RFA Compensation Revision: how to determine picks - Passes 7-5

[Popes]

We have agreed on a new RFA compensation system. The history of this issue is found at:

Voting thread: http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?p=62121
Discussion thread: http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10647

1st level tenders = 4 points
2nd level tenders = 3 points
3rd level tenders = 2 points
4th level tenders = 1 point

The points for all declined players, added up, will yield the following compensation picks at the end of the RFA period:

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

Amongst picks of the same round, the order will be determined by the higher of the total tender levels of all players declined. The tiebreaker will be the higher of the total amounts paid over tender level of all players declined.

There will be no trading of points allowed.

We have yet to determine exactly how the picks will be awarded. Since there was minimal support for cafeteria-style (you choose the picks; 8 points could yield 8 4th round picks) - only 1 person out of 8 voting - I'm dropping that as an option so that we can get a majority vote concluded.

The two options are:

1. You get the picks that match up with the maximum allowed for your point total, yet can drop a pick downward in rounds if you like. For example, 6 points would generally yield a 2nd and a 3rd, but you could voluntarily drop that down to a 2nd and a 4th if you want.

2. You get the picks that match up with the maximum allowed for your point total, with no dropping. For example, 6 points would yield a 2nd and a 3rd with no other options.

The main argument for option 2 is that it prevents excessive 4th round picks.

The main argument for option 1 (my suggestion) is that if someone needs a 4th to fill out their practice squad, they should be able to choose that. If not allowed, people will just under-tender guys to get around it (a legit 3rd level tender can be tendered at the 4th level; people can deduce from that that you're not matching and the bidding for that player will be depressed and fail to reach market value).

Please vote by Fri March 14. I will close the voting then and we'll have our new RFA compensation plan in place for the upcoming RFA period.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Popes

Amongst picks of the same round, the order will be determined by the higher of the total tender levels of players lost to yield that pick. The tiebreaker will be the higher of the total amounts paid over tender level of players lost to yield that pick.

Forgive me, because it's been a while since this was discussed, but I need clarification on this point. You say the order will be determined by the higher of the total tender levels of playlers lost to yield that pick. Are you saying for instance for two 2nd round comp picks, one is from a 1st round comp lost, and one is from a 3rd and a 4th, the team who lost the first round comp picks first? I don't remember that being what we discussed, but I'll go back and read.

What I remember being discussed was that there was a static order for all teams throughout the draft for RFA picks. The order was based on the total tender level of the RFA picks lost (ie, team one losses a 1st round RB (2400) and a 1st round WR (1800) and they pick before the team who lost a 1st round RB (2400) and two 3rd round RBs (800 each) even though they have the same number of RFA points (8). If there was a tie between the tender levels (two teams who lost the same level of players for instance) the tie breaker would be the total of those players sold over their tender.

[Popes]

You're right. I was thinking of it wrong.

I'm changing the language in my first post so as not to confuse new readers.

Nice catch.

[Popes]

[If Option 1 wins]

Process-wise: at the end of the RFA process, we'll post a thread with all of the compensation picks awarded. By default, we'll award the maximum picks (as 90+% of the time that will be final). Then anyone wanting to downgrade a pick could so declare in the thread.

[Mutts]

I agree with the argument suggesting option 2 would create excessive 4th round picks - you would have to be crazy to not convert your 3rd into a 4th. I also don't necessarily follow the suggestion that tendering a player as a 4th rounder that is obviously not meant to be matched would suppress RFA bidding. I actually think knowing a player would not be matched would provide incentive to jump in on the bidding: better chance your effort will result in an acquisition. I voted no.

[Popes]

Here's an illustration of my contention.

Let's say I'm tendering a WR who has a clear $700 value, making him a 3rd level tender. Let's also assume there's a few bidders interested in the player.

If I tender him at the 3rd level, the opening bid has to be at least $600. If this were UFA, we'd expect him to be bid up to around $700. But since this is RFA, we all know we need to pay a premium to pry him away from the team that has the right to match. Here, that might take the bidding up to maybe $800-$900. His "RFA market value" is $700 + some premium to discourage matching.

If I tender him at the 4th round level in order to acquire a 4th round pick, people can look at my team and see that I've undertendered him with the intention to decline. So the opening bid is $300. Our competive bidders bring him up to the market value and he sells for around $700. His market value is now more UFA-style, whereas he would have sold for maybe $100-$200 more if I had tendered him at the appropriate level.

My point is that people will get a 4th round pick one way or another if they need one, so why force them to under-tender guys to do it?

I do agree that seeing that there will be no match might encourage other bidders to enter the fray and that might make it a wash (the extra bidder compensating for the lack of a match threat). Or it might not. And when it doesn't, the lack of a match threat will drive down the price. That is, the lack of a match threat will be present in every one of these situations. The extra bidder only shows up sometimes to compensate for it.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Popes

Here's an illustration of my contention.

