2010 RULES: Alternate Compensation

[Goodell]

Another issue I noted at the time last year was alternate compensation. We largely handled that in the message board where a team would note that they weren't matching the offer but the two teams agreed to a different compensation.

At the time I stated it would be better for league management if most of those types of deals moved to the trade tool where teams exchanged the players rights instead of having a trade after the fact, but got some push back on that because the acquiring team wouldn't know what the ultimate price would be.

But there's another side to that in terms of fairness to all teams. If the compensation is set at a first round pick for example, and I'm not going to bid on the player because of that but another team does put in a bid and secretly agrees to a lesser compensation, that arguably has some fairness issues to the other teams that didn't know they could give up less but also to the player because it limits the market forces driving his salary if a lower deal agreed in secret and only offered to one other team with a reduced compensation. There also is the potential for controversy in a he-said/he-said situation of compensation agreements, or maybe it's verbally agreed but then another team puts in a bid for the actual compensation shortly after. Just is more manual of a process and messier than how I'd like it to be.

I think an automated solution to this might be the ability for teams to alter the compensation required for players on the market as free agency goes along. Maybe half-way thru free agency and nobody bidding on a 1st-and-third round compensation RFA his team makes it known that they'd do it for a 2nd rounder and they can alter the compensation required for the player publically to let all teams know that, and not having back-room secret verbal deals for alternative compensation but have it out in the open and automated as part of the normal processes when a player switches teams and the compensation moved automatically.

For real life example...

Marshall turns 26 this month, and he has caught more than 100 passes in three successive seasons. He is a restricted free agent, though, and while he is eligible to sign an offer sheet with Seattle, the Broncos would then have the option of matching the contract and retaining Marshall or receiving Seattle's own first-round pick — No. 6 overall — as compensation. It's possible Denver could agree to less compensation for allowing Seattle to acquire Marshall, but that would be up to the Broncos.

In our sim in past seasons, maybe Marshall would get the shaft because he has fewer bidders with high compensation (especially if he was hit with a 1st-and-third here) and one lucky team would get less bidding competition by secretly agreeing to lesser compensation. Under this change, the team would have to publically go under their roster management tools and change the published required compensation for the player to all bidders to see where they could change it from a 1st to a second or whatever.

You could still have two teams talk about what compensation they'd be willing to give up and have the home team set the compensation to that agreed level, but it would just be publically known that they were willing to take a 2nd instead to all the other bidders too, and the system could automatically process the transaction instead of the manual process now of message board postings.

[Goodell]

And technically this wouldn't change the original tender because once a team tenders a player before free agency starts we put in that 1-year salary based upon the tendered level and that wouldn't be changed if they later decided they would take less compensation. They'd technically still be a first-round tender but we'd just publicize that they'd be willing to accept a 2nd rounder instead and make that part of the automated process to transfer a 2nd rounder instead of a first rounder if the team didn't match an offer.

[Goodell]

And as with most of these kind of trying to hit at a discussion on the reasoning behind the votes.

If wanting to keep it the same, is it primarily because:
- I just want to keep things the same always no matter what usually because I'm use to it and like how things work and don't want to change things much and that's why.
- Or more along the lines of... if I agree to a deal secretly it may not be "fair" to everybody not knowing that a team holding the player rights would take less compensation but to the victors go the spoils and I should get the benefit from doing the negotiation behind the scenes to some other lower compensation, and that justifiably rewards the GMs who put more into those back-channel private discussions?

I have to say, I'm really going to be pushing for automating the movement of free agent compensation within a more automated process this year as it's a huge off-season chore to monitor message board postings and police the time deadlines and then manually switch compensation. It would be much smoother for me and the league IMO if teams were prompted by the system on their roster pages to match or not, and if they click to not match would transfer the player and set compensation automatically. As well as the system automatically monitoring the matching deadlines and removing the prompt to match after time's up instead of me keeping track of that across multiple leagues for multiple signings.

