RFA Structure Proposal

[St. Louis Sting]

As I was putting together the lists for upcoming Restricted Free Agents, it occurred to me that teams are currently able to sign one restricted free agent per sport, per season because of the pick requirements. As the league matures we will begin seeing more and more restricted free agents reaching the market, and limiting teams to being able to only acquire one of them does not seem like the best idea.

We are currently using an NHL-style Restricted Free Agency, in which teams receive another team's actual picks when they choose not to match a qualifying offer. My proposal is to move to an MLB-style Restricted Free Agency, in which the original franchise does not get the other team's pick(s) as if they were traded, but are instead given picks in a "Compensation Round" at the end of each round.

To use a recent example, Andrew Miller was given the highest Qualifying Offer by the Pelicans, who elected to take the draft pick compensation from the Grizzlies. The Pelicans received the Grizzlies' 1st and 3rd Round Prospect Draft picks as compensation. The Grizzlies would then be unable to make an offer for any Restricted Free Agent that had compensation tied to either of those picks.

In the proposed the MLB-style Restricted Free Agency, the Pelicans would have received a compensation pick at the end of both the 1st and 3rd rounds. The Grizzlies would still forfeit the two picks as they previously did, but the picks would not go directly to the Pelicans. Then, like the actual MLB, the Grizzlies would be able to make an offer for any other Restricted Free Agent, and they would have to forfeit either their two highest remaining picks (for the 40% QO) or single highest remaining pick (for the 30% or 20% QO). The original franchise would still receive full pick compensation of 1st and 3rd Round picks in the Compensation Rounds.

Essentially, what this proposal does is give owners the flexibility to sign multiple Restricted Free Agents in a single season while not significantly lowering the return of the original franchise who tendered the Qualifying Offer. It also lowers the perceived "pick cost" that teams must consider after the first successful RFA signing.


Here are a few more details, now that I explained the basic premise:

• Picks in the Compensation Round would go in order of the final average salary of the player lost to another franchise, starting with the highest value
• The top 3 picks in the 1st Round are "protected" and are not forfeited if that teams signs an RFA. Instead, the next highest non-protected pick is forfeited. The original franchise still receives all normal compensation
• Picks acquired from other teams DO count as picks that can and will be forfeited. The pick forfeited to meet the associated round cost is the lowest in that corresponding round if multiple picks are held
• This would begin with the 2017 NFL Calendar year if accepted

I want to get a gauge on what everyone thinks on this before we put it to official vote. If there are any details you believe I am missing, or have any questions or concerns, please post them so we can get this as streamlined as possible from the start. I just don't believe it is smart to limit teams to only being able to one RFA per season when so many are coming available. Thank you all, and discuss away!

[Jimmy (Desperados)]

I have to think about this. On the surface, I really like the idea, but the more I think about it I think it will make me bid on less RFAs. if I lose my first round pick and depend on my second round to be huge then it goes from say overall pick 18 to overall 24 because of the compensation round, to me that is a big difference. But on the other hand I see the point with so many RFAs coming up. Tough call.

[St. Louis Sting]

I'm sorry Jimmy, I don't think I understand what you're saying. Could you maybe rephrase that for me?

[Jimmy (Desperados)]

Maybe I am confused. Can you give a scenario of how this would work? Say NHL I bid on one of your players that you tendered a QO to associated with a 1st and 3rd round pick. You declined to match and accept the compensation. What exactly happens pick wise? Sorry I have just never really looked into the MLB RFA process. Thank you.

[St. Louis Sting]

In that case, you would forfeit your 1st and 3rd Round NHL picks.

As compensation, I would receive a pick in a "Compensation Round" immediately following the 1st Round (essentially pick #13) and a pick in a Compensation Round immediately following the 3rd Round (essentially pick #37).

Here's an example of exactly what would happen (using this year's draft order if you still had your picks):

Round 1
1. Connecticut Huskies -
2. Fort Wayne Freedom -
3. Buffalo Wings -
4. Pensacola Pelicans -
5. Dallas Desparados -
6. Clayhounds Dawgs -
7. Fort Wayne Freedom (via Syracuse Warriors) -
8. New Jersey Haze -
9. Pensacola Pelicans (via Norwich Nemesis) -
10. Pensacola Pelicans (via St. Louis Sting) -
11. Norwich Nemesis (via Montana Grizzlies) -
12. Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns -

Compensation Round 1
13. St. Louis Sting (PK Subban Comp) -

Round 2
13. Syracuse Warriors (via Connecticut Huskies) -
14. Fort Wayne Freedom -
15. Buffalo Wings -
16. New Jersey Haze (via Pensacola Pelicans) -
17. Norwich Nemesis (via Dallas Desparados) -
18. Clayhounds Dawgs -
19. Syracuse Warriors -
20. Connecticut Huskies (via New Jersey Haze) -
21. Norwich Nemesis -
22. St. Louis Sting -
23. Fort Wayne Freedom (via Montana Grizzlies) -
24. Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns -

