RFA Compensation Revision Discusion

[Nittany Dodgers]

Mike and I have been discussing the RFA compensation process over the last couple of days. Our conversation stemmed from the fact that we agree with each other that too many high draft RFA compensation picks are given out each year. We want to come up with a process that will cut down, at least slightly, on the number of comp picks awarded, at least at the 1st round level. I don't know about Mike, but my ideal would be that no more than 1 or 2 1st round picks be awared in any given year. We've had as many as five in one year, and that not only waters down the 2nd round for the entire league, but for those unfortunate teams drafting at the top of each round don't even necessarily get two good picks from which to rebuild. Thus, Mike and I set out to come up with a slightly altered system for awarding comp picks and have come up with the following.

First, the tender levels, and bid process would remain the same. However, when a team declines the match on the player, they are not awared a pick straight up for that players tender level. Picks will not be awared until the end of the RFA process.

The compensation picks will be based on the total levels of players a team declines the match on. Each tender level would be given a point value, and the total points of the declined players would determine the compensation level. My proposed point totals would be:

1st round tenders = 4 points

2nd round tenders = 3 points

3rd round tenders = 2 points

4th round tenders = 1 point

The points for all declined players, added up, would get the following compensation levels:

8 points = 1st round comp

4 points = 2nd round comp

2 points = 3rd round comp

1 point = 4th round comp

With this scale and the points earned, we could either have a predetermined level of compensation for a give point total (ie, 12 points equal 1 1st and 1 2nd), or we could let teams determine their own level of compensation (ie, 12 points could get you either 1 1st and 1 2nd, or 1 st and 2 3rds, or any other combination). Either way would be fine me with, and I'm not sure what people's preference would be. If we go cafeteria style, there could potentially be a lot of 4th round picks handed out, but with limited TS and PS I'm not sure if that would do any harm or not.

Lastly, Mike and I's original intention would be to implement this in 2008 if adopted. Now, the issue has been raised that there might have been deals done with the understanding that 2008 would be handled under the current system. I'm not sure if that is a legit complaint or not, but I wouldn't support a simple majority for determining the start date, but would like a consensus if people like this plan.

This is really a rough draft of a proposal, so I hope this fosters some discussion and perfection as most of the great ideas have gone through in this league over the years.

[Preds]

I think we have a great core to work off here... curious to se ethe nput from the rest of the league, but 100% support the concept Brian's outlined above.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I've come to believe that anything beyond a first round pick in our rookie is basically not worth a whole lot. Sure, guys can get lucky and draft a Mike Bell in the 4th round (oh yah, that was me!)... but for the most part, anything past the first round falls into the "let's hope something happens in the future" category.

All this goes to say that I wouldn't be upset with this kind of reformatting. It does change how we bid, though. We definitely need to settle on this BEFORE we designate contract years from this crop of RFAs.

Nice idea...

[Urza's Ragers]

I love the idea, I really hated that how it worked. I specifically remembered Mike giving up LT to get Shuan (both great players at the time) and still getting a first round returned. YES, it bothered me!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

I've come to believe that anything beyond a first round pick in our rookie is basically not worth a whole lot. Sure, guys can get lucky and draft a Mike Bell in the 4th round (oh yah, that was me!)... but for the most part, anything past the first round falls into the "let's hope something happens in the future" category.

All this goes to say that I wouldn't be upset with this kind of reformatting. It does change how we bid, though. We definitely need to settle on this BEFORE we designate contract years from this crop of RFAs.

Nice idea...

I think from year to year, there are about 20 players with a decending solid chance of predictable contributability (if that is a word, or a phrase that makes any sense). After that, the rest of the 2nd round you've got a 50-50 chance of getting a role player. The 3rd round is a 1 in 4 chance of getting someone worthy of being a backup, and the 4th is a total crapshoot.

That said, moving more of the comp picks from the first to later rounds helps the teams drafting in the early 2nd getting those guys that have a better chance to actually contribute.

I shoulda included the charts of what would have happened to the draft picks in the previous RFA periods I looked at, but basically the total picks remained relatively the same, but there were fewer 1st round picks alloted, and more 4th. I like this, because I don't think the compensation should be as big of a part of the decision to match a guy or not as it currently is. I think it weighs too much into the decision (because they are inherintly too valuable) and therefor we give out too many picks.

[Popes]

Overall, I think this is a good idea. I agree that guys with early picks have less rebuilding opportunities due to too many comp picks going before their 2.1, 2.2, etc picks.

