FCC RFA Compensatory Picks vote

Current Rule: there is none

New Rule: If a team loses an RFA player during the offseason free agency and had offered that player a minimum 2 year deal at $5M, they will be given a compensatory pick. The compensatory round will follow the final round of the next entry level draft and be ordered based on reverse standings (matching rounds 2-4 of that draft). Rounds will be added on as necessary for teams that have multiple picks, only 1 pick per round per team, picks cannot be traded.

Voted

voted

voted

voted

sorry everyone. "each year" should follow "5M" in the new rule. How many people interpreted it differently and how many would change their vote?

I interpreted it differently but I wouldn't change my vote

i am cool with the 5mil per rule, would only think about changing the opening bid being 5mil. 

If i open a bid at 4mil, and the final is over 5mil i think that should qualify as well.

but either way im good

shabba12 wrote:i am cool with the 5mil per rule, would only think about changing the opening bid being 5mil. 

If i open a bid at 4mil, and the final is over 5mil i think that should qualify as well.

but either way im good

I disagree. That is the risk you take with the RFA. It is part of the strategy involved in making your contract offers.

Xezus wrote:I interpreted it differently but I wouldn't change my vote

Yea not how I read it either but I feel the same.

In baseball, they have to make a huge qualifying offer to get compensation.  And doing so makes the team signing the RFA lost their 1st round pick.  Football or hockey don't have to make huge qualifying offers but if they do make a huge qualifying offer, they certainly get a lot more than a pick at the end of the round.

I mean I'm gonna vote yes regardless because compensation is better than no compensation but in the NHL, if a team makes a qualifying offer of 5 mil, they get a 1st round pick AND 3rd round pick for losing the player. 

This is pretty light compensation for losing a star player

REALLY REALLY LIGHT 

Honestly I thought the 2.5/2.5 qualifying offer explained the really light compensation.

In the real NHL, the picks comes from the claiming team, they are not just free picks. That helps limit the amount of RFA offers that are put on players.

This might not be perfect, but it is better than teams walking away with 6-8 extra picks.

I think we have a lot of work to do on this subject, but like you said, something is better than nothing.


It is also hard because good players are rarely un-restricted in this league.

I interpreted it as 5 million per year average

Players I've lost in the last two years to free agency

Kevin Shattenkirk
Braden Holtby
Max Pacioretty
Kyle Okposo

With only 2 RFA matches...there is a lot of movement in free agency

In my opinion..with so much movement, this is very light compensation.

Something is better than nothing

It was open for discussion and we can adjust again if we get some different opinions after implementation. I think those of us who discussed it earlier did not want to make a big change like adding sandwich picks or 10-15 picks on the end because we don't want to make drastic changes to a league you all have been in for much longer. 

However, IMO, first round would be way to much in this league because the probability of success for a first round player in FCC is much higher than in BoS.

This is a starting point and I'd prefer adjustments be made in the future. However, we probably have enough time to vote on 3/3 or 4/4 and still redo all the RFAs before Sunday. Will anyone second opening that can of worms?

perhaps the pick should come from the team that wins the bid..... something like..

7mil-10mil= a 1st
4.5mil-6.9Mil= a 2nd
2.5mil-4.4mil= a 3rd
less than 2.4mil= a 4th

or something like that, my first year. you all have seen what works and doesnt here, and what the issues are

if it came from the team that wins the bid that would cause even less RFA bidding than there already is. People love their picks.

Yea my bad, I thought it was 2.5/2.5 so I didn't really give it much thought. 

1)  I feel like if we lowered it to 3/3 or 4/4 with only 2 RFA matches, then we would have more picks passed out.  If we gave out all kinds of rounds based on how much we offered the player, that would be tons of picks too.  I'm not really for tons of free picks being passed out.  This is fantasy.  

2) But if a team loses a player of the caliber of Shattenkirk, Holtby, Pacioretty, Okposo, Couture, Backstrom or Letang (can you tell i'm a little bitter for basically feeding every team year after year??)...I don't think a pick at the end of the 1st is too much compensation.  Once you get to pick 12, the probably of success is actually not very good.  If you look at past late 1st and 2nd rounders the previous years, very few are fantasy viable.    


I should have brought this up when we discussed this.  I didn't realize this was meant to be compensation for only star players.  I'm fine with rule as is but I think an end of 1st round compensation is fair for star players.  Picks at the end of the draft for star players?!

johnscrn wrote:if it came from the team that wins the bid that would cause even less RFA bidding than there already is. People love their picks.

yeah, when i proposed the idea, I was kind of modeling it after the NFL UFA system.  Right now teams are losing them for nothing, I figured getting late picks would help them try and keep their farm stocked.

2) But if a team loses a player of the caliber of Shattenkirk, Holtby, Pacioretty, Okposo, Couture, Backstrom or Letang (can you tell i'm a little bitter for basically feeding every team year after year??)...I don't think a pick at the end of the 1st is too much compensation.  Once you get to pick 12, the probably of success is actually not very good.  If you look at past late 1st and 2nd rounders the previous years, very few are fantasy viable.    


