Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Burt, couple of thoughts. First, as far as offsetting the players signed, that has been discussed by my concern is what affect this might have on stiffling bidding on other RFAs. Penalizing teams in any way for bidding on RFAs I think will prevent bidding to some degree and will reduce their price. I think the point of the RFA matching rights is to have to pay a premium price. The way you have proposed, the impact would not be major for the lower round tenders, but for a 1st round tender, I would think that would dissuade some bidding, and I cringe at that idea.
As far as a bonus for the final bid, one of the ideas is to seed the comp picks bad on the total bid amounts for the players lost, so that a team that loses an LT would almost assuredly be first in line for the comp picks. I'm not sure if that is significant enough for you or not.
|
As for your 2nd point, I can live with that...like I said, adding more complexity would negate any benefit I can see from doing this.
As to your first point, I guess I can see it the other way. Take last year as an example. In most peoples mind, LT and SA were pretty equal. Say I had the rights to LT and Preds had rights to SA. Suppose we both decided we wanted the other, so we both go 6000. We would both not only get an equal back to the one we lose, on paper, but get an extra 1st round pick to boot. That is what I am looking at when I say they should get a bonus while getting a player of equal value. Maybe only tie it to 1st round tenders.
Maybe I am the only one seeing this, and if so, then I still think something needs to be done, and would wholeheartedly support the change you outlined, and think it is well thought out.