I have two concerns, both relatively minor.

1. I am concerned about this getting implemented now and becoming active for 2008. The reason is that I am talking about trading my 2008 2nd round pick. I wouldn't be happy if I traded it, under the assumption that it was less valuable, then it become more valuable after I traded it. I'd suggest that if anyone has a problem with it, it has to take effect in 2009. If there's no one that made trades that make a difference, it would be fine for 2008.

2. Very minor point: there are some times where you want a lower pick. For example, given that 3rds and 4ths are pretty equal, I wanted to get a 4th this year, not a 3rd, because I have a practice squad opening. Under the current system, I could tag a guy at a 4th. Under the proposed system, I may get too many points and my 4th becomes a 3rd that I don't want. I'd suggest that even if the point total takes you up a level, you could still somehow choose the lower level. Like I said, very minor, but I'd like to see that ability.

[Amish]

I like this idea a lot! However, I am also bummed that this proposal came out at this period of time (A time with a lot of trading going on). With deals in the works, this could throw some wrenches in the cogs.

Anyway, overall I think it is much more fair and rewards the teams that have "lost" the most.

One question would be, how do you rank who gets the highest 1st or 2nd? Would it be overall above tender price? Would it be record? Just some thoughts, be it seems to be a good resolution!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Popes

I'd suggest that if anyone has a problem with it, it has to take effect in 2009. If there's no one that made trades that make a difference, it would be fine for 2008.

Agree. I was thinking the same thing.

Originally Posted by Popes

I'd suggest that even if the point total takes you up a level, you could still somehow choose the lower level.

Agree.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Popes

2. Very minor point: there are some times where you want a lower pick. For example, given that 3rds and 4ths are pretty equal, I wanted to get a 4th this year, not a 3rd, because I have a practice squad opening. Under the current system, I could tag a guy at a 4th. Under the proposed system, I may get too many points and my 4th becomes a 3rd that I don't want. I'd suggest that even if the point total takes you up a level, you could still somehow choose the lower level. Like I said, very minor, but I'd like to see that ability.

This is addressed, or at least acknowledged, here:

" With this scale and the points earned, we could either have a predetermined level of compensation for a give point total (ie, 12 points equal 1 1st and 1 2nd), or we could let teams determine their own level of compensation (ie, 12 points could get you either 1 1st and 1 2nd, or 1 st and 2 3rds, or any other combination). Either way would be fine me with, and I'm not sure what people's preference would be. If we go cafeteria style, there could potentially be a lot of 4th round picks handed out, but with limited TS and PS I'm not sure if that would do any harm or not."

With cafeteria style, you could choose how to spend you points.

Also, even if we don't go cafeteria style, with 4th rounders being worth one point, the only way to not have a 4th rounder at the end is to tag more than one player as a 4th rounder. If you tag one and only one player as a 4th, and lose that player, you would always end up with at least a 4th the way the math works out.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Midnightdew

I like this idea a lot! However, I am also bummed that this proposal came out at this period of time (A time with a lot of trading going on). With deals in the works, this could throw some wrenches in the cogs.

Unfortunately my brainstorms do not always come at the mos opportune times.

Originally Posted by Midnightdew

One question would be, how do you rank who gets the highest 1st or 2nd? Would it be overall above tender price? Would it be record? Just some thoughts, be it seems to be a good resolution!

We could go with the same order as the draft is. That is a good idea. Our original idea was to go with total value of contracts lost, which would keep more in line with the current spirit of the RFA process. But, I like both ideas, and I'm sure there are any number of ways we could fairly determine this.

[Popes]

P.S. I knew that addressed it, but since you suggested it as a choice, I wanted to make my opinion (w/ an illustration) clear!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Our original idea was to go with total value of contracts lost, which would keep more in line with the current spirit of the RFA process.

I'd be in favor of this option.

[Flaxwless]

2008 is fine by me, that's next season right?

The proposal sounds like a good idea, but I think it somewhat limits some of the values of tender levels. By going to this type of system it will remove "value" tenders like I did for Driver this year tendeirng him 3rd round comp and I thought he may potentially sell lower than 2nd.

I think a quick fix would be to base it on final value of player contracts sold, with something like for every 1,000 is something like 1 pt and so forth and create teh scale that way.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I know we have discussed this in the past (probably every year) and I think this proposal makes sense. However, I will still throw out what I mentioned before which is that when a team signs a player that they forfeit a pick one round lower than the tender offer. This is a slightly more simplistic (and less holistic) method to your proposal above. However it would keep the total picks in a given year at 48 (at least in the Frenzy).

