# of RFA's per Team

[Preds]

In looking over the rules doc, I noticed that we did not consider the number of Restricted Free Agents (RFA's) each team would be allowed.

Currently the Frenzy allows for 3 RFA's based on an 18 man roster.

In SAC'D, we've increased the roster size about 66% to 30 players, but did not increase # the RFA's per team.

I'd propose that we split the RFA's into IOP and IDP, and allow 3 IOP RFA's as the Frenzy currently allows each year, and 2 IDP RFA's.

Before, putting this to vote, I'd like to see some discussion on the subject.

:feedback

That sounds pretty good to me

[The Immortal Ramirez]

I agree. sounds fine by me

[Liquid Swords]

i like 5...but what about a choice? what would be wrong with say 2 IOP and 3 IDP RFAs?

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Preds

I'd propose that we split the RFA's into IOP and IDP, and allow 3 IOP RFA's as the Frenzy currently allows each year, and 2 IDP RFA's.

Uh, :newhere but I would think 4, 3 IOP's and 1 IDP. At this point, with 6 starters on D, why would you be able to restrict 33% of your starters? Proportiaonally it works out correctly (if you figure 8 or 9 IOP's in your other league). But 33% seems high, although that is probably what it works out to in IOP's as well. Do you guys notice that it seems high in the other league(s)?

Just a general observation from an outsider.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by randilover

Uh, :newhere but I would think 4, 3 IOP's and 1 IDP. At this point, with 6 starters on D, why would you be able to restrict 33% of your starters? Proportiaonally it works out correctly (if you figure 8 or 9 IOP's in your other league). But 33% seems high, although that is probably what it works out to in IOP's as well. Do you guys notice that it seems high in the other league(s)?

Just a general observation from an outsider.

I find 3 IOP RFAs to be about perfect in the Frenzy. It allows you to keep a core of players together, but also ensures a healthy amount of unrestricted free agents each year. I'm fine with 5 RFAs for SAC'D, but also wonder if it wouldn't make sense to remove the restrictions for IOP or IDP. I think working without restrictions might actually increase the number of interesting UFAs each year, as each team persues a different strategy. In other words, teams that want to protect all their defensive players may have to sacrifice by releasing quality IOPs to UFA, and teams that want to hoard their IOPs will have to release better defensive players.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Mutts

I find 3 IOP RFAs to be about perfect in the Frenzy. It allows you to keep a core of players together, but also ensures a healthy amount of unrestricted free agents each year. I'm fine with 5 RFAs for SAC'D, but also wonder if it wouldn't make sense to remove the restrictions for IOP or IDP. I think working without restrictions might actually increase the number of interesting UFAs each year, as each team persues a different strategy. In other words, teams that want to protect all their defensive players may have to sacrifice by releasing quality IOPs to UFA, and teams that want to hoard their IOPs will have to release better defensive players.

If we were to allow 5 unrestricted RFA's, I think you'd see 4-1 and 5-0 in favor of offense too often.

We've allocated specific IOP and IDP spots on the roster, so putting limits on RFA's by the side of the field makes sense to me.

3/2 seems about right to me.

I would normally vote for unrestricted. But since we have already went down that road by forcing teams to allocate 18/12 for IOP and IDP I think a 3/2 split would be consistant.

I agree that it takes away some of the strategy, but so did the 18/12 split.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

I agreed with Randilover, but I see what they are saying. 18/12 IOP/IDP in roster - 7to8 active IOP & 6 IDP...this would be even breakdown with the 2 RFA for IDP. because 3 IOP is about 1/3 of the starting line-up as well. Agree with your concern though.
I say 3-2 is fine. Above comments are also valid about 'hoarding' players. I think there will be many IOP hoardings until about year 2-3, when people who's never played in IDP before start to see there actually IS a value the IDP bring (more than they think). Then, they will attempt to keep some of them as well.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

....I'd propose that we split the RFA's into IOP and IDP, and allow 3 IOP RFA's as the Frenzy currently allows each year, and 2 IDP RFA's.

I really don't like the fact we are setting restrictions based on IOP and IDP. I was against setting limts on roster per each, and would be against an RFA split. That being said, I think 5 RFA's is too many. I would think 4 would be plenty.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I think 4 is about without any IOP or IDP restrictions.

[keepers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

I really don't like the fact we are setting restrictions based on IOP and IDP. I was against setting limts on roster per each, and would be against an RFA split. That being said, I think 5 RFA's is too many. I would think 4 would be plenty.

:agree

[Nittany Dodgers]

I think with the addition of renegotiating and a farnchise player, we are more than adequately covered for retaining talent. Take a look at the UFA pool this year for the Frenzy. If we add any additional RFAs, I think the pool would be significantly worse. If that is the kind of available talent we want to see each year, fine, but I'd prefer to see at least a handful of 2nd tier players available each year. I'd like to see a season play out before we add any RFAs, and right now I am adamantly opposed to adding any to the current three we have.

[randilover]

This kind of died. I know we are in the middle of an auction, but do we want to put it to a vote before we move too far ahead? Someone might be swayed in their (fair) opinion once they see their roster, etc.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

I think I hit all the options mentioned...

[Preds]

FYI, at the TOP of this thread, Rami has added a POLL... please vote... thanks.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I assume with only five votes, this hasn't been decided.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I assume with only five votes, this hasn't been decided.

Apaprantly not... we need to finalize this ASAP!

[randilover]

What did I vote before, if it was something else, make if "4 with at least 1 IDP" please.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by randilover

What did I vote before, if it was something else, make if "4 with at least 1 IDP" please.

That's what you voted

[Doggler]

I've been operating under the assumption that we only get 3 RFAs - probably just due to no one listing more than 3 yet.

[Burt the Butcher]

The rules currently state a restriction of 3

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I think 4 is about without any IOP or IDP restrictions.

I change my mind in terms of the IOP and IDP restrictions but either way this is max number so you can always do less if you are so inclined.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Okay, I might be about to reverse myself again. If we say 4 (with 1 IDP) what if a person only wants 2 RFA's and both are IOP. I think we really would want to say this differently.

Maybe something like up to 4 RFA's with no more than three of those being IOP's.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I will say yet again, with the addition of the franchising option, renegotiation of your own players as well as last year player trades for the purposes of renegotiation, we really have enough option to retain talent, and are waterdown the available free agent pool as it is.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

so you can always do less if you are so inclined.

I will almost certainly RFA the absolute maximum amount of players I'm allowed to RFA - if it's 8, I'll find a way to do 8.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Dodgers and others - with all the other tools available to us to retain talent, I really don't think we need the ability to RFA any more than 3 players.

I assume that there will not be many players switching teams thru RFA. It was this way in CDL, I don't know why it would be much different here other than the enticement of getting compensatory draft picks.

With rosters of 30 players, it's safe to assume that maybe 20 on any given team are any more than 'blah' status. Of those 20, how many are in their last year at any given time? 5? Even with 3 RFA's and a Franchise player, owners can work it so they protect nearly 100% of their talent year-over-year. I'd hate to see it get any easier than it already appears to be.

I'm a little more adamant about this one than I am the Home Field vote.

[Preds]

I'm with with the satus quo of 3 or going to 4.

I only bumped this because we never finalized the vote and randilover was asking legit questions.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by Preds

I'm with with the satus quo of 3 or going to 4.

Then change yer vote so I can get my bossy way!:Bla

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Doggler

Then change yer vote so I can get my bossy way!:Bla

If it ends up in the balance I will.

[Burt the Butcher]

Smitty still neeeds to vote, right? Where did he go?