It's not bad for the team who gets the pick and player, but what about the guy whose 2nd round pick just went from 13th to 20th, through no fault of his own?

well you would have to convince me that there will be 7 guys in one year that are offered over 5 mil and change teams.  The first few years in our league were an abnormality as we were limited to how many players we could offer long term contracts so in the end, a ridiculous amount were offered 2/2/2 deals making too many guys free agents at the same time with only 2 RFA matches.      

From now on, I'd guess maybe 3 this year, maybe.  In baseball, we have 16 teams and we've never had more than 3 compensation picks.

Did I say 3?  After looking at this year's free agents and seeing there are only 7 guys offered only above 5 mil, it looks like all those teams plan on matching their guys and have the money to do it.  I have the money to do it but I'm limited by the dumb 2 RFA limit.  

If I had to take the over under on 2 compensation picks being awarded, I would go with under.

Looks like I will be the only team that has a star poached and receives the #49 overall pick as a compensation.  All because the guy at #13 doesn't want to move down to #14.



I'm playing but really, this is what will probably happen.

It's not a big deal but after a couple years and very few compensation picks awarded, we should amend this rule.

So I interpreted the rule as 2 years at $5 mil per year. If you guys want to bring up further discussion or voting on the amount for compensation I'm fine with that.

I know Akron and a few other have/will be hit hard with losing RFAs since they can only match 2 so I'm willing to listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't want too many extra picks but I don't think that is going to be a problem as long as we get everything figured out.

We can always implement a rule for matching RFA's.

Unlimited RFA Matching up to 8M/YR.

Can only match 2 guys 8M+. Somebody wants Holtby, they need to offer 8/YR.

that's not a bad idea

But really, this league is in much better shape financially then our two flagship leagues, baseball and football.

Too much money in both those leagues.  Hockey and Basketball are in great shape cap wise.  Not too much money or too little.

Just reading through the post. I don't think the pick should be coming from the team that wins the bid, as CJ mention, not too many RFAs change hands, and this would cause even less.  Which would also make me think this idea shouldn't create too many picks.

Also, I agree with Eric, we can't make the picks scaled, it's not fair for the teams picking in the other rounds.   

As for unlimited RFA matching under 8, I am not a fan. I feel this would just create more lowball RFA offers by the owner.

When I made this suggustion, I was just trying to propose an idea to reward a team for drafting/building a team well.  The idea was if you loose a player in free agency, you get some type of compensation, not exactly fair value compensation.  In my opinion, if you want fair value for the player, you can trade him before his contract is up.

Well I wouldn't trade any of those guys for a first, let alone a late 1st so asking for end of the 1st compensation is not just about fair value compensation because that's not fair value.  

It's also about being closer to what the real NHL does, even if it is fantasy.

DmanofGod1 wrote:Well I wouldn't trade any of those guys for a first, let alone a late 1st so asking for end of the 1st compensation is not just about fair value compensation because that's not fair value.  

It's also about being closer to what the real NHL does, even if it is fantasy.

The NHL doesn't really do that though.  If a player is 27 or has 8 years of NHL experience (so some cases 26) they aren't RFAs, they would be UFAs.  Players such as Couture and JVR, along with many others this year should be UFAs, if we mirrored it like the NHL.

Yeah I know are economy in this league is in a really good spot and I don't want that to get too messed up if we make major changes. If we had essentially unlimited RFA matches (since the odds of 1 team having 3 RFAs over $8mil in one year is low) it would lead to teams just not bidding on the RFAs because they know they will get matched and thus the possibly of throwing off the amount of money available.

One thing to remember is you can bid on your own RFAs if you want more than 2 but they lose the RFA rights as soon as you do that. While not ideal to team having to do that it does leave a way to not lose more than 2 if you really want that 3rd or 4th player back.

I think promoting player movement is a good thing because you can already keep players you draft for the first 6-10 years of their career based off of unlimited rookie matches. It gives the lower tiered teams hope of getting good players without having to wait years to grow their own.

IMO I think some of the issues with people having so many RFAs in one year is just stemming from the contracts from when the league began coming to a close and when more and more players are coming into the league on rookie deals I think it won't be as big of an issue.

That's a good point though in fantasy the RFA system is less about rights and more about simulating a teams ability to keep its own players.  Even in hockey, few stars leave in free agency to other teams.  It happens but not a whole lot and certainly not as much as teams resign their own players before they become UFA.  

Since we can't resign players, we simulate it through RFA.  I see your point but if we had a way of resigning our own players to fair market deals, we wouldn't need this at all as our system really just poaches from owners who do a good job of running their team.

It's not that I don't have money to sign my players to fair market deals, I'm just not allowed.

...wtf
  
In a system like that, there should be more compensation than a pick at the end of the draft.

as David said you are allowed to sign your players because you can bid on your own RFAs. So if you have the money you don't even need the matching option. You might pay 10% more but still.

As he also points out your rookies have unlimited matching so your great draftees have up to 9 years of control.

Of your 9 RFAs you have matching rights on 7. I think you will be OK