RFA Restrictions

[Burt the Butcher]

I was looking over the rules, and didn't see anything that put restrictions on RFA's other than the number we are allowed to have each year. Are there no limits to the number of times we can RFA a player? Are any players eligilble for RFA?

[Flaxwless]

Pretty much you can RFA any player with an expiring contract as many times as you want.

[Nittany Dodgers]

True, there are no restrictions. You can RFA a player over and over again. Any player with a contract expiring can be tagged as an RFA (personally, I support a rule limiting the number of times a player can be tagged to one, but I don't think I've ever heard any other support for that measure).

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

True, there are no restrictions. You can RFA a player over and over again. Any player with a contract expiring can be tagged as an RFA (personally, I support a rule limiting the number of times a player can be tagged to one, but I don't think I've ever heard any other support for that measure).

Well, I would support a limit, even though I would benefit being able to just keep tagging LT as an RFA and never having to take the huge salary hit that would come with a long term deal, barring some insane bid.

I would propose a 2 time limit per team, but not have any other restrictions, such as number of NFL years of experience and such that we had in CDL.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Well, I would support a limit, even though I would benefit being able to just keep tagging LT as an RFA and never having to take the huge salary hit that would come with a long term deal, barring some insane bid.

I would propose a 2 time limit per team, but not have any other restrictions, such as number of NFL years of experience and such that we had in CDL.

Tracking the tags is a , and for that reason I DON'T support it.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

Tracking the tags is a , and for that reason I DON'T support it.

Well, that's probably the best argument we'll get, for or against. Wouldn't want to make more work for those having to keep track of this stuff and run the risk of this league disbanding also.....

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Tracking the tags is a , and for that reason I DON'T support it.

Tracking one player = one lifetime tag would be easy to track.

[randilover]

Actually, if we mirror the NFL, you would be able to RFA him one year, and then only be able to franchise him the next. Isn't that right?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Tracking one player = one lifetime tag would be easy to track.

It's just one more thing to track manually in an already complex league. Plus, in the NFL (at least in the old contract) you could tag year after year after year. I believe the new contract restricts Franchising to 1 year, but don't think they touched RFA's.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

It's just one more thing to track manually in an already complex league. Plus, in the NFL (at least in the old contract) you could tag year after year after year. I believe the new contract restricts Franchising to 1 year, but don't think they touched RFA's.

Are you comparing our RFAs to franchise players or NFL RFAs? My understanding was NFL RFAs have to do with the number of years in the league, not the team placing a tag on them (though the team does place a level of tag on them, they can only tag at a certain part of their career, no?).

If that was the case, my perfect world would be that you could tag a player as an RFA after the final year of his rookie contract, and that is it. It would be very easy to track that way.

[Preds]

I think the present RFA and Franchise system for SACD is fine. All this bitching and moaning is ridiculous. One of the things integrated into SACD was the CDL's flavor for trading. There's not supposed to be a deep UFA pool. You build via the draft, retaining your own, or overpaying other teams RFA's to steal an RFA or 2.

And lets be clear on the RFA's, in general, they are far overpaid as compared to those on the UFA market, and that's by design. In no way are RFA's a bargain to retain in most cases.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

I think the present RFA and Franchise system for SACD is fine. All this bitching and moaning is ridiculous. One ot the things integrated into SACD was the CDL's flavor for trading. There's not supposed to be a deep UFA pool. You build via the draft, retaining your own, or overpaying other teams RFA's to steal an RFA or 2.

And lets be clear on the RFA's, in general, they are far overpaid as compared to those on the UFA market, and that's by design. In no way are RFA's a bargain to retain in most cases.

I'm not proposing anything, just thinking out loud.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm not proposing anything, just thinking out loud.

Fair enough, but its year 2, I don't think we have anything that needs fixing yet with the FA process, we have to let things play out a few years and then see if tuneups are needed.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

I think the present RFA and Franchise system for SACD is fine. All this bitching and moaning is ridiculous. One of the things integrated into SACD was the CDL's flavor for trading. There's not supposed to be a deep UFA pool. You build via the draft, retaining your own, or overpaying other teams RFA's to steal an RFA or 2.

And lets be clear on the RFA's, in general, they are far overpaid as compared to those on the UFA market, and that's by design. In no way are RFA's a bargain to retain in most cases.

Why is it whenever someone puts something out here that you strongly disagree with, it's labeled as bitching and moaning? I just put it out here as a discussion point to see how others felt, and it seemed to me like Brian was letting us know how he felt about it....nothing more.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Why is it whenever someone puts something out here that you strongly disagree with, it's labeled as bitching and moaning? I just put it out here as a discussion point to see how others felt, and it seemed to me like Brian was letting us know how he felt about it....nothing more.

Because I like to be difficult. ;)

Haven't you figured that out yet? This is what happend when I focus on FF for a week or so like this past 1 .

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

Because I like to be difficult. ;)

Haven't you figured that out yet? This is what happend when I focus on FF for a week or so like this past 1 .

That's the way we love yah!!

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Preds

Plus, in the NFL (at least in the old contract) you could tag year after year after year. I believe the new contract restricts Franchising to 1 year, but don't think they touched RFA's.

This actually isn't true, I don't think. You could only RFA a guy once, the following year he was a UFA, in which case you would have to franchise him, correct? In the NFL you can franchise over and over, but not RFA over and over. If this is the case, then we have it backwards if we are restricting franchising and not RFA'ing. Am I thinking this incorrectly?

In reality, we should have a restriction on RFA's and franchising that you can do it only once. Otherwise, for my team, I can just hold onto a TO type of player year after year without ever really having to pay him more than what the tender is (if he's not bid up).

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by randilover

I can just hold onto a TO type of player year after year without ever really having to pay him more than what the tender is (if he's not bid up).

Oh trust me....he will be....:bling