RFA Tender Levels and rookie bonuses poll.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Please see the attached documents for the final, final, really I mean it this time final draft of the RFA tender levels and rookie bonuses. I've included both in one poll as this should be a slam dunk. If you feel strongly for one and against the other, post your feelings and if it will affect the outcome of the poll the issues will be split.

[Preds]

Don't hate me, but just looking at it, things seem off. You hgave DL and DB's at 600 and 500cb tenders for a 1st round comp. While that may be their ceiling, I find it difficult to believe that any DL or CB is worth a 1st round pick for those prices. The 1st rd tender should be a detriment IMO, much like for Kickers or TE's. The bar for the IDP's needs to be raised.

I'll also add that the LB tenders should probably start where the TE tenders start.

Basically, IMO, no ore than 1, maybe 2 IDP's should be tendered 1st round comp contracts, as that's all we'll see drafted (if that) in the 1st of any given year.

I really think the IDP tenders have to be much higher.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Yes, I do hate you. :idiot


These numbers have been out there for a while to be discussed. I have aboslutely no problem with them being higher. I'm not going to play with the numbers again though. Feel free to tinker with the numbers and repost before people start voting.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Yes, I do hate you. :idiot


These numbers have been out there for a while to be discussed. I have aboslutely no problem with them being higher. I'm not going to play with the numbers again though. Feel free to tinker with the numbers and repost before people start voting.

In all honesty, I haven't been too focused on football the last couple months. I've glanced at things, commented here and there, but not truly looked ast them.

You're going to hate me for my Frenzy comments too .

:Sorry:

[Preds]

My quick IDP Fix Brian...

Use the TE scale you proposed for LB's (starting at 1300), and the original LB scale you proposed (starting at 1000) for both DL and DB's.

[Mutts]

I think adjusting D tenders up that far is insane. I understand wanting them higher in order to limit the number of D players turned into 1st round picks - but setting the tender level higher than the highest amount paid for every position in the inaugural auction is too much IMO.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Mutts

I think adjusting D tenders up that far is insane. I understand wanting them higher in order to limit the number of D players turned into 1st round picks - but setting the tender level higher than the highest amount paid for every position in the inaugural auction is too much IMO.

At 600 for a DL, or 500 for a DB, you're going to have several "elite" players tagged as 1st round comp by saavy teams.

Show me a single DL or DB drafted in the 1st round of rookie drafts... you won't find any DL, maybe 1 DB, and they shouldn't have gone so high. The 1st round tenders for these payers should be just as out of reach as for say Kickers IMO.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

At 600 for a DL, or 500 for a DB, you're going to have several "elite" players tagged as 1st round comp by saavy teams.

Show me a single DL or DB drafted in the 1st round of rookie drafts... you won't find any DL, maybe 1 DB, and they shouldn't have gone so high. The 1st round tenders for these payers should be just as out of reach as for say Kickers IMO.

OK, I'm over my initial "dammit Mike, why the F didn't you say anything since I first posted this" reaction, and I now agree with Mike. However, before I revise the proposed scale, since votes have come in, I'd like to hear some input from the other teams.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

OK, I'm over my initial "dammit Mike, why the F didn't you say anything since I first posted this" reaction, and I now agree with Mike. However, before I revise the proposed scale, since votes have come in, I'd like to hear some input from the other teams.

I can barely get my arms around the RFA concept in general and was hoping to learn as I go along. So my input would be do what you see fit, as I cannot speak this language at this point and it seems like dither to me. But, if what is being said is that things don't make sense they way they are, I'm likely to say change them. It sounds like you'll be able to tag a player with a level that benefits you but no one else who picks up the tender, therefore, you'll be getting guys back at a nice low price.

This would seem to do one of two things.
1) Either bring the price of these positions down over the next couple of years to "where they should be," or
2) Be unrealistic this year and therefore the levels will need to be modified over the next couple of years.

You guys who have been doing this longer than me would know which is correct, but if I remember correctly, we were waiting to see what came of the salaries over this past year to give an idea of where to place these amounts.

[Nittany Dodgers]

RL, I'll give you some background on the RFA tenders so you can, if you so choose, form your own opinion. The RFA process exisited in the Frenzy originally without compensation. It was a tool to allow teams that owned players to be able to match the highest bid on them. However, at some point, we decided we like how the NFL does it, where if you have a number of good players and cannot afford to keep them all due to their contracts, you should receive some compensation in return for losing them. That is how we came up with the various levels of RFA tendering. The more compensation you want back for a player, the more salary you need to guarantee paying them (in case you set a tender level higher than anyone else is willing to pay, you have to pay that salary).

Of course, many of the RFA tenders given are because the tendering team really wants the player back and intends to match the highest bid. However, when the bid gets to be too high, what kind of compensation should the player get back? The consensus seems to be you should get some kind of compensation, but not necessarily equal compensation for what you lost, more of a consolation prize, and certainly you shouldn't receive more compensation (in terms of value) than the player you lost. That is, if you tag a linebacker at a 1st round tender level, and decide not to match the highest offer, is that linebacker you lost really worth a 1st round selection? Another way to put it is how many linebackers in the league would people be not willing to trade for a 1st round pick straight up? Realistically, those should be the only LBs who would be worthy of a 1st round tender. With DBs, how many would people not be willing to part with for a 1st round pick? Probably none, right? So the 1st round tender level should be at a level higher than anyone realistically would tag them. The best DBs are more likely more worth a 2nd or 3rd round pick, so those levels should be where the best would be tagged, and the 1st round more out of reach. At least that is the argument.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I like the numbers in Brian's post above (at least for this year) and voted yes!

