2010 RULES: Alternate Compensation

[Jared A]

My big thing, is teams should be allowed to be specific.


If player X is tendered as a 1st... I'd probably take pick 35 for him. However, I won't take pick 62.


SO, instead of saying compensation has been changed to a second round, couldn't we just say team is willing to discuss picks earlier than XX? (whatever pick they want to say is the max?)

[Royce R]

Ok, I personally think if your going to lower the tender amount you have to do it before any bids are placed, otherwise like I say people will make backdoor deals and change it with a minute or two left when no one knows whats going on.

If the compensation is not changed you should not be allowed to take less. But of course you could take more in the situation that you really wanted to keep the player but would move him for a better player or something.

[Goodell]

My big thing, is teams should be allowed to be specific.

If player X is tendered as a 1st... I'd probably take pick 35 for him. However, I won't take pick 62.

SO, instead of saying compensation has been changed to a second round, couldn't we just say team is willing to discuss picks earlier than XX? (whatever pick they want to say is the max?)

Maybe but to me that maybe gets overly complicated and not really intending this to be a trade negotiation tool with specific picks overall. RFAs in general are based upon the tender amount which can't be set at an overall pick. It's 2nd round, 1st round, 1st and 3rd, etc. There is not a tender amount in the NFL for high 2nd round only. IF a low second wouldn't be enough, you'd have to use a higher tender.

If the required compensation wasn't enough despite having set the tender there (perhaps a low pick in that round), you just match the deal like always and have the player under contract and active on your team again and also able to trade them later if you want too as an active player.

But free agency really more about the player getting the best contract in theory under fair practices than the home team deciding who he'll sign with and what compensation exatly they get back. They just set the general tender level as in the NFL. This just allows everybody to know if a team realized they set it too high originally (as a lot of teams do wanting to keep the player initially and then changing their mind later in free agency perhaps after other moves) and wants to lower it to a lesser tender level later to give up the player for compensation.

Basically just a way to fix the problem noted at the end of last off-season in discussions then. Lots of RFAs didn't get any bids because their compensation was set too high. But all of a sudden they start getting bids placed later, and usually only one team at a low amount doing the bidding because nobody else will pay the compensation tender. So this just lets all teams know that okay first round tender was too high, I don't want this player back anymore, I'll take something less which should lead to more teams willing to bid if compensation set to something more reasonable and giving the player a fair contract with open bidding process.

[Jared A]

But, at the same time, real life teams treat different teams in different ways.

Example: No way the Cardinals would've traded the Rams Boldin for a 3rd and 4th.


I think it's well within the right of a team to accept less compensation for a player. Since he has the rights to that player... unless it's obvious collusion, I don't think it's beneficial to add more restrictions.

[Goodell]

Ok, I personally think if your going to lower the tender amount you have to do it before any bids are placed, otherwise like I say people will make backdoor deals and change it with a minute or two left when no one knows whats going on.

If the compensation is not changed you should not be allowed to take less. But of course you could take more in the situation that you really wanted to keep the player but would move him for a better player or something.

Yeah, that's the intent. "Initially I was thinking a team could only change the compensation when NO BIDS have been placed on a player"... and this really primarily tries to close some loopholes to work the system, as well as dealing with those common situations of someone putting too high of a tender initially and willing to accept less later and just making that publically known so that a player (and other league teams) don't get screwed on a steal of an underpriced deal reached because nobody else willing to bid since nobody else knows the compensation had been dropped.

[Goodell]

I think it's well within the right of a team to accept less compensation for a player. Since he has the rights to that player... unless it's obvious collusion, I don't think it's beneficial to add more restrictions.

There is NO change the the fact that teams CAN accept less compensation.

The "restrictions" are not really restrictions in my view (unless someone is trying to cheat the system, and then yes we're trying to restrict cheating or price fixing), but just public announcements. There was a public announcement of the tender level at the start. Everybody knew the compensation level set. Other teams bid or not based upon that public knowledge of tender amount required.

I haven't really heard any logical reason why there shouldn't be a public announcement if a home team changes their mind later and willing to accept lesser compensation pick?

