilize strategy people have thought of but just never followed because they didn't think it was allowed.

I'll say it again. Its obvious to see the advantage gained by using match/decline leverage in a trade, and if I know that its available to me you can bet I'm going to use it. I just think that if its allowed, we should make sure that every owner is fully aware that they can go that route - and stop splitting hairs in regards to trading match/decline straight up or including it in a deal.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Just because I love this debate so much let me throw out a hypothetical on you guys. So now that Mike has the rookie 1.1 and I have 1.2 I was wondering if it would be ok for me to offer Mike compensation (A player or pick) if he declined to draft a player. Say I was enamored with Player X and I knew that Mike had Player X and Y fairly even. If i offered him something to decline picking player X would that be allowed? Now you might ask why wouldnt we just swap 1.1 for 1.2 and the compensation. Maybe I wanted the lower salary scale for the 1.2. Yeah its probably reaching but the scenario could happen. I wanted to see how the rest of the owners felt about the above scenario. What if it wasnt with the 1.1 and 1.2 but rather with the 3.12 and 4.1. Could you envision a scenario where we allow 4th round or lower picks to have practice squad eligibility down the road? I'm thinking out loud but my question is would it be acceptable for me to trade something to another owner if they agree on passing(declining to draft) a player?

BTW I completely agree with the Undead. It was what I was thinking but with my feeble communication skills I was unable to articulate it as well. Nice post.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

I'll say it again. Its obvious to see the advantage gained by using match/decline leverage in a trade, and if I know that its available to me you can bet I'm going to use it. I just think that if its allowed, we should make sure that every owner is fully aware that they can go that route - and stop splitting hairs in regards to trading match/decline straight up or including it in a deal.

Exactly my thoughts.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

Just because I love this debate so much let me throw out a hypothetical on you guys. So now that Mike has the rookie 1.1 and I have 1.2 I was wondering if it would be ok for me to offer Mike compensation (A player or pick) if he declined to draft a player. Say I was enamored with Player X and I knew that Mike had Player X and Y fairly even. If i offered him something to decline picking player X would that be allowed? Now you might ask why wouldnt we just swap 1.1 for 1.2 and the compensation. Maybe I wanted the lower salary scale for the 1.2. Yeah its probably reaching but the scenario could happen. I wanted to see how the rest of the owners felt about the above scenario. What if it wasnt with the 1.1 and 1.2 but rather with the 3.12 and 4.1. Could you envision a scenario where we allow 4th round or lower picks to have practice squad eligibility down the road? I'm thinking out loud but my question is would it be acceptable for me to trade something to another owner if they agree on passing(declining to draft) a player?

BTW I completely agree with the Undead. It was what I was thinking but with my feeble communication skills I was unable to articulate it as well. Nice post.

I'd like to hear MIke's thoughts on this.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

Just because I love this debate so much let me throw out a hypothetical on you guys. So now that Mike has the rookie 1.1 and I have 1.2 I was wondering if it would be ok for me to offer Mike compensation (A player or pick) if he declined to draft a player. Say I was enamored with Player X and I knew that Mike had Player X and Y fairly even. If i offered him something to decline picking player X would that be allowed? Now you might ask why wouldnt we just swap 1.1 for 1.2 and the compensation. Maybe I wanted the lower salary scale for the 1.2. Yeah its probably reaching but the scenario could happen. I wanted to see how the rest of the owners felt about the above scenario. What if it wasnt with the 1.1 and 1.2 but rather with the 3.12 and 4.1. Could you envision a scenario where we allow 4th round or lower picks to have practice squad eligibility down the road? I'm thinking out loud but my question is would it be acceptable for me to trade something to another owner if they agree on passing(declining to draft) a player?

BTW I completely agree with the Undead. It was what I was thinking but with my feeble communication skills I was unable to articulate it as well. Nice post.

Please explain to me how this is in any way similar to the concept we're discussing. Seriously, it's not even in the same ballbark IMO.

And for the record, we did have a situation in the 1st draft wher Jersey swapped slots (i.e. gave up a higher pick for a lower one) just to save money... not too far off from the insanity you're trying to conceptualize.

