Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 16, 2016 3:31:50 GMT -5
This discussion started last off season and we just ran out of time to finalize anything and went with what was in place. Not good.
The only time this is in play is April 1st - April 7th when a franchise 1 or 2 tier player is bid on and the player's team decides not to match the bid. This happened a grand total of zero times last year. There was one bid but it was matched. Point being even if you don't agree with my proposal 100% it isn't something that will be used every week.
Yesterday I read every post about the proposal from last year and after I adjusted the CHART , addressing some concerns, the conversation died down and we were essentially out of time and the old version was left in place. The old version, we all agree is terrible.
Recapping, my plan ties the draft pick compensation for unmatched franchise bids, to the amount of money bid on a tier 1 or 2 franchise player.
Others suggested base it on scoring or tying tier 1 to certain draft picks and tier 2 to other picks. Which I pointed out a kicker can be franchised just the same as a star RB and they are certainly not worth the same draft picks. This everyone must agree...
Based on scoring works a little better but does not take into account players who are hurt, suspended, or any other anomally that skews their scoring for a season before they are franchised. A tremendous player that gets hurt in week 6 doesn't finish high in scoring and their draft pick match value drops. Even though, the next off season they are healthy and their value is seemingly back to normal. The value is tied to old data.
What an owner is willing to bid on a player on April 1st is the most relevant and frankly only data that determines a players worth. Tying compensation to that bid makes sense to me.
As discussed at one point last March and April, an added benefit of linking dollar amount bid to draft picks you are willing to pay, is that it provides some protection to the current player's owner. The likelihood a bidding owner obliterates the market value is diminished by the fact they'd be offering multiple picks and likely very very high ones.
I spent a lot of time creating the system last year and I think it is sound, fair, and logical. The best way to prove this is take it for a test drive. Let's try it this year and see if we like it. If it needs tweaking then we tweak.
Bottom line is maybe we use this a couple times a year. If it promotes more bidding with less matching then to me, that means the compensation scale is fair. If the franchise bidding remains low then what's it matter?
We can certainly discuss its pros and cons before a vote and there might be a better way somewhere but this way deserves a shot first. I've put in real time thinking about it and how it will work.
The only time this is in play is April 1st - April 7th when a franchise 1 or 2 tier player is bid on and the player's team decides not to match the bid. This happened a grand total of zero times last year. There was one bid but it was matched. Point being even if you don't agree with my proposal 100% it isn't something that will be used every week.
Yesterday I read every post about the proposal from last year and after I adjusted the CHART , addressing some concerns, the conversation died down and we were essentially out of time and the old version was left in place. The old version, we all agree is terrible.
Recapping, my plan ties the draft pick compensation for unmatched franchise bids, to the amount of money bid on a tier 1 or 2 franchise player.
Others suggested base it on scoring or tying tier 1 to certain draft picks and tier 2 to other picks. Which I pointed out a kicker can be franchised just the same as a star RB and they are certainly not worth the same draft picks. This everyone must agree...
Based on scoring works a little better but does not take into account players who are hurt, suspended, or any other anomally that skews their scoring for a season before they are franchised. A tremendous player that gets hurt in week 6 doesn't finish high in scoring and their draft pick match value drops. Even though, the next off season they are healthy and their value is seemingly back to normal. The value is tied to old data.
What an owner is willing to bid on a player on April 1st is the most relevant and frankly only data that determines a players worth. Tying compensation to that bid makes sense to me.
As discussed at one point last March and April, an added benefit of linking dollar amount bid to draft picks you are willing to pay, is that it provides some protection to the current player's owner. The likelihood a bidding owner obliterates the market value is diminished by the fact they'd be offering multiple picks and likely very very high ones.
I spent a lot of time creating the system last year and I think it is sound, fair, and logical. The best way to prove this is take it for a test drive. Let's try it this year and see if we like it. If it needs tweaking then we tweak.
Bottom line is maybe we use this a couple times a year. If it promotes more bidding with less matching then to me, that means the compensation scale is fair. If the franchise bidding remains low then what's it matter?
We can certainly discuss its pros and cons before a vote and there might be a better way somewhere but this way deserves a shot first. I've put in real time thinking about it and how it will work.