Let's say I'm tendering a WR who has a clear $700 value, making him a 3rd level tender. Let's also assume there's a few bidders interested in the player.

If I tender him at the 3rd level, the opening bid has to be at least $600. If this were UFA, we'd expect him to be bid up to around $700. But since this is RFA, we all know we need to pay a premium to pry him away from the team that has the right to match. Here, that might take the bidding up to maybe $800-$900. His "RFA market value" is $700 + some premium to discourage matching.

If I tender him at the 4th round level in order to acquire a 4th round pick, people can look at my team and see that I've undertendered him with the intention to decline. So the opening bid is $300. Our competive bidders bring him up to the market value and he sells for around $700. His market value is now more UFA-style, whereas he would have sold for maybe $100-$200 more if I had tendered him at the appropriate level.

My point is that people will get a 4th round pick one way or another if they need one, so why force them to under-tender guys to do it?

I do agree that seeing that there will be no match might encourage other bidders to enter the fray and that might make it a wash (the extra bidder compensating for the lack of a match threat). Or it might not. And when it doesn't, the lack of a match threat will drive down the price. That is, the lack of a match threat will be present in every one of these situations. The extra bidder only shows up sometimes to compensate for it.

I've already voted yes, but I'll explain why I don't like this example with another reason. Primarily, 3rd-4th round tender guys are not bid up in the same way that say, 1st round tender RB are. Generally, you know a guy with a 1st round tender RB is looking at him as a key piece of his franchise, so if you want him, you have to bid high to pry him away. A 3rd-4th round tender WR is not exactly the same situation. Here you have guys that for some particular reason the owner like, but it's not like he's a franchise maker. Maybe the tendering team thinks he'll outplay his projections. Maybe it's a WR moving to a new team and the owner wants to take a cheap shot on him. Maybe he's a homer and he wants the chance to match the highest bid. But, generally, it's not a player the tendering team is going to go to the mat for. It's just not apples to apples.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Still need to hear from Freedom and Absolut on this.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Sorry I missed that there was a vote needed. I say let people spend their points however they want. If someone wants to grab 10 4th rounders after 50 or so guys are taken that is fine by me.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Sorry I missed that there was a vote needed. I say let people spend their points however they want. If someone wants to grab 10 4th rounders after 50 or so guys are taken that is fine by me.

That's not the question for this poll. This is simply between the choices of if a team can trade any comp pick for any lower round comp pick (ie, swapping a 3rd rounder for a 4th rounder). They will not get more picks by moving down, and teh cafeteria style of spending your points how you wish is not an option.

Regardless, this vote passes.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I think that's what Matt meant. If they'd rather take their 3rd round comp pick and make it a 4th round comp pick, no problem. I agree.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I know we have not discussed this in a while but I thought the idea was you got your points (could not trade them) but you could use them however you wish. Not sure why this is a bad idea.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Looks like 7 of us felt it wasn't a bad idea.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Calgon, Take Me Away!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I know we have not discussed this in a while but I thought the idea was you got your points (could not trade them) but you could use them however you wish. Not sure why this is a bad idea.

Matt, sorry for any confusion. The reasoning as to why cafeteria-style died is explained in post #14 of http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?p=62121

Basically, of 8 people voting/expressing opinions, you were the only one that wanted cafeteria-style. I think the main reason people opposed it is fear of dilution by introducing a potentially large # of draft picks. Even if in the 4th round, the fear is that a 4th rounder should be a very long shot, but won't be if you can take six 4th rounders, watch them for 5 months, then put the best one on your practice squad.

Given that the other options had 4 and 3 supporters, I dropped cafeteria-style so we could have the top 2 options battle it out and let the majority rule.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Looks like 7 of us felt it wasn't a bad idea.

They will not get more picks by moving down, and teh cafeteria style of spending your points how you wish is not an option.

Sorry I was alluding to this. I thought we could get 8 points (or whatever) and get 8 fourth rounders if we wanted to. Per Brian's e-mail that is not the case (which is fine) but I would have thought that it was good idea (option).

[Amish]

Originally Posted by Popes

Amongst picks of the same round, the order will be determined by the higher of the total tender levels of all players declined. The tiebreaker will be the higher of the total amounts paid over tender level of all players declined.

Just making sure but if someone gets 6 pts and 580 over cap and another person gets 5 pts and 970 over cap, they both earn 2nd round picks (4 pts) According to above, the 5 pts would get the higher 2nd round pick because of the over cap total even though the other person had more pts. I'm just making sure that is correct before I post all the picks.

Thanks.

Joel

[Popes]

Correct. Because the extra points above 4 are being allocated elsewhere (the 6 point person gets a 2nd and 3rd, while the 5 point person gets a 2nd and 4th).

[Edit: I'm not sure what "over cap" means, but I'm guessing you're thinking over tender, which is not how we voted to do it. It's total tendered amount.]