[Preds]

FYI... you guys are slacking... SAC'Ds Rookie Draft discussion thread (http://predsff.com/forums/showthread...9996#post29996) has now surpassed this one for the most posts ;)

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Please explain to me how this is in any way similar to the concept we're discussing. Seriously, it's not even in the same ballbark IMO.

And for the record, we did have a situation in the 1st draft wher Jersey swapped slots (i.e. gave up a higher pick for a lower one) just to save money... not too far off from the insanity you're trying to conceptualize.

I think it is a pretty similar concept. One team is trading a tangible assett (a pick or player) for an intangible asset, which in both cases is an exclusive right to a player at a predetermined contract. In the RFA scenario, Player A can exercise a match, or decline a match. He can take the player at the highest bid, or he can pass on him. You claim he has the right to accept compensation to decline the match.

In the draft scenario, Team A has the right to draft a player in a particular slot. Another team offers compensation to that team in order for that team to not draft (or exercise an exclusive option to select) a particular player.

[Flaxwless]

I can see where Joe is coming from, but it's too far fetched of an argument. Like you outlined why not just trade up/down and regain value?

Also Mike pointed out the Jersey had swapped slots for nothing to get a lower salary.

Another big deal is that the market doesn't set the price in the rookie draft, where as in the right to decline the market has already set a salary, whihc is either over or under the tendeirng teams value.

However, that is all a moot point if you're still using the "if we can't straight up/ok in package" argument, since Mike and I have stated that we feel it would be ok to trade for the right to decline straight up.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Another big deal is that the market doesn't set the price in the rookie draft, where as in the right to decline the market has already set a salary, whihc is either over or under the tendeirng teams value.

Both values are set by the league as a whole. With RFAs, it is set by market demand. With the rookie salaries, they were predetermined and accepted by the league with a majority vote. That difference really matters?

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

However, that is all a moot point if you're still using the "if we can't straight up/ok in package" argument, since Mike and I have stated that we feel it would be ok to trade for the right to decline straight up.

Yes, You and Mike have repeated stated that, but you haven't justified it very well.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

I can see where Joe is coming from, but it's too far fetched of an argument. Like you outlined why not just trade up/down and regain value?

Also Mike pointed out the Jersey had swapped slots for nothing to get a lower salary.

Another big deal is that the market doesn't set the price in the rookie draft, where as in the right to decline the market has already set a salary, whihc is either over or under the tendeirng teams value.

However, that is all a moot point if you're still using the "if we can't straight up/ok in package" argument, since Mike and I have stated that we feel it would be ok to trade for the right to decline straight up.

What about the 4th round eligibilty for Practice squad? Is a trade that allows a player to fall to the 4th round for this reason that far fetched?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Yes, You and Mike have repeated stated that, but you haven't justified it very well.

Not true, you just don't agree with us.

Folks we're on polar opposites with what appears to be about a 50/50 division. Nobody is changing anyone's mind, and the arguments have lost the fun factor. It's like we're both on opposite sides of a brick wall beating our heads to a bloody pulp. :Banghead:wallbang

I think the issue needs to be put to rest for the time being and addressed next off-season.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Not true, you just don't agree with us.

If Frank can sit there and say "MIke and I have already said such and such," then I can say "yeah, but it's BS."

I thought you claimed you were out of this debate a couple of pages back, anyway?

I think we've reached a point where not much more contructive is going to happen, but I don't know what it is about this issue, but as long as I see replies, I can't help but get another word in (not trying to get the last work, just one more ).

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

If Frank can sit there and say "MIke and I have already said such and such," then I can say "yeah, but it's BS."

I thought you claimed you were out of this debate a couple of pages back, anyway?

I think we've reached a point where not much more contructive is going to happen, but I don't know what it is about this issue, but as long as I see replies, I can't help but get another word in (not trying to get the last work, just one more ).

lol... guess I've made you reply yet again

FYI, we've fallen WAY behind the SAC'D rookie draft thread... by 10+ posts or so.

