RFA Tender Level Question

[PencilGeeks]

I guess I always assumed that the minimum RFA on a player under his last contract year is at least the same level as his current salary? Based on what I see on the RFA declarations thread, I guess not!

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

RB Maurice Jones-Drew 1st 3200cb
LB Patrick Willis 6th 200cb
DB LaRon Landry 6th 160cb

So.. does this seem like a major loop-hole to anyone else?
For example, a high-priced stud LB like Patrick Willis can be RFA'd at a 6th round salary and conceivably (it won't happen I am sure but..) nobody bids on him and so Burt gets to roster him at that 6th round tender level AND save $1000+?

[bigmash33]

I have no issue with it. It only hurts Burt's compensation for him if the bidding gets out of hand and he doesn't match him. If the owner wants to take the risk at using a low comp level, I have no problem.

[PencilGeeks]

I understand your point, and that is the "art" of setting a tender level: balancing what you think bidding will top out at and your compensation level.. however.. it still doesn't feel quite right tendering (starting the bidding low) for a top-level player. Not to pick on Burt but in that example even if bidding tops out at $1000 he could opt to retain and it would be a $800ish net swing vs Franchising him.. plus he then gets to use the franshise tag on someone else..

[Burt the Butcher]

You make a good point Hans, but yes, this is how its always been. Tender levels are not based on previous salaries.

You could also argue, at what point should his salary start going down? Is going to be worth next year, what he was worth two years ago? He is either surrounded by better players, or his skills are declining a little each year.

Look at his stats:

2008 #1 overall LB with 281.30 pts 17.581 ppg
2009 #1 overall LB with 310.65 pts 19.416 ppg
2010 #8 overall LB with 262.00 pts 17.467 ppg
2011 #23 overall LB with 206.50 pts 15.885 ppg (was injured 4 games)
2012 #18 overall LB with 231.25 pts 14.453 ppg

So over the past 3 years, he has been getting less points per game. Does he deserve a raise?

I guess my point is, isn't it all subjective? He has not even been a top 10 LB over the past 2 years.

[Scorpions]

I completely disagree, if Burt puts him out there low, and the rest of the league doesn't bid on him, then shame on the rest of the league.

[bigmash33]

Originally Posted by PencilGeeks

\Not to pick on Burt but in that example even if bidding tops out at $1000 he could opt to retain and it would be a $800ish net swing vs Franchising him.. plus he then gets to use the franshise tag on someone else..

All in all, I get the point, but I don't think franchising him would have been the correct approach anyways. He was by far the highest paid LB so giving him a 20% raise would have been overpaying by a lot. There is a big difference between Willis and the next 9 LB salaries (that are rostered). Willis is still a top level LB but there isn't the gap between him and the rest of the top level LBs that there was 4 years ago.

Maybe a 4th rd tender would be more accurate to his value but that is all Burt's decision and opinion.

Bobby has Chris Johnson at a 5th rd tender. Some people (including Chris Johnson) think he's one of the best RBs in the league...some think he's inconsistent and annoying to own. It's all comes back to the owners opinion.