|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Dec 12, 2018 19:31:07 GMT -5
Let me start by saying that the title of this thread is so named because I believe that the proposed outline in the original thread above provides us with a sound foundation to build upon. Briefly reiterating, as a league it is time we get serious about addressing the flaws in our current system of RFA bidding and the resigning of players. As was mentioned, many players are not receiving due compensation because of this issue. We have taken steps to increase the "tender offer" , but for the most part proposals for resigning players not bid on remain well below market value.
Frank proposes the creation and implementing of a tiered-percentage system that would: 1) do away with the need to vote on RFA proposals made by the resigning team, and 2) create a market value baseline for resigning those players. While I am sold on this idea to better our system, in many ways I believe it still leaves a lot to be desired. The RFA process, imo, should be as realistic as possible. This includes looking beyond our own self-interests as competitors and embracing the sport as a GM. Whether we like it or not, the game itself is a business and should be operated as such. From the Owners to the Players, and everyone in-between, they understand this.
That said, let me insert my belief as to what RFA is and to what it is not.
First what RFA status is NOT. It is NOT the same thing as extending a player. By the same token it is not the same as a player being Franchise tagged. These methods provide GM's the exclusive ability to retain the player without any outside interference. Once extended or franchised the player remains on the team. Additionally, these methods offer teams controlled pricing limits as opposed to actual value.
Second what RFA status means. The "R" stands for "Restricted". This means there are certain provisions in the contract which allows teams who own the contract the "opportunity" to resign the player. The exercising of this opportunity begins with "tendering" the player. By tendering the player, 1) the team is free to offer the player a contract; 2) the player is free to explore the open market; and 3) if a contract is offered on the open market, the team owning the contract may either match the offer or accept the compensation.
Now for the most part, I believe we have been operating this system backwards and would like to propose a more realistic forward aspect to bidding on RFA's.
Although we use the same bidding system as FA (which is perfectly fine), there are differing factors involved. A major factor is that the league as a whole cannot participate in RFA bidding. Especially where picks are involved for compensation. this factor alone eliminates league wide bidding. Thus there will only be a few at most bidding on certain players. So the opportunity of the team who owns the contract to resign the player remains high.
So here's my proposal.
If we were to implement the tiered-percentage numbers at 15%: What if, in addition, the owners who have the right of first refusal would be required to place the first bid on the player, while retaining the right to match the winning bid? I believe this method would allow the players to truly test the open market.
Basically, after tendering the player, a time frame would be implemented where the owner would place the first bids (much like the opening of FA). Other interested owners could then decide whether spending the pick(s) would be worth a shot at obtaining the player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 12, 2018 22:39:56 GMT -5
I don’t see how placing a first bid will create a more realistic approach.
Teams who own those players rights, will most likely just start the bidding at the minimal 15% increase and then wait for offers to come in.
I don’t see this any different then just having a set price either based on position, or tender amount
If you want to increase activity or RFA in this league, which I think you need to do in this league then I propose we allow teams to offer comp over the course of two draft classes...the current years and following years. More teams getting into bidding will increase the price for players and will force some teams to make tough decision...picks or resign
I worry this idea of a team just setting the first price, will not increase activity in rfa...and I think if any changes happen it should be to increase activity and put another exciting event on the offseason calendar
Jut my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Dec 13, 2018 13:58:58 GMT -5
I don’t see how placing a first bid will create a more realistic approach. Teams who own those players rights, will most likely just start the bidding at the minimal 15% increase and then wait for offers to come in. Making the first offer is a more realistic approach of how RFA is handled in the NFL. For example, Denver tendered Osweiller and then offered him a contract. Osweiller explored the open market and received a much larger offer which Denver refused to match. The waiting for offers to come in doesn't change. Thus the point is to challenge those players who are re-signed at a rate extremely below market value due to lack of offers. For further example;
assuming arguendo that Demarcus Lawrence was an expiring RFA...
Naturally I would want to re-sign him at the lowest rate possible, but do not want to risk losing him. So I tender him for a 1st round pick @ $5M.