[Flaxwless]

I didn't believe I had to explain that statement as it is consistent with our whole argument that we should be allowed to trade the right to decline as a part of a larger deal.

All those arguments that I have been talking about fit for trading it straight up alone.

The market has already set the price.
If the price is above the tendering teams value they let them go or bluff for a trade. If the price is lower than the tendeirng teams value they can keep them or offer a trade in which they recieve enough compensation to allow the player to leave. If that means trading the decline for the comp pick + whatever player the winning team throws in so be it. It's all about getting maximum value from your players.

If that logic doesn't float your boat then here's the same thing from a slightly different perspective...

As I've said before it's a way of trading RFAs before we are allowed to, which is IN SEASON Free Agency, WHEN we have to meet the minimum active roster requirements (5 PK/TE/DEF an dthe whole enchilada). So you can think of a decline for player trade as a player for player swap.

Team A trades: Player decline
Team B trades: Random player
The market has set the value. Both teams fill roster needs before the start of the season. Everyone is happy.

--------------

Is this a loophole? Yes. Is this against the original spirit of the rules? I don't think so.

We voted to ban RFA trading so that prices are not driven down. I didn't vote because I thought too many RFAs were being traded. I voted for it b/c I thought that the true market value wasn't being set if teams would fall out of the bidding, the way to fix it was to stop RFA trading. So I do not see this as being against the spirit of the rules.

--------------

The next argument then is we agreed to a compensation system. Yes, we did. However, how much are we actually compensated is relative to each person.

Is Shuan Alexander at 2500 enough to let go for a pick in the 14-16 range? No way. I'm sure most of you would agree. However since I did have Clinton Portis and Lamont Jordan signed I would have been open to trading SA to the BDSC for some players + the comp, if I felt i regained enough value.

Is losing Brian Westbrook for a 2nd rounder fair value? No way, I'm sure Derby Cars would've loved to try and extract some players or picks in addition. And Joe may have been willing to pay the price for such an attractive RB with a great price tag. (This is all aassuming SPDC capspace was better).

How about Marc Bulger for a 2nd round comp? A pick in the 30-35th range a longshot to make the roster. I doubt Jim think that's enough to be compensated.

So why should we inhibit teams from extracting maximum or what they deem fair value for players?

We are not tampering with the market price. We are not holding up the league (at most 72 hours). We are trading with the winning team. I see nothing wrong with this.

--------------

Now as for Undead's theory about driving market prices down I don't see that happening. There's no way a bidding team can factor exactly what the tendering team wants in players + the price to determine at what level the tendering team would let a player go. Too many subjective variables in addition to price. It also wouldn't be good management. Why not just bid up to your maximum price value instead of risking making the price too good to be true and maybe not having the players to get a deal done? So I don't think many owners if any would take that strategy into account, which would cause the prices to drop.

It's a sound theory but it requires too many variables to be just right in order for it to occur.

--------------

Now, as for the draft pick argument. I forgot exactly what Mike said, but something that the right to decline is an intangible asset.

But I believe the rights to an RFA is a TANGIBLE ASSET as they COUNT AGINST our capspace. A rookie draft pick doesn't. If it counts against the cap, it has to be tangible. Why else would it count? I think Mike just shot himself in the foot by calling it intangible.

--------------

But you can trade rookie picks you say and they dont have a cap figure you say?

You're right we do allow picks to be traded for players or picks in return, but what Joe points out nothing is exhanged.

In RFA decline for player/picks deal it basically breaksdown for a player for player+picks deal (which under normal circumstances is allowed). The RFA is considered to be matched, but the bidding team made a trade for said player.

The "4th rounder to slip" deal, would just be a one team deal, since the draft picks aren't swapped. One team recieves a player/pick and the other gets nothing (which against our rules). As no picks are traded b/c they agreed ot let a player pass.

RFA decline trade: RFA decline for player/picks + comp pick
4th rounder to slip: Just player to one team.

So by nature a trade of that sort is illegal.

--------------

Any other points I forgot to address?

To narrow are debate, lets get it to one topic.

Can the right to decline an RFA be part of ANY trade?