Round 3
25. Connecticut Huskies -
26. Fort Wayne Freedom -
27. Buffalo Wings -
28. Pensacola Pelicans -
29. Dallas Desparados -
30. Clayhounds Dawgs -
31. Syracuse Warriors -
32. St. Louis Sting (via New Jersey Haze) -
33. Dallas Desparados (via Norwich Nemesis) -
34. Fort Wayne Freedom (via St. Louis Sting) -
35. Montana Grizzlies -
36. Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns

Compensation Round 3
37. St. Louis Sting (PK Subban Comp)



I hope this helped a bit

[Jimmy (Desperados)]

That is what I thought. So in that scenario, say I still have my 2nd round pick #17, if Dawgs, Nemesis, Warriors, and Cajuns all get 2 RFAs with 1st and 3rd compensation then my pick actually becomes #21 because of the extra compensation picks and there 2nd round picks being after mine. Is that right?

[St. Louis Sting]

Actually no, because you have to remember that there would be a bunch of 1st round picks forfeited in the process by the teams that sign the Restricted Free Agent. The only time that you would actually move back in the draft is if one of those teams with the protected picks (top 3 of the 1st round) signs an RFA

[Clayhounds Dawgs]

I think I understand the compensation picks part but not sure about "we will begin seeing more and more restricted free agents reaching the market, and limiting teams to being able to only acquire one of them". Being that you have to increase the salary to resign your own RFA, teams can only try and keep so may RFA because of hitting their salary limits. The rest of you teams RFA are released and hit the market anyway at a cheaper price in the bidding war.

I not saying which is right or wrong, just thinking out loud.

I do agree teams are limited to sign only 1 RFA because of compensation picks but will be able to bid on them later.

[Pensacola Pelicans]

Looking at this from an impact perspective . . .

For teams oferring QO(s):
Pros: None
Cons: 1) pick compensation is slightly later in the draft (no chance for an early 1st round pick), 2) increases chances there will be bids on your RFA(s). I wouldn't consider either of these cons as significant.

For teams bidding on RFA(s):
Pros: 1) opportunity to bid on and win multiple RFAs, 2) compensation cost is much less as you win/sign more RFAs.
Cons: None

Questions:
- Let's say I've already signed an RFA and lost my 1st and 3rd round picks. What if I already traded away my remaining picks? Does that mean I can no longer bid on RFAs?
- Similarly, what if I didn't have a 1st round pick to begin with? Can I still bid on a RFA that would normally cost a 1st round pick?

[St. Louis Sting]

Pretty accurate rundown there Jim. I like it.

Answers:
1. Good question here, and one I hadn't really thought about (that's why we do this preliminary discussion lol). I'm leaning towards saying that teams would need to have at least one pick under control in order to bid on any more RFA's, as I believe there needs to be some kind of cost for bidding on an RFA. This is a situation where I am comfortable doing whatever the league thinks is fairer.

2. No, you must have a 1st round pick to sign that first RFA. However, the picks forfeited will still be for the next season, and if my memory serves me correctly we have only seen 2 or 3 trades in which a pick more than a year down the line has been traded, so I don't expect this to be a major issue.

[Montana Grizzlies]

I like the idea of being able to bid on more than one RFA- I actually would have considered doing so prior to this MLB season, but the current format would not allow it. Similarly I think this puts more pressure on owners with RFAs. I like the RFA system, but I saw a number of valuable players going to back to teams at less than what they would have garnered via free agency because of the current format. I actually think it should be a little more simplified- giving up a first round pick is still giving up a lot. I think the players who are offered a 20% increase should cost a 3rd round pick, 30% a 2nd rounder, and 40% a 1st rounder. Especially when we are talking about NBA, NFL, and NHL when there are only 2 and 3 rounds respectively. Then after that you can roll with the "highest pick available is forfeit" plan. This will make it a more competitive market, and give players more opportunities to bid on RFAs.

[Jon (Huskies)]

Huskies agree with the Grizzlies completely. A 1st and 3rd round pick is a huge haul to pay and has resulted in me not even considering to bid on a RFA so far. If it was just a 1st rd pick, I would have been more intrigued. Plus, the 3rd rd pick would still be available if the bidder wanted to place multiple bids as this new structure proposes.

[St. Louis Sting]

I like that thought a lot. Definitely something I'm willing to do

[Jimmy (Desperados)]

I like Griz's idea, and I am warming to the new proposal as well. I can see the merit behind it, although I think there is still the potential con of 2nd round on picks dropping further down in overall.

Just for my clarification, if someone wins 2 RFAs, they would lose there 1st and 2nd round picks but the original teams would both get 1st round compensation picks correct?

[St. Louis Sting]

Apr 25, 2017 9:31:24 GMT -5 Jimmy (Desperados) said:

Just for my clarification, if someone wins 2 RFAs, they would lose there 1st and 2nd round picks but the original teams would both get 1st round compensation picks correct?

As long as both of those RFAs were given a QO that required a 1st round pick, then yes all of that is correct