***THIS RULE HAS PASSED***
Fellow Immersion Owners,
Over the past couple of years we have made adjustments to how we handle restricted free agency. I enjoyed last year’s innovation of giving each RFA their “day in the sun” so that owners could make contingency plans if they didn’t win the FA they were targeting (or if the owner matched the offer sheet.) The CornChutes even successfully nabbed Russell Wilson from the Colliders, sending the 8th pick overall as compensation. The CornChutes got the #3 scoring QB in the league and the Colliders drafted Kevin White, who sat out the whole season.
Still, it’s my belief that restricted free agency has yet to live up to its full potential. Nobody has ever tagged a player with anything other than the first round tag, wisely understanding that there’s no reason not to. The pay raise isn’t that much and if the price escalates too much, then hey, you get a first rounder out of it. I would like there to be a little more nuance to tagging players. I’d love to see more people try 2nd and 3rd round tags.
UPDATED RULE PROPOSAL
I’m kind of riffing off of Enright and others here:
Options when an RFA contract expires:
- Tender the player (25% raise, 3 year contract) – Player earns a 25% raise and other owners can bid on him. If nobody bids on him, he stays with the team for the 25% raise. If other owners do compete for his services, compensation is based on the winning bid. The original owner can elect to keep the player at the higher (bid) salary, or take the draft pick and send him on his way.
- Do not tender – player becomes an unrestricted free agent.
Compensation levels:
The draft pick “triggers” at these dollar amounts:
- $20 – 1st round
- $15 – 2nd round
- $10 – 3rd round
$8$7 – 4th round$5$4 – 5th round
If the bid is more than the original tag amount but less than $5, the owner would get no compensation. He could let the player go for nothing, or match the offer.
So, in my proposal all tenders give you three-year deals, which seem to be the preferred contract length thanks to how holdouts work. And then I threw in the last tender for fun, though I will happily eliminate it if other owners don’t like it. I’m also open to other thoughts. My goal is to have a little more interest in restricted free agency. So far it’s just been first round tenders, and until Russell Wilson came along, I believe the offer was always matched. This might be a way to get more movement on some of those mid-tier players that you don’t mind having around but don’t want to pay a lot for. Let me know what you think.
© 2016, Josh Hammond. All rights reserved.
My favorite part of this is Option 4. To be honest, I don’t really think this will solve anything. In other words, I doubt the lower tiers will get used. I don’t know what the best solution is, but previously I alluded to something salary based. In other words, all tenders are 3 years at a set rate increase (20%? 25%? Whatever). The pick compensation is based on what his final salary actually ends up being.
In other words, you took a flier on a guy and its still iffy if he will pan out, but you believe. His salary is $3. Theres literally no way I’m NOT tagging him at Level 1 because of a $0.45 difference between Level 3. In the way I’m proposing, you simply tender him in general. If the bid goes to $20 – you get your 1st Rounder. However, only 2 other people feel the same way you do and the bid only goes to $8. So now you’re set to only get a 3rd Rounder. And now it’s a legit decision. Thoughts?
So you’re saying you tag the guy at some set thing, like say a 15% raise, and compensation is solely determined on competing bids? And if you try to get a guy for, say $8 you have to give up a 2nd? And if you try to get him for say $20 you give up a 1st?
@Josh – Yes. The price range for each compensatory pick (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) will need to be ironed out, but yes, the pick is based on the winning bid. We could use the slotted salary schedule as Adam alluded too … maybe. I need to look at those values again.
I like what Jason’s saying. Essentially, you have three choices: 1) tender an RFA at the Compensation Level (let’s use a 25% raise for this example), 2) tender at the No Compensation Level (0% raise), or 3) choose to not tender.
1) If you tender at the Compensation Level and nobody bids on the player, the player gets a 25% raise and stays on your team. If other owners bid, compensation kicks in based on maximum competing bid. We could use the slotted salary schedule to set the compensation levels:
(assuming minimum RFA salary of $3.80 + 25% increase = $4.75 tender amount; minimum competing bid of $5)
No bid = No compensation, player remains on tendering team for 25% increase
$5-$6.99 bid = 3rd rounder compensation to tendering team
$7-$9.99 = 2nd rounder
$10 & up = 1st rounder
Maybe those windows are too narrow, but you get the idea. We’d see a spike in $6.99 and $9.99 competing offers, I bet.
2) At No Compensation level the player either stays with the tendering team for a 0% raise, moves to a new team for no compensation to tendering team, or stays on tendering team at matched salary.
3) Not tendered players walk.
@Adam – I think you’ve got me right on. I do think we need to tweak those values a bit, but we’re really close to what I think might be the best option at this point.
In any event, I hope this encourages more players being tendered and perhaps stolen! (except my players – leave them alone)
I like Jason’s idea. I’m not certain what the compensation chart looks like….maybe based on the slotted salary schedule like this (winning bid followed by compensation):
$4-5 5th rounder
$5-7 4th
$7-10 3rd
$10-15 2nd
over $15 1st
However, I think a reason for little RFA action is that no one wants to lose their picks (especially first rounders). What if something like this were done instead:
$4-7 no compensation
$7-10 5th
$10-15 4th
over $15 3rd
This would put more pressure on people to match the bid for expensive players, which might force more skill in dealing with the cap.