I pose that question, b/c I'm sure we are all in agreement that the way the rules are currently worded does not deal with this predicament. So we agree we'd have to rewrite and address this problem next off-season.

Now with the debate focused... we can get past all the legalities and get to the essence of the debate: Can we trade decline of an RFA be part of ANY trade with the winning team?

Thank you for reading.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

What about the 4th round eligibilty for Practice squad? Is a trade that allows a player to fall to the 4th round for this reason that far fetched?

This is actually I question I had been thinking about. I have pick 3.12 in this year's draft. While there may be comp picks after that I think I would rather have pick 4.1 since that person could go on the taxi/development squad (eventually I remember which is which). Is a straight up trade of 3.12 for 4.1 allowed if both owners agree to it? I would say yes since their is value and perceived value switching hands.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

How about Marc Bulger for a 2nd round comp? A pick in the 30-35th range a longshot to make the roster. I doubt Jim think that's enough to be compensated.

So why should we inhibit teams from extracting maximum or what they deem fair value for players?

Regardless of what I said last night, this will be my last post here unless a new issue is brought up. Most of the disagreement I have with your side of the arguement I can chalk up to two reasonable minds seeing things differently, and I'm going to let the rest of the arguement go. This however is just asinine. A 2nd round comp pick isn't enough compensation for letting Marc Bulger go? If his owner felt so, then he should have f'n TAGGED HIM AT A HIGER LEVEL!! That is so f'n basic. You can't play chicked, tagging a player at a lower level, hoping the bids stay low, then when they get up to market level complain becuase you aren't getting enough comp. That argument is just stupid. If you say you should be allowed to get compensation because it's a tangible asset, whatever, we see that differently and I can respect your opinion on that, but to complain about the compensation is just dumb. I'll also remind you that when we agreed to the compensation picks, we never had the intention that the picks would be fully compensatory for losing the rights to the player. It was to encourage player movement, by giving the tendering teams some incentive to let the player go. If we wanted to play gamesmanship with the RFAs, then we should have left it the way it is, and it would have been more like the real NFL. If you want to sign someone else's RFA for a less than significantly over market price, then you have to give your own picks up. I don't see why we want to add 10 or more draft picks to the draft AND have a system where teams have to give up compensation in order to get other teams' RFAs. Why not just have one or the other? That just doesn't make sense to me.

But that's all I have to say on it.

:toast: to the draft this weekend. Finally!

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Is this a loophole? Yes. Is this against the original spirit of the rules? I don't think so.

I just can't help but respond to this. A loophole, by definition, is a way to circumvent the spirit of rules. I'm not exactly sure why you would call it a loophole otherwise... eek

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Now as for Undead's theory about driving market prices down I don't see that happening. There's no way a bidding team can factor exactly what the tendering team wants in players + the price to determine at what level the tendering team would let a player go. Too many subjective variables in addition to price. It also wouldn't be good management. Why not just bid up to your maximum price value instead of risking making the price too good to be true and maybe not having the players to get a deal done? So I don't think many owners if any would take that strategy into account, which would cause the prices to drop.

It's a sound theory but it requires too many variables to be just right in order for it to occur.

I gotta call BS on this one. You're suggesting that each team simply bid their maximum. If this were the case then we wouldnt even be having this conversation. All teams would bid their max and the tendering team wouldnt be able to extract any further value from the bidding team. To address your point about too many variables for this scenario to happen, I would argue that it would happen quite frequently. The bidding team only has to bid higher than 10 other owners, then deal with the tendering team. He can quite easily know the price of the 10 other owners and just simply bids enough to beat them. The bidding team could then address the difference between the his own max price and the high bid by trading players or picks to the tendering team. In reality what happens is the price of the RFA is still depressed because the difference between the player's true value and his high bid will be sent in the form of players, picks and compensatory picks. So voila, we have depressed RFA prices. Isnt that what we were trying to avoid with the initial rule? Why would I bid my max price on a player when I could bid just enough to beat out 10 teams then pay the rest in the form of players or picks. More than likely I would rather have the RFA at a lower price to make it more attractive to me to sign a multi year deal.

