SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

Vote here to revise the way RFA compensation works or not.

A yes vote would be to revise the RFA compensation so that it is based on points for RFA's lost, rather than a simple pick for each player lost based on Comp deignation. The revised points earned would be:

Tender Level-Points Earned for Player Lost
1st=24 points
2nd=12 points
3rd=8 points
4th=4 points
5th=2 points
6th=1 points

So, if you tendered one first rounder, one third rounder, and one 6th rounder, and declined the match on all three, you'd have 33 points to spend. The Compensation Picks would cost the following:

1st=32 points
2nd=16 points
3rd=8 points
4=4 points
5th=2 points
6th=1 points
==============================================

A NO vote would be to leave RFA Compensation as it cuurrently is.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation
 

Those who voted against... why?

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation
 

What is the point of having a 1st round tender if you can't get a 1st round compensatory pick? Can you imagine how this would go over if it were proposed in the NFL?

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation
 

I think it was discussed (maybe in the Frenzy) that the terms would be changed to a "first level tender."

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation
 

Again, point being that I thought the idea was to emulate the NFL. Even if that's not the case, allowing teams to dump lesser players (those who will probably only reach a 2nd or 3rd round tender) in order to gain a 1st round pick doesn't sit well with me. I've never seen a league that allows that kind of move.

Be that as it may, it's obvious that the majority of the league doesn't agree with me. That being the case, how do we determine the order of the compensatory picks since our current value over tender method will no longer apply.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation
 

You'd have to let 2 2nd rounders and a 3rd rounder go in order to get a 1st. Other than that, at least one first rounder would have to be let go.

I think that the order should be the same as the order of the regular picks. Seems to be the fairest thing.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation
 

I thought the consensus was that the order would be determined by the total money over the tender level for all RFAs lost by a team would determine the order? But maybe I'm just confusing SAC'D and Frenzy discussion. Either way is fine with me I guess. Doesn't make a huge difference in strategy or outcome.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation
 

Passed to Revise

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

OK, the order of the comp picks never really got resolved....if anyone wants to discuss this further, I am open, since we all kind of dropped the ball here, and we now have new people....

Should the comp picks be based on rookie draft order, or based on the amount of winning bid over tag level? And if so, should it be all picks lost added together, and the highest amount gets highest pick throughout, or some formula to try and make it more fair?

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

Based on amounttotal amount over tendered carried through out. Why make it harder than it needs to be?

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

IMO, it should be as follows:

critera A - how were the points accumulated?
that is, did a team acquire 36 points for say a 1st rd comp by declining 2 1st rd players (giving them 48 points and rd 1 and 2 comps), or did it take the team parting with a 1st rd tender and a 2nd tender to accumulate the 36 necessary for a 1st rd comp? The team that parted with the higher level tenders should get the higher pick.

critera B - in the event of a tie after applying the method above, look at the differential from the tender amount to the sale amount of the RFA's being used to acquire the HIGHEST comp pick of the players involved (note, once a player is used for a higher comp, they can't be used as a tiebreaker for their leftover points for the lower pick with any remaining points that may be used for the 2nd pick).

critera C - if still tied, revert to draft order as the tie breaker

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

I like Mikes way. It doesn't reward a team for one single player all the way through their picks.

The least complicated way would be to leave the picks in order of the rookie draft, btw, not by dollars over tender.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

That's exactly what my thinking was. Trying to get it as close as possible to the old system, where your players differential only counted towards that one pick. Since points can be combined, the old tie-breaker system needs to be tweaked... I think what I suggested gives the same end result.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

Works for me... anything that puts record/draft order at the bottom. Compensation picks should be based on RFAs lost... not performance from the previous season.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

The draft is there to reward weaker teams. The RFA process is an entirely different animal.

Let's use a draft scenario.

The 1.1 team bids 6900 for LT, Burt lets him go (a staggering 3700 above the tender). Meanwhile the 1.1 loses some lessor 1st rd tender (say TE Tony Gonzalez for 500 over the tender). Add in some 2nd rd talent to both so they equal out at a 1st rd comp.

Your saying that 1.1 should get the 1.13 pick ahead of Burt, who has lost significantly more?

And what about teams that lose 2 1st rd tenders, by that alone havent they already given up more than a team that loses a 1st and 2nd?

You cannot bring the draft order into this, at least not in the 1st couple tie-breakers. Doing so is vastly unfair to the teams that lose the superior talent.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

You're not getting my point, The shitty teams have already been rewarded via the draft with higher picks. The RFA comp process isn't to reward them a 2nd time.

The RFA comp system is to lesson the blow for losing talent, and it's always been measured by the value of the player lost (as measured by the salary paid in the winning bid as compared to the tender level comped). The comp system has NEVER had anything to do with the overall composition of the team itself. It's aplayer valuation, and it rewards comps based on the valuation lost.

The Draft Order and RFA Compensation system have NEVER been related, nor should they be.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

I don't understand how basing RFA comp pick seeding to dollar sign is "subjective"... seems like simple economics to me: a good is put on the open market and the market as a whole decides the "value" of an object. Just because in the end only one owner wins the player, doesn't mean the entire market (the other 11 owners) didn't play a role in setting the market value. If the market is willing to pay 6900 for LT and only 2000 for Gonzalez ... then I don't see how one can say Gonzalez is worth equal or mor ethan LT? If he was he would get paid the same then.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

I think the answer here is yes (though maybe not in the same fashion that we do). The NFL has compensatory picks that provide picks for players lost in Free Agency (though they do factor in players acquired as well).

There has been a lot of history here (that obvisiously you are privy to) but I think that the system in general has evolved nicely to meet the needs/desires of the majority of owners.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

Sounds good to me

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

Fair enough. I see your point, but before you got here noob, as owners we decided that the "natural" market reward did not offer enough incentive to decline RFAs or fair compensation for losing players.

Way before you even heard of a contract league or understood the terms "cap hit" or "renegotiation" we had a couple of RFA periods WITHOUT the compensation system and you know what happened? RFAs rarely left their original teams. Owners did not want to part with studs and get free-cap space to sign bums as other studs were signed onto teams already.

So the RFA compensation system was introduced and we have been constantly tinkering to make it fair. We have done away with direct compensation and this year institutted a points system that seems to be working perfectly. RFAs change teams now b/c owners are more willing to let them go since they'll recieve cap space AND some type of compensation through the draft.

You're a n00b.... now instead of trying to change the entire system, why don't you just answer the simple question laid at your feet.

Re: SACD Rules Vote - Revise RFA Compensation - Passes 7 Yes - 4 No
 

I will put out more or less the same argument that I tried last season on this topic. While compensatory picks in the NFL are meant to reward teams for talent lost, these picks are based on two things: A) the round of the pick is based on that player's performance the following season. I would equate this to the tender level we assign them since we can't wait for a season to see how the player actually plays. B) after picks have been assigned specific rounds, then the comp picks for each round are assigned based on draft order. Now if the NFL is obviously awarding these picks in a fashion designed to reward worse teams over better ones IN ADDITION TO THE DRAFT ITSELF, then why don't we?