Maybe there is some way to keep secret alternative compensation deals and have that part of the trade system and automate that somehow, but it may work much smoother if the compensation level setting was altered for the free agent before a signing/trade processed. So really need to see or hear passionate opinions on the other side making that case or some other suggestions to reduce the manual processes there in the past otherwise and move to something more automated that the system could process itself for the long-term benefit of the league on the whole.

Otherwise if and when I was too busy to update rosters frequently during that time (like a lot of sim leagues that manually update spreadsheets) we could get outdated or league activities delayed or pushed behind due to variable time constraints from year to year. I ideally want to set up something that can function largely on it's own long-term to keep the league going just about forever instead of facing the normal issues of leagues dying out over time when volunteer's lives and time they can devote to it change.

[Royce R]

I just think its easier to post on the trade block that I am looking for a player in return or maybe a different pick.

If you set it up and say "2nd rounder" instead of 1st then some fool with the 64th pick is going to try and sign him. That is by no means what I would be wanting.

And its about impossible when using players.

I guess I don't understand fully what your doing because it doesn't make sense to me.

[Goodell]

That's the case generally with RFAs though as if a first round tender is set as the requirement there is nothing saying it can't be the 32nd overall in the first instead of the 1st overall. That's generally the nature of RFA and tendered draft pick amounts anyway. So if a low 1st wouldn't be enough a team should set a 1st-and-3rd instead because no guarantee that a team with a low first rounder won't be the highest bidder.

Going back to Brandon Marshall RFA example, the Broncos can't tell him to sign with Detoit instead of Seattle because Detroit has a higher draft pick. He'll sign with whoever pays the most, then it's up to the team to decide if they want to match the deal or take the compensation level level set. The home team doesn't drive the free agent destination, but the open market and teams just have to protect themselves with setting a high enough compensation level. RFAs move to other teams all the time for less than that tendered amount. We're just trying to make that easier to automate that movement in the system, as well as avoiding secret deals and price fixing for free agents where only one team is bidding because they have secret knowlege of the compensation being less than what's advertised.

In our league maybe a team does want the player to sign with one team instead of another and try to work the system to make that happen, but to me to try to control that is outside of the free agency rules and going toward collusion or price fixing where two teams try to lower the amount of bid competition and set up their own compensation as if it was an active player. They aren't, they are free agents who should go to the highest bidder where all teams know the compensation required.

"And its about impossible when using players."
No NFL team can tender a player as compensation amount (they have to tender a draft pick level), of couse, but trade involving RFAs for player do happen both here and in the NFL. Ideally that would just be an extension of the normal trade tool into the match or not prompt moving a player from one team to the other like any other trade.

Just because a home team may want a player as compensation instead, though, or to one team instead of another, they don't really drive that. Even if they came upon some agreement with one team, another might out-bid them for the player and that's what counts. Who will pay the most on an open and fair market. The home team can only match the highest bidder or not. And if they don't match they have to either take the set compensation or both highest bidder and them can agree to something else, but two teams otherwise independently can't/shouldn't come together on a player-for-player deal themselves only and try to do it outside of the open market because it's up to that market competition to decide who signs the player not the team to decide who they want to trade them to. The team had the power when the player an active member of the roster. In free agency, the power goes to the player and other teams to express interest. But RFAs could continue to go from one team to the next for lower compensation if the home team doesn't really want the player and make it known that they'll let them go for less compensation than they originally tendered -- but when only one team is let known about that, though, that's where there's room for potential trouble and price fixing and collusion, etc.

What won't work long-term in my opinion are trades posted on a message board and manually updated even if just for the free agency period across multiple leagues. It was too much last off-season trying to keep track of which guys were matched and which weren't yet over multiple leagues, and trying to quickly update the rosters for manually posted trades in the middle of fast paced free agency. I went back to posts during last free agency and found notes from myself that we need to change that. If I got busy like the time that delayed the super bowls, it just isn't efficient and that kind of manual processes are what kill leagues long-term in my opinion having been in some that have died when the volunteers get too busy.