Here's an example. Say my true value for Brian Westbrook was 1850 but his high bid sold at 1750. I beat out the other ten owners but SBDCs value Westbrook at 1800 so they plan to keep him. I offer to throw in a 2nd round pick in this year's rookie draft which they value at $40 (just to put a number to the pick). Throw in the compensatory pick if they decline Westrook ($20) and that's enough value for them to decline Westbrook. So now I have flexibility to sign Brian Westbrook at 1750 for 3 years by giving up a 2nd round pick rather than if I had originally bid Brian Westbrook to 1850 and only being able to sign him for 2 years.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

Here's an example. Say my true value for Brian Westbrook was 1850 but his high bid sold at 1750. I beat out the other ten owners but SBDCs value Westbrook at 1800 so they plan to keep him. I offer to throw in a 2nd round pick in this year's rookie draft which they value at $40 (just to put a number to the pick). Throw in the compensatory pick if they decline Westrook ($20) and that's enough value for them to decline Westbrook. So now I have flexibility to sign Brian Westbrook at 1750 for 3 years by giving up a 2nd round pick rather than if I had originally bid Brian Westbrook to 1850 and only being able to sign him for 2 years.

But wasn't 1750 STILL the maximum price that the market allowed? If SBDC didn't want to give up Westbrook for 1750, that's his choice. If you threw in a 2nd rounder, which he felt made up the 50 dollar difference, then he might let Westbrook go. If you had bid you max of 1850, which is over SBDC value of 1800, then he would've let him walk.

I don't see how the prices would depreciate, b/c the players value is still compared to his salary in the end.

Just say hypothetically, everyone believes Westbrook wouldn't be let go for anything less than a WR in return. The opening bids would be so low..... ethier two things will happen. The first being the bid stays low b/c teams are afraid of having to trade a WR, which can happen. But it's more likely teams would see that Westbrook is selling for far lower than his value and would bid up on him until he reaches near the estimated market value, which follows some basic principles of business.

Like I've said finding out what the owner values w/ the price range is too risky. As in your example... why not just bid 100 more (from 1750 to 1850, 50 dollarsover SBDC value) instead of giving up a 2nd rounder? Wouldn't that be better? This is all assuming you know how much value SBDC gives to Westbrook. Oh yah, last I remember this is unknown to bidding team for the most part. Meaning that teams will STILL bid as high as they feel will cause SBDC to let Westbrook walk.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

I gotta call BS on this one. You're suggesting that each team simply bid their maximum. If this were the case then we wouldnt even be having this conversation. All teams would bid their max and the tendering team wouldnt be able to extract any further value from the bidding team. To address your point about too many variables for this scenario to happen, I would argue that it would happen quite frequently. The bidding team only has to bid higher than 10 other owners, then deal with the tendering team. He can quite easily know the price of the 10 other owners and just simply bids enough to beat them. The bidding team could then address the difference between the his own max price and the high bid by trading players or picks to the tendering team. In reality what happens is the price of the RFA is still depressed because the difference between the player's true value and his high bid will be sent in the form of players, picks and compensatory picks. So voila, we have depressed RFA prices. Isnt that what we were trying to avoid with the initial rule? Why would I bid my max price on a player when I could bid just enough to beat out 10 teams then pay the rest in the form of players or picks. More than likely I would rather have the RFA at a lower price to make it more attractive to me to sign a multi year deal.

Here's an example. Say my true value for Brian Westbrook was 1850 but his high bid sold at 1750. I beat out the other ten owners but SBDCs value Westbrook at 1800 so they plan to keep him. I offer to throw in a 2nd round pick in this year's rookie draft which they value at $40 (just to put a number to the pick). Throw in the compensatory pick if they decline Westrook ($20) and that's enough value for them to decline Westbrook. So now I have flexibility to sign Brian Westbrook at 1750 for 3 years by giving up a 2nd round pick rather than if I had originally bid Brian Westbrook to 1850 and only being able to sign him for 2 years.