Teams that possess a mid to lower level 1st may want to place a bid - realizing they would pay much much more for him in FA. By placing a bid, they just may place a bid high enough that would force me to surrender the player and take the compensation. Thus the point of my proposal is not about increasing RFA activity, but holding GM's accountable to paying players their due value if they want to keep them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 13, 2018 20:59:35 GMT -5
Offering the first contract
Or
Placing a tender price value on them...isn’t that close to being the same thing
The team that owns the players rights does place the first bid technically
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Dec 14, 2018 14:21:57 GMT -5
Offering the first contract Or Placing a tender price value on them...isn’t that close to being the same thing The team owner the players rights does place the first bid technically Yes sir, close, but not quite the same. Only because we do not offer the option of offering a contract OR tendering. Yet you are correct in that the tender may in and of itself be an offer...especially if we accept the proposal as Frank has outlined in the original thread.
The intent of my proposal hopefully offers a little more - to outline and make all GM's aware of both the similarities and the differences between bidding on a FA versus a RFA. Unfortunately we have been operating them on the same premise - to win the player in question for the cheapest rate possible. I believe this has led to low RFA bids being placed on certain players in anticipation someone else will up the bid, thereby giving them another chance to bid. However this will not happen often because, 1) not all members meet the compensation requirements, and 2) of those who do meet the requirements, not all may be interested in acquiring the player.
Thus RFA bids should be made in a manner that will attempt to win the player in question for the cheapest rate possible, yet prohibits the owner from wanting to meet the proposed contract and accept the compensation. in this sense, GM's should be made aware that they most likely have but one shot to win the player.
On the other hand, much like FA bidding, if the owner was to place the first bid...as you say, the minimum bid and wait for offers, other interested parties may significantly up the bid to prevent the owner from paying the player severely below market value (that which would be received in FA).
Again, if we were to accept Franks proposal, and understand that RFA bidding is not quite the same, the proposal may not be needed. Thanks for the discourse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 18, 2018 13:11:43 GMT -5
Ive spent some time thinking about this proposal as an addition to the percentage tiered system that I proposed. At the time I conceived my idea, I was looking for a radical shift from the RFA system, as the current system we have in place is greatly flawed, and quite honestly I havnt seen too many other RFA systems across other leagues that really work in IMO. At the time of the conception of my idea, my intent was to remove the human element from the system, because as I see it we dont have a mechanism in place that truly represents the player. Thus the tiered system was an arbitrary calculation to give the player more leverage, in a league that is ownership based. In UFA the player does have leverage, which of course is the free market, but in RFA where draft picks are cherished by owners who are often hesitant to exercise a draft pick for a player that will cost a fraction of the price in the rookie draft, its a little tougher for owners to take on that risk. Which I think is a natural consequence of the current system and its short comings.
Now in thinking about Darryl's proposal, this would seem to bring an element above and beyond where the tired system comes up short. It seems to me that it would add a certain element where if a player is truly desired, and if there is a party willing to pay the price and the pick compensation, that a player could potentially get closer to market value in these certain circumstance. I think its a common folly for many owners to place a tender price, and if no compensation offer comes in, that the owners feels entitled to a minimal salary requirement based on the tender price. When in fact RFA is a FA contract offer, and not an excuse to resign a player at a discounted price.
My tiered system that I proposed was always a middleground proposal to try and at least create a baseline value so that players get a fair market value, but because we also have lower tired players involved in the realm of RFA, I did not want to distort the market in the opposite manner by invoking too high of percentages that it would make those salaries overly punitive. This is why I tend to find this added proposal intriguing, because it sets a definitive baseline, but still allows for a potential free market proposition.
Im not sure how this compares to RL football and how contracts are negotiated, but in RL football players have representation that changes alot of the elements of contract negotiations. This is why none of these leagues have been able to figure out how to conduct a fair RFA system, and its the reason why Im almost willing to try something a little different. Im sure at some point we will find some discretions with this system, but we can always make adjustments as those discretions present themselves.
Also, this is an issue that Im leaning toward not voting on neither, just figuring out the details, writing out the rule and implementing and seeing how it goes. Generally speaking, I put 90% of issues up for league vote, but in this case it may be an issues that some league mangers who are less invested in this league may not take the time to seriously consider.
|
|