So we can't really continue just posting trades on the message board for some alternative compensation in my opinion. I also felt during free agency last year that there was a lot of behind the scenes deals for different compensation that became both unmanagable and also somewhat unrealistic and arguably unfair where two friends could get together and decide upon some other compensation and make a bid against zero competition because nobody would be willing to give up the required compensation but some secret agreement between friends that they'd lower the compensation that nobody else knows and pretty much fix the price outside of market forces. Not that it was illegal then, but loopholes needing to be closed arguably. It just felt really messy and room for conspiracies and potential to really put the league behind if I got too busy to keep up if it stayed so manually updated -- that incorporating it into the roster management tools was both easy enough to do and best for smooth league operations.

It could be a disadvantage to home teams toward your point but these aren't active players to trade for any amount, but they are free agents looking for who will pay them the most. It's up to market bids for who will pay that player first and foremost as free agents trying to get the best contract. And up to the teams to set high enough compensatory levels for what they minimum they require would be at a set tender amount. Teams can't control whether it's a high or low pick in that round now, or get to decide which bid they'll accept. The player accepts the bid of the team willing to pay them the most, and up to the home team to either match or accept the compensation level set.

And as always and unchanged by this, teams can trade the rights to any RFA at any time before signed to anybody for any amount. This just deals with compensation after a signing to make it more open and easier to process automatically.

[Royce R]

So are you trying to say that unless we post on your new tool that we would be willing to take a 2nd round pick for the player we can't?

Example.

Tom Smith is tendered at a 1st round pick.

The colts message me and say they would give their 2nd round pick for him if I don't match.

So I say ok go ahead.

The colts bid on him. And win the war because noone wants to give up a first. I then don't match and the colts get Tom.

In your new system that we are voting for that is not allowed to happen?

So by your system.

Tom is tendered at a 1st round pick

Colts message offering a 2nd.

I then post that I'll be willing to accept a 2nd for him. Then anyone who thinks he is worth a 2nd can start bidding on him?

To me if thats the case just give him the 2nd round tender and don't mess with new tools.


I guess all your talking still hasn't pounded it into my head what your trying to do here. I understand the things friends do in this league bidding on each others players and everything. You don't have to explain that to me. But explain to me what exactly your tool does.

[Royce R]

You could still have two teams talk about what compensation they'd be willing to give up and have the home team set the compensation to that agreed level, but it would just be publically known that they were willing to take a 2nd instead to all the other bidders too, and the system could automatically process the transaction instead of the manual process now of message board postings.

Ok the team your talking to has 3 2nd round picks.

You agree to the highest of the picks.

You then go in and tell everyone that your willing to accept a 2nd round pick.

Noone else bids on him anyway.

The system automatically gives you the lowest of the 2nd round picks?



I can see this good working for Franchise tag players.

Like the packers did a few years ago with Williams I think it was. Franchised him but everyone knew they would take less. I think they took a 2nd round pick for him or something.

But our trade blocks already show that.

[Goodell]

Forgive some of the general points but trying to explain to everybody, including those who haven't been through free agency before to understand the issue noted last off-season that might have loopholes that need fixing to prevent problems, or at least something I wanted to raise in this rules discussion from observations last free agency period.

Every year there are RFAs that have too high of tenders to be signed. They get no bids because compensation too high. And toward the end of free agency many of them eventually do get signed and dealt for less compensation.

This change would just not not limit the information to only that one team you talked to. Instead of a secret PM to only one team, it just lets all the other teams know you would take a 2nd instead of the set 1st-and-third.

Without that fix, there is nothing to prevent this scenario...

Team X has a RFA they know is worth about a 2nd rounder but already talked to their buddy who really wants that player and they have a player you want too. So Team X sets a 1st-and-3rd round tender knowing nobody in their right mind will bid on them at all... except for the one team that knows they can get him for much less. And both teams essentially then bypass free agency altogether and can in effect allow the Team Y to bid the minimum deal possible for as long as possible with no other competition because of the insanely high compensation set. And if any other team wants to get in on the bidding, Team X just ignores their emails or doesn't sign in for a couple days or tells other teams they'd accept nothing less than 1st and 3rd for him.