Huh? is this drivel your spewing? Seriously? I'm glad YOU seem to think you can 100% ensure the max of what 10 others are going to pay. makes you think you're anywhere near right and can underbid? If the market doesn't raisde your bid, that's the market. Period, plain and simple.

Damn Joe, I'm really not able to comprehend this crap your spewing. High bid sets the market, plain and simple. Anybody can still outbid the high bid within 48 hours, and if they don't, voila tharer's your market price. How have you "deflated" it.

I'm just totally throwing the flag on that line of BS.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

I just can't help but respond to this. A loophole, by definition, is a way to circumvent the spirit of rules. I'm not exactly sure why you would call it a loophole otherwise... eek

Alright, alright but like Mike said earlier you guys are trying to tag us with our own words.

Wrong choice of words.

The argument is still there and still sound.

Just splitting hairs b/c everything has been soundly addressed.

And as far as loopholes go... they happen everywhere in professional sports.

NFL, NBA.... Injured Reserve? More like extra roster spots.

NBA... did anyone see that Boston Celtics traded Payton to the Hawks, the Hawks then released Payton, and now Payton is back in Celtic green?

There are loopholes in every sport, many known by the league, yet they continue.

Just because it's a loophole, doesn't mean it negativley affects (subjective opinion) the league and because of that there is really no reason to eliminate it b/c it isn't written in the rule book.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Regardless of what I said last night, this will be my last post here unless a new issue is brought up. Most of the disagreement I have with your side of the arguement I can chalk up to two reasonable minds seeing things differently, and I'm going to let the rest of the arguement go. This however is just asinine. A 2nd round comp pick isn't enough compensation for letting Marc Bulger go? If his owner felt so, then he should have f'n TAGGED HIM AT A HIGER LEVEL!! That is so f'n basic. You can't play chicked, tagging a player at a lower level, hoping the bids stay low, then when they get up to market level complain becuase you aren't getting enough comp. That argument is just stupid. If you say you should be allowed to get compensation because it's a tangible asset, whatever, we see that differently and I can respect your opinion on that, but to complain about the compensation is just dumb. I'll also remind you that when we agreed to the compensation picks, we never had the intention that the picks would be fully compensatory for losing the rights to the player. It was to encourage player movement, by giving the tendering teams some incentive to let the player go. If we wanted to play gamesmanship with the RFAs, then we should have left it the way it is, and it would have been more like the real NFL. If you want to sign someone else's RFA for a less than significantly over market price, then you have to give your own picks up. I don't see why we want to add 10 or more draft picks to the draft AND have a system where teams have to give up compensation in order to get other teams' RFAs. Why not just have one or the other? That just doesn't make sense to me.

But that's all I have to say on it.

:toast: to the draft this weekend. Finally!

We all know RFA doesn't fully compensate, so why stop teams from getting fully compensated? Please address that? Wouldn't you want that oppourtunity?

Now as for having getting comp picks and players..... that's how the system goes. Honestly, I've never liked the comp picks (i'm not sure if I mentioned that in the original thread) as they further devalue the 2nd round picks, picks that were earned by teams.

That's why last year I traded my entire 2005 rookie draft as I saw it merely trading my 2005 1st rounder and 2nd rounder (i thought at that time it would be in the 30+ range) for the 2004 1.5 pick.

Those picks are useless.

Why not tag Bulger higher? Is that his fault? Yes. However, is Bulger worth a 1st round salary? IN jim's opinion no. So he's stuck. What's the best thing for him to do... trade to make up some of that value.

2nd round picks are pretty much useless, back up players. Most 2nd round tenders are STARTERS in the league, so why not attempt to gain fair compensation. If you check 800cbs is above average or near the average of STARTING qbs in our league. There are only handful of guys over 1k and the rest hover between 500-800. SO Jim is tagging Bulger at near market value, but won't get anything near that in return.

I agree we didn't implement a system that fully compensates teams, but why prevent teams from doing so if the market price hasn't been tampered with?

[Mutts]

Good to see BDSC and the Insects carrying the torch for this debate. Keep it up guys - maybe we can keep it alive till the rookie draft!