Not sure which is better but I think something should be done so if there is momentum for Brian's idea than that would work for me.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I know we have discussed this in the past (probably every year) and I think this proposal makes sense. However, I will still throw out what I mentioned before which is that when a team signs a player that they forfeit a pick one round lower than the tender offer. This is a slightly more simplistic (and less holistic) method to your proposal above. However it would keep the total picks in a given year at 48 (at least in the Frenzy).

Not sure which is better but I think something should be done so if there is momentum for Brian's idea than that would work for me.

I think your idea would completely cripple the RFA market. I know for a fact I personally would shy away from biding on RFAs if I knew I was hurting my rookie draft by winning a bid. The end result is going to be significantly lower RFA salaries, and the loss of the free market determining a players worth.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I think your idea would completely cripple the RFA market. I know for a fact I personally would shy away from biding on RFAs if I knew I was hurting my rookie draft by winning a bid. The end result is going to be significantly lower RFA salaries, and the loss of the free market determining a players worth.

Yeah, I think that was the argument before but I figured as long as the topic was open for discussion I would throw it out there again. Another interesting twist (and this more how the NFL does it I think) would be to account for the RFA's each team signs as well as who they lose. Obvisiously this would take a little more tinkering but it might be worth considering. Last but not least is this something that will likely be applied in the SAC'd as well as here?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Yeah, I think that was the argument before but I figured as long as the topic was open for discussion I would throw it out there again. Another interesting twist (and this more how the NFL does it I think) would be to account for the RFA's each team signs as well as who they lose. Obvisiously this would take a little more tinkering but it might be worth considering. Last but not least is this something that will likely be applied in the SAC'd as well as here?

Brian and I chatted about your 2nd point, but shy'd away from it, because we again felt it would result in lowering RFA salaries. I think what we've proposed is a system that will siginficantly reduce the comp picks, particularly at the top of the draft. To get a 1st rd comp in this system, you'd need to lose 2 1st rd tendered players, or 1 1st and 2 2nds. At a minimum, I expect to see a 50% reduction in 1st rd comps, and thats a good thing for the league as a whole IMO.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

This all makes sense. Maybe after this year's RFA period we can look at the impact of this (or maybe even prior years). I am guessing that you are correct that this would greatly restrict the number of first round comps and I think that is a great thing. Also, is this being considered for the SAC'd?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

This all makes sense. Maybe after this year's RFA period we can look at the impact of this (or maybe even prior years). I am guessing that you are correct that this would greatly restrict the number of first round comps and I think that is a great thing. Also, is this being considered for the SAC'd?

Brian already ran it for prior years, I have it in an email somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up.

As for SACD, I say yah, we should be discussing this for there as well.

[Preds]

Here's the impact of this system on last years class... gonna pull up the others as well.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Predators lost QB1, RB1
Opihi lost K4
Toxic Waste lost TE2
Rake Fighters lost WR2
Mutts lost RB4
Insects lost RB1
Dodgers lost QB4, WR2

I've given the tender levels different values. 1st round tenders are worth
4 points, 2nd rounders are worth 3, 3rd rounders are worth 2, and 4th
rounders are worth 1. At the end of the RFA period, you add up the total
value of players lost, and you get comp picks based on your point total (I
did it so as not to deduct points for players acquired so not as to
discourage bidding). The point levels for comp picks would be:

8 points = 1st round comp
4 points = 2nd round comp
2 points = 3rd round comp
1 point = 4th round comp

The new compensation for the teams above:

Predators: 1 1st round comp (versus 2 1st round comps)
Opihi: 1 4th round comp (same)
Waste: 1 3rd round comp, 1 4th round comp (versus 1 2nd round comp)
Rake Fighters: 1 3rd round comp, 1 4th round comp (versus 1 2nd round comp)
Mutts: 1 4th round comp (same)
Insects: 1 2nd round comp (versus 1 1st round comp)
Dodgers: 1 2nd round comp (versus 1 4th round comp & 1 2nd round comp)

Net Change:

Comp Picks Given Original My Proposal
1st 3 1
2nd 3 2
3rd 0 2
4th 3 4
Total 9 9

[Preds]

And the prior years:

Originally Posted by Nittany DOdgers

Anyway, I looked at the older roster apps. The 2005 app on the site
appears to be last updated at an early point in the 2006 RFA period, so I
don't have record for 2005, but I did 2004. (I don't think we had comp
picks in 2003).