We can't IMO have the rules allow that kind of conspiracy to set free agency destinations and prices. Is there any objective, logical reason to allow that scenario within the rules?

All this new option would do is:

- Publically announce a change in compensation required so all teams know when looking at the available free agents and their compensation requirements (Player X, first round tender but team willing to take 2nd rounder now).

- Avoid the message board posts for alternative compensation agreements we do now that take so much manual labor and automate them like most other transactions.

NEW ACTION:
If a team has a RFA who isn't getting any bids and they no longer have the same interest in keeping the player and are willing to accept a lower compensation, they just go to their roster page and change the compensation requirement that they set previously on the roster page to start free agency and the free agency bidding page is updated to the new compensation required letting everybody know.

It's a bit different but I don't think too much so, and one of the options I could think of to deal with teams trying to work around the free agency rules beyond their intent to get players fair market deals, and not unrealistic as in your example above.

--

There are a couple of options for the scenario you present where maybe a team has three 2nd rounders and the teams agree to a different 2nd rounder than the system would automatically transfer:

- We could continue to allow posting of manual trades for cases like that which hopefully be less of them than before keeping some manual roster updating but not as overwhelming.

- Or the teams could just then use the same trade tool to swap the transferred 2nd rounder for the other 2nd rounder and take care of that business internally automatically using the trade tools. And if people objected in the message boards to a weird trade, you both could just respond with the fact that you agreed to a different 2nd rounder instead so exchanged them.

[Royce R]

Ok, I think I understand it all now.


Except one thing. I don't have time to read it all again right now as I need to head out for work.

Unless the change in compensation is changed on your roster before the bid takes place.

I'll use an example because I don't know how to word it.

Joe Blow is a RFA with a 1st round tender.

Team X messages you offering their 2nd rounder. You agree to this.

If they bid and only have 1 hour left to sign him. Then you change the compensation required on your roster page. Many may not see this in time to try and bid on him. So do they get him at the new compensation or the 1st rounder that was set at the time they bid.


So I guess I'm still looking at ways people will exploit this option. Will there be a check in your "tool" that doesn't allow compensation to be changed while there is a current bid on the player.



And the problem I have with this whole thing is this. I may not have a clue if I want to keep a player or not. Then a team bids on him. I usually message them and say hey I like the contract you put on Joe Blow. I think I'm going to match it unless you want to give up something that maybe a certain pick or player that I like. If they say no then I keep my player.

Will this tool remove this freedom from us. Because of course that to other players may look like a backdoor deal was made before the bid, but it wasn't.

[Goodell]

Will there be a check in your "tool" that doesn't allow compensation to be changed while there is a current bid on the player.

And the problem I have with this whole thing is this. I may not have a clue if I want to keep a player or not. Then a team bids on him. I usually message them and say hey I like the contract you put on Joe Blow. I think I'm going to match it unless you want to give up something that maybe a certain pick or player that I like. If they say no then I keep my player.

Will this tool remove this freedom from us. Because of course that to other players may look like a backdoor deal was made before the bid, but it wasn't.

It wouldn't change anything else about the RFA signing process than taking away the secrecy and possibilty for corruption. A team whose RFA has no bids just lets everybody know that they are lowering their compensation required not just one select team. You can still agree to different compensation between the highest bidder and the home team if desired, including exchanging a player.

Initially I was thinking a team could only change the compensation when NO BIDS have been placed on a player, and that once a bid is made that bidding team knows the compensation that was set when they bid and it would be locked there. However that situation you mention might lead me to think we should allow changes even after a bid if the discussion after the fact.

But... if you know the bidding team is willing to give up the compensation level set (say a 1st round tender) would we really need to set it up so that they could lower the compensation after the fact? Would you as the home team knowing they'd be okay giving up a first agree to lower it to a second later?

So I would lean toward not allowing a change to draft pick compensation level once a bid is placed, and if the winning bid team and the home team want to agree to a player instead then they do that after the fact but if a draft pick is going to be the compensation it would have to be what is set and published to everybody before a bid takes place.