*THIS RULE HAS PASSED*
Background
Two ideas that came out of the discussion on the RFA tweak was Tom’s suggestion of awarding compensatory picks to owners losing an RFA and Josh’s proposal to have bids over $50 cost two 1st rounders rather than just the one. Hammond and I knocked the idea back and forth and came up with an interesting proposal (that should work with the myfantasyleague.com program) that we felt might be worth voting on prior to this year’s RFA period.
Okay, so we voted on compensation levels where a $20 bid on an RFA requires a 1st round compensation. We also know that the RFA bids go much higher, but bidding way above $20 nets the original owner no additional compensation. The example that sticks out is that Andrew Luck received a $61 bid from Marcot last year. The original owner, Ben, was then put in the uncomfortable position of letting Luck walk for the 1.08 or paying $61. The 1.08 is like meager compensation for Luck and Ben was essentially forced to pay up. Ben may have had a harder decision had there been two 1st rounders on the table rather than the one.
The Proposal
If bidding on an RFA goes over $40 (twice the 1st round pick compensation level), it costs the buying owner a 1st round pick and the owner losing the RFA gets a compensatory pick from the league at the end of the 3rd round. If the buying price is $50, the compensatory pick is at the end of the 2nd round, and over $60 is a compensatory at the end of the 1st. To ensure that the RFA’s market really is above those compensation levels because he’s a top-tier talent and someone isn’t just going wild with bidding, we propose that the compensatory pick should be awarded based on the 2nd highest bid:
Highest Bid on RFA |
Compensation fromHighest bidder |
2nd Highest Bidon RFA |
Compensatory pickawarded by league |
|
$60 |
1st | $60 | 1st |
|
$50 |
1st | $50 |
2nd |
|
$40 |
1st | $40 |
3rd |
|
$20 |
1st | $20 | N/A |
|
$15 |
2nd | $15 |
N/A |
| $10 | 3rd | $10 |
N/A |
| $7 | 4th | $7 |
N/A |
| $4 | 5th | $4 |
N/A |
Case Study
In the example we’ve been using, Marcot bid $61 on Luck. The second highest bid was $53. Thus, with this rule adjustment, Ben would have had the option of signing Luck for $61 OR taking a 1st rounder (Marcot’s 1.08) + a compensatory 2nd rounder (the League’s 2.13).
This change may not be a huge carrot, but does help out the RFA owner a bit and doesn’t restrict other owners from bidding up RFA’s since they don’t have to cough up the second pick. Thoughts?
As a side note, the NFL’s top RFA tender is a 1st rounder. Before the 2011 strike, the top tender was a 1st and 3rd, which is why I started the compensatory picks at the 3rd round level rather than immediately going with a compensatory 1st rounder.
Should we get rid of kickers and punters?
- No (71%, 5 Votes)
- Yes (29%, 2 Votes)
Total Voters: 7
Loading ...© 2016, Adam Franssen. All rights reserved.
The only other consideration would be this: What if there is only one bid (and no 2nd bidder?) I would guess that we’d just use the chart, but apply it to the first bidder? Not sure how often that would come up. It’d be weird if some clown bid $50 on a guy and nobody else bid.
No second bidder = no league compensation, I think.
Works for me.
Love the title of this article, by the way.
If the compensation doesn’t feel big enough.. then maybe those draft picks should also come from the bidder. It sucks to have a guy bid up so crazy, but i’m not sure free shit from the league is the best way to soothe bitter feelings.
This could be true.
I think we agree that original owners are more likely to let an RFA walk with more compensation and a high bid to match. However, other owners are more likely to place lower bids if they have to surrender more picks, but will bid higher with lower compensation.
This seemed like a good way to balance those competing factors. We could wait to see how the first tweak works, though.
My first instinct was to have the bidding team pay up with the draft picks. I still feel like that could work as well, especially with the scale that Adam uses here. Either way, I like the idea of SOME kind of compensatory draft picks. It makes it feel more like the NFL, and it would be fun from a trivia perspective if some compensatory pick went on to great things.
I actually prefer the fact that the pick would come from the league and I like how the pick is determined by the 2nd highest bidder. This is fine with me. Its probably going to be a fairly low percenter, but who knows.
a) I assume one CANNOT use the compensatory picks to gain a subsequent RFA?
b) If by some strange miracle 2 picks are awarded of the same round, does the one that occurred first get 2.13 and then the next 2.14, for example?
I don’t know that we need to apply any limitations to the compensatory pick. I think it’s a draft pick that you use like any other draft pick.
As for question b, I thought about this earlier. I just figured the higher salary would get the first compensatory pick.
a) Well that seems to go against the exact reasons we are incorporating the compensatory pick. If we allow owners to parlay the compensatory pick into compensation for RFA bids, then the owners of the RFAs are getting screwed even more. My thought would be to “award” the compensatory picks at the end of restricted free agency.
b) So one owner could get a compensatory pick, then theoretically watch that pick get bumped back a couple places?
Wait, were you saying owners would use their compensatory pick to then go bid on another RFA in the SAME YEAR? I thought you were saying we shouldn’t let compensatory draft picks become RFAs three years down the road.
Yeah, I’m fine with not allowing a compensatory draft pick to be used as compensation during the same RFA season, because that just depends on which players get to be bid on first. I’m fine with the limitation during the RFA sesssion because…
…as for b), yes a compensatory pick could be bumped back by later RFA action. Those would be solidified after the RFA session is over.
Yeah, thats what I meant – the same year. The player picked in that slot obviously still becomes an RFA.
I don’t feel strongly either way….I guess it depends on the goal–are we trying to cause more player movement? Even if we are, I’m not sure that for the players going in the $40+ range (legit stars) that the “carrot” is sufficient to impact decisions–someone with the cap space will match, someone without the cap space will have to pass (I guess they’ll convince themselves they are happy with the extra pick).
One of my thoughts earlier, regarding the goal, was to put a bit of an impediment to out of control spending. So, if you’re going to put up $61 like a tough guy, you going to have to really want the player, because he’s going to cost you two draft picks. But perhaps this was self-serving as I’m someone who typically doesn’t carry wild amounts of cap space and therefore come out on the losing end of bidding wars every time.
But ultimately, I think, the first round draft pick seems insufficient for some RFA transactions, especially if it’s a bullshit lower first round pick. Personally, I might be more inclined to let a guy go if I was also getting a 2nd round compensatory pick from the league, but that’s just because I love draft picks.