[Mutts]

I just don't believe that the top linebackers in the league, say a healthy Ray Lewis or Donnie Edwards, aren't worth a 1st round pick. They are the 3rd highest scoring position in the league. Rookies who went in the 1st round comp positions last year include 2.1 WR Reggie Brown, 2.2 RB Maurice Clarett, 2.3 TE Heath Miller, 2.4 QB Alex Smith, 2.5 LB Derrick Johnson. You're really telling me you wouldn't easily trade any of those guys straight up for a RayRay, Edwards or Vilma?

Why then would we set defensive players' tender levels actually ABOVE the highest bid a player at that position received in the inaugural draft?!

The argument of less value just doesn't sit well with me. Brian's original scale seems to be well thought out - I think we should stick with it.

As a compromise, I could get behind a change that raises DL and DB by 200cb and LB by 100cb - making the 1st round tenders 800cb, 700cb and 1100cb respectively.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Mutts

I just don't believe that the top linebackers in the league, say a healthy Ray Lewis or Donnie Edwards, aren't worth a 1st round pick. They are the 3rd highest scoring position in the league. Rookies who went in the 1st round comp positions last year include 2.1 WR Reggie Brown, 2.2 RB Maurice Clarett, 2.3 TE Heath Miller, 2.4 QB Alex Smith, 2.5 LB Derrick Johnson. You're really telling me you wouldn't easily trade any of those guys straight up for a RayRay, Edwards or Vilma?

Why then would we set defensive players' tender levels actually ABOVE the highest bid a player at that position received in the inaugural draft?!

The argument of less value just doesn't sit well with me. Brian's original scale seems to be well thought out - I think we should stick with it.

As a compromise, I could get behind a change that raises DL and DB by 200cb and LB by 100cb - making the 1st round tenders 800cb, 700cb and 1100cb respectively.

First, I want to make it clear I don't think RFA compensation has ever been about equal compensation. In my mind, it has always been a consolation for losing a player.

That said, if LBs were 1st round tagged at 1300, wouldn't you still tag Ray Lewis as a 1st rounder? You state the scale shouldn't be higher than the bids from the inagural season, but it appears to me that most people agree the market values the second year are going to change dramatically after a season of everyone learning the respective values and scarcity of the positions. I for one learned you can't win with a budget D. I would almost guaranteed LB salaries are going to go up this year, and the best LB will go up.

Also, as I've stated before (at least in other threads), I would rather have the tender levels too high, and need to adjust downward, rather than the opposite. Nothing makes the rookie draft less meaninful, and interesting, than diluting it with a bunch of extra picks. That's my opinion at least.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

First, I want to make it clear I don't think RFA compensation has ever been about equal compensation. In my mind, it has always been a consolation for losing a player.

That said, if LBs were 1st round tagged at 1300, wouldn't you still tag Ray Lewis as a 1st rounder? You state the scale shouldn't be higher than the bids from the inagural season, but it appears to me that most people agree the market values the second year are going to change dramatically after a season of everyone learning the respective values and scarcity of the positions. I for one learned you can't win with a budget D. I would almost guaranteed LB salaries are going to go up this year, and the best LB will go up.

Also, as I've stated before (at least in other threads), I would rather have the tender levels too high, and need to adjust downward, rather than the opposite. Nothing makes the rookie draft less meaninful, and interesting, than diluting it with a bunch of extra picks. That's my opinion at least.

very :GoodPost

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Nothing makes the rookie draft less meaninful, and interesting, than diluting it with a bunch of extra picks. That's my opinion at least.

I fully agree with this which is why I still think we ought to consider that a team that signs another teams FA loses one of their draft picks. Maybe signing a first or second round tender players costs a third rounder and a third or fourth round tender signing costs the signing team a fifth rounder. While this would not be a straight one for one type arrangement it would keep us closer to have 72 picks in the draft.

I know this was dismissed (likely in the Frenzy) because we were going to adjust tender levels upwards but I still think it is worth considering because I am pretty sure the NFL makes you lose a pick (it goes to the team that tendered the player) rather than just adding picks. I am not suggesting that it cost the signing team a first rounder to sign a first round tendered player but some sort of cost seems to make sense.

Anyhow, we are going to need to settle this in some form or another in the next couple of days if we are going to make everyone announce their free agents by Friday.

umm if we dont have RFA levels in place how are we goinig to declare RFA values by thursday

[Preds]

I'd say with 2 league openings, we need to address that area first, everything else needs to be suspended. We also have an opening in the Frenzy for the 1st time in 3 years .

I wonder if we should seriously consider asking Smitty and Doggs to join us here in SACD since CDL can't find a commish and is short teams too. With the Frenzy opening a 3rd CDL member could be absorbed there with ease. Thoughts?

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

RL, I'll give you some background on the RFA tenders so you can, if you so choose, form your own opinion...

Thanks for this write up, Brian, it helped. I appreciate it.

[Nittany Dodgers]

This issue is still undecided. Is there any other input? If not, I'll set up a new poll with Mike's and Jake's opposing suggestions as the two alternatives.

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Mutts

As a compromise, I could get behind a change that raises DL and DB by 200cb and LB by 100cb - making the 1st round tenders 800cb, 700cb and 1100cb respectively.

I agree with Jake. Did I just say that?