Another option, and maybe it is too complicated, would instead of anyone losing a pick, you can gain a compensation pick–these would be picks occurring between rounds–the NFL does this with compensation picks starting after the 3rd round for lost RFAs based on salary they signed for.
just some ideas…
Okay, I like where this is headed. I also like the idea of a big ass raise (plus compensation) or no raise at all (and no compensation.)
Whatever the numbers end up being, how would we break a tie, in this case? Before, let’s say it was a 1st round tender, and two owners bid $25. The player would go to the guy with the better draft pick to offer.
If we have multiple teams bidding $6.99 for a guy, then how do we determine the winner?
Cant it be done the same way?
And for the love of God, please tell me we are not bidding pennies?
Ha, I’m dumb. Yeah, I don’t know why it couldn’t be done the same way. And I’m all for not bidding pennies.
I think we might want bigger ranges for the money.
$5 – $14 (3rd rounder)
$15 – $24 (2nd rounder)
$25 and up (1st rounder)
I don’t know, I might go $16 for a guy if all I have to give up is a 2nd rounder. We can iron that part out though.
I also really like the Enright proposal. We need to balance these forces:
– Very few of us want to give up a first rounder. [push the 1st round trigger high]
– We hate to see a great player (but not 1st round great) get resigned for pennies (unless he’s on my team). [push the 1st round trigger high, marketable salaries for 3rd or 2nd rounders]
– We don’t need to encourage crazy overspending like some are prone to. [keep the 1st round trigger modest ($20-25)]
I think the money ranges that Hammond proposed are probably more appropriate. Maybe I’d shift it down slightly. $5/10/20 (3rd/2nd/1st trigger points)
Interesting. Now, about the triggers. If, as Adam says, the option is to tag at compensation level (say 25%) or at no compensation level (0%), then the very act of tagging at the compensation level will set your draft pick most of the time. Let’s say I decided to tag Lavonte David at the compensation level last year (in this new format.) I would automatically get at least a 2nd rounder (depending on the triggers we decide) because his raise would put him out of the reach of lower compensatory draft picks.
So what about this crazy idea? What if the options are to tag, or not to tag, and the raise is 0%? Why is this crazy? Because other owners would be so miffed at the idea of you getting your guy back for no raise, that they might be compelled to bid and possibly give up a 2nd or 3rd rounder just out of spite. That might get things moving on the RFA tip.
More expensive players would of course be in the 2nd to 1st round range even without a raise (maybe we could set the 1st round trigger at $15 or something so that former first round picks would require 1st round compensation) and cheaper players might get more love (are you really going to let me keep Alec Ogletree for $3.80? Wouldn’t you give up a 4th rounder just to spite me?)
I like the idea of maybe tying the triggers to original draft position so that lower draft picks are also in play. I mean, I’d definitely spend an extra 4th or 5th rounder on some players. Maybe something like this?
1st: $20
2nd: $15
3rd: $10
4th: $8
5th: $5
I don’t know, just spitballing. I like this discussion.
To be honest, Adam actually added to my idea with his option #2, a tag at 0% raise and I didn’t actually see it at first when I replied. Personally, I was suggesting option #1 (a tag at a set raise – 20% or whatever – and letting the market dictate the appropriate draft pick), or you simply do not tag. I’m OK with a 0% tag option, but I’d rather not**
As to your idea, my initial response is to be against it. Salaries go up every year – that’s just part of this league and real life. Part of the tagging decision has always been to risk the increased salary vs having the player not hit the free market. I get the physiological effect you are trying to elicit and it might work, but … I dunno. Seems weird to NOT have a raise … doesn’t it seem wrong that theoretically, your teams entire salary could remain the same from one year to the next?
**So my response has actually made me against the 0% tag in general. Personally, my vote is still 2 choices: tag at set X% raise and let the market dictate pick, or do not tag. Simple.
In any event, we need to solve for X.
I’m not a fan of the 0% raise. I agree that if we figure out our triggers we’ll be in a pretty good place.
Let it run a year, and we can always tweak again next year.
Okay, here is where I think most people’s heads are at:
Your guy is up for RFA:
Option 1 – Tag (I say 25% because that would be his natural raise.) Other teams can bid on him, compensation determined by winning bid.
Option 2 – Do not tag. RFA becomes UFA.
Compensation Triggers:
1st: $20
2nd: $15
3rd: $10
4th: $8
5th: $5
Is this something people could get behind?
I’m mostly behind it.
I would argue dropping down the 4th and 5th triggers to $4 & $7
Works for me.
As you alluded to earlier, lets at least just try “something” and we can actually tweak the values next season.
Agreed.
Though now that you’ve got me thinking about compensation tied to dollar amounts, what if we had an even higher compensation package: 2 first rounders. I was just thinking about Andrew Luck last year. He got bid up to $61, which is insane. Of course Ben had no choice but to pay the money – getting a first rounder for your franchise QB isn’t worth it.
But what if some team was desperate enough to bid $61 for their franchise QB? Would they mortgage their next 2 drafts to do it?
I could see the next escalator being at $50. If you bid more than $50 for a guy, you have to give up your next 2 1st rounders (this year and next.)
That could be fun!
Hi.
Sup?