The way it worked in the past, that's prime room for collusion between buddies. Hey, I don't want my RFA anymore now that I signed another guy. You want him but don't want to pay a lot, right? Nobody's bidding on him because compensation level too high. Why don't you put in a minimum bid for a 7 year under-priced contract on him, nobody else will out-bid you because of the compensation level, and then we'll post later that I'll take your low 3th rounder only instead of the first round tender that was announced as the price to everybody else.

Can anyone provide a logical, objective reason for allowing that within the rules and not publically letting all teams know that a lower pick is okay now for bids? What is the fear in making that known to all teams interested in putting in a bid on the player?

[Jared A]

I still think that teams should reserve the right to have different demands towards different teams. I understand the fear of someone getting a "steal" on contracts. Why don't we change the minimums for longer contracts for players rated 1st and 3rd.

So, the top tendered players will have higher minimums.

[Goodell]

I still think that teams should reserve the right to have different demands towards different teams. I understand the fear of someone getting a "steal" on contracts. Why don't we change the minimums for longer contracts for players rated 1st and 3rd.

So, the top tendered players will have higher minimums.

That isn't the case in the NFL, though, for different demands for different teams and all our tender amounts are based in reality figures used in the NFL. Otherwise we just get more and more away from reality and into making up our own stuff completely. That's more for trading an active player. These are free agents. All the home team has is the right to match the deal and set a tender compensation level, not pick which team they go to and at what compensation they'll demand from one team versus another.

We do have different bid requirements for longer-term bids already, but getting a player at huge discount due to fixing the market and eliminating competition even for just 1 to 3 years (where less restrictions) shouldn't be allowed for teams to work the system to the detriment of the player's fair market value and unbalanced playing field.

Denver may like St. Louis's high pick much more than Seattle's pick, but Denver can't make their RFA sign with St. Louis instead of Seattle if Seattle is willing to give the most money and sign that player. Free agency gives power to the PLAYER not the home team to decide where they sign. All the home team can do with their restricted free agent is set a tender amount high enough so that if someone blows them away with a huge contract that they decide they can't match that they at least get compensated. The home team mostly just controls that tender amount. It's up to the player to find his new home, shopping the market for the best contract for him.

This new "rule" wouldn't change any of those basic RFA rules based in reality. It just sends out an announcement for all teams to have the same information about player compensation levels.

[Jared A]

But, the reality is that our contracts won't ever be similar to real life. Since the player can't reject them.

I guess it needs to be determined if we want realistic tender amounds or if we want realistic contracts.


In real life, the Patriots franchised Matt Cassel and then traded him and Vrable for a 2nd round pick. Everyone said that was rediculas, and that the Pats were giving them away. Almost everyone agrees that other teams would've offered more. But, it didn't happen.

[Goodell]

But, the reality is that our contracts won't ever be similar to real life. Since the player can't reject them.

I guess it needs to be determined if we want realistic tender amounds or if we want realistic contracts.

In real life, the Patriots franchised Matt Cassel and then traded him and Vrable for a 2nd round pick. Everyone said that was rediculas, and that the Pats were giving them away. Almost everyone agrees that other teams would've offered more. But, it didn't happen.

Like any sim league we don't have real players. As a league, all we can do is try to create fair rules and a fair market for all teams. All this is is trying to open the information to be fair to all. Why keep a new lower compensation level from what was initially announced to everybody a secret?

Cassel was talked a lot about last year. I believe he signed his tender before being traded, meaning he wasn't a free agent any more but instead an active player on a 1-year contract for the tender amount. "Now that QB Matt Cassel has signed his $14.65 million non-exclusive franchise tender"...

But if not and even if he was a RFA (instead of franchise tagged) and a team wanted to trade him for a 2nd rounder instead of the firsts they initially tendered him at, they could do that. This rule isn't changing that or any RFA basics.

The only thing changing is that they just have to let every team know they'd take a 2nd now instead of the firsts. That's all. Just so that it's not a SECRET that only one team knows so that one team can put in a cheap bid against no other competition and fix the price and essentially bypass free agency and market prices altogether. That's all. If a team wants to lower their tender amount, they just let everybody know to keep the bidding fair.