Team Lost Original comp New comp
Undead WR3 3rd 3rd
Predators WR2 2nd 3rd, 4th
Freedom QB1 1st 2nd
Opihi WR1 1st 2nd
Waste RB3,WR2,WR1 1st, 2nd, 3rd 1st, 4th
Swords RB3 3rd 3rd
DerbyCars WR4 4th 4th
Insects RB3 3rd 3rd
Chasers RB1,RB2,QB3 1st, 2nd, 3rd 1st, 4th
Dodgers RB1 1st 2nd

Net Change Original New
1st 5 2
2nd 3 3
3rd 5 4
4th 1 4
Total 14 13

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

2008 is fine by me, that's next season right?

The proposal sounds like a good idea, but I think it somewhat limits some of the values of tender levels. By going to this type of system it will remove "value" tenders like I did for Driver this year tendeirng him 3rd round comp and I thought he may potentially sell lower than 2nd.

I think a quick fix would be to base it on final value of player contracts sold, with something like for every 1,000 is something like 1 pt and so forth and create teh scale that way.

I'm not sure I follow you here. I don't see how this would remove the potential "value" tenders (I'm not sure I even know how you're defining that), but the higher you tender a player, you're still going to get higher compensation than a lower tender, it's just lower than it is now. Basically, a 3rd round comp isn't even affected by the new system. Just the 1st's primarily.

If we did it based on the final value of the players sold for, we'd totally lose the different tender levels, which I think is a large part of the strategy, and also puts some ownus on the tendering team to assess some amount of value. Otherwise, for a guy on the border between worthy of a 1st or 2nd round tender, there is no risk involved. I think there should be some risk and the tendering team should have a responsibility to set a minimum threshhold for a players value.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm not sure I follow you here. I don't see how this would remove the potential "value" tenders (I'm not sure I even know how you're defining that), but the higher you tender a player, you're still going to get higher compensation than a lower tender, it's just lower than it is now. Basically, a 3rd round comp isn't even affected by the new system. Just the 1st's primarily.

If we did it based on the final value of the players sold for, we'd totally lose the different tender levels, which I think is a large part of the strategy, and also puts some ownus on the tendering team to assess some amount of value. Otherwise, for a guy on the border between worthy of a 1st or 2nd round tender, there is no risk involved. I think there should be some risk and the tendering team should have a responsibility to set a minimum threshhold for a players value.

I spent an hour online late last night chatting with Frank about this, and I STILL don't get what he's saying!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Just to add a little more fuel to this fire, we're up to 7 1st round compensation picks handed out so far. There are still three more 1st round tendered RFAs active or yet to be bid on.

This, IMHO, sucks. We need to make sure we don't lose track of this.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

You mean 7 just in the frenzy. This very much sucks and basically makes second round picks more like third rounders. I think your proposal should be seriously for both league (SAC'd and Frenzy) for next year's RFA period.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

You mean 7 just in the frenzy. This very much sucks and basically makes second round picks more like third rounders. I think your proposal should be seriously for both league (SAC'd and Frenzy) for next year's RFA period.

Correct, just 7 for the Frenzy. SAC'D isn't as far along in the process, and I think there have only been 3 to this point, but I think the fact the SAC'D tender levels are more accurate has something to do with the lower numbers. I think the same system should be used there as well though.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Just to add a little more fuel to this fire, we're up to 7 1st round compensation picks handed out so far. There are still three more 1st round tendered RFAs active or yet to be bid on.

This, IMHO, sucks. We need to make sure we don't lose track of this.

I'm on board with the new plan we've crafted. 7 1st rd comps s ridiculous.

[Urza's Ragers]

Wow, sure is I wished now I had Willie as a 1st rd tender.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I'm not really sure why everyone is so shocked. This is how I've seen it the past 2 years. I totally knew going into this RFA period that there was the potential for it to be this way. In fact, it made a big difference in how I handled players last year and this year. This is just the way our league works. (At least right now)

Not shocked. Just using the system the way it's currently set up.

(I'm also open to changing it, if that's what everyone else wants to do. But we better make a decision before we assign contract years with this year's class of RFA's!)

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I know we have had a number of comps but I don't honestly remember it being quite that many first rounders.