Losing an RFA

[Dan Wood]

I wanted to propose an idea for when an RFA is tagged and then lost to another team. I think the team that loses the RFA should receive some sort of compensation. Something along a supplemental first round draft pick. This would be similar to losing a Type A free agent, or in football, losing an RFA. The stipulation is that you had to bid on the player when they are posted on the transactions board. Otherwise you would not be due any compensation. This would inhibit teams from random RFA tagging just to get the pick. The supplemental picks would be ordered in Fantrax value of player lost. For instance Matt Holliday would have more value than Russell Branyan. And whoever lost Holliday picks before whoever lost Branyan. I would like to know your thoughts on this matter. This would probably help smaller market teams recoup the loss of their RFAs.

[Colby]

 :iatp: I like Dan's idea.  It is sound, covers all points, and matches what MLB has.  We would have to match the number of fantasy points with each of the 10 rounds of the draft.  Something like 4000+ points is Supplemental-1st round (1-S) and then...

3000+ (2-S)
2500+ (3-S)
2000+ (4-S)
1500+ (5-S)
1000+ (6-S)
750+ (7-S)
500+ (8-S)
250+ (9-S)
0+ (10-S)

[clidwin]

i do like the idea, but if a team that gets one of these RFA players dont have that draft pick? or if none?? what you think...

[Colby]

i do like the idea, but if a team that gets one of these RFA players dont have that draft pick? or if none?? what you think...

The team getting the RFA player would not be affected.

[Dan Wood]

Colby
I think we may need to lower the scoring echelons a bit. Bay, Holliday, Choo, and Zobrist all scored well under 4,000 points and I thin we can agree that they should be considered Type A FAs. We would also have to consider a separate scoring system for pitchers, since they score drastically less. Case in point Nolasco was under 2,000 for the season. I think 2700 is a good place to start for 1-S, and drop it per 500 for each round. And after the 5th round does it matter anymore? So maybe like

2700 or higher - 1S
2000 - 2700 -  2S
1000 - 2000 -  3S
0-1000 - 4S

[Colby]

Colby
I think we may need to lower the scoring echelons a bit. Bay, Holliday, Choo, and Zobrist all scored well under 4,000 points and I thin we can agree that they should be considered Type A FAs. We would also have to consider a separate scoring system for pitchers, since they score drastically less. Case in point Nolasco was under 2,000 for the season. I think 2700 is a good place to start for 1-S, and drop it per 500 for each round. And after the 5th round does it matter anymore? So maybe like

2700 or higher - 1S
2000 - 2700 -  2S
1000 - 2000 -  3S
0-1000 - 4S

Looks good Dan.  We don't need a supplemental round for each round of the draft anyways.  I was just throwing out random numbers from my crappy memory like a wild cowboy anyways.  The structure and idea is what was important.

[Dan Wood]

I like it (pats self on back). Obviously I will leave it up to the RC to further suss it out. But it has my vote. And I think it might be worth implementing to the upcoming draft.

[Canada8999]

I haven't had a chance to carefully look at the numbers, but I'm definitely on board - I tried to have a similar rule incorporated last season but it never got off the ground.

[Colby]

 :bump: this as we are voting on the RFA bidding season

[Canada8999]

I like it (pats self on back). Obviously I will leave it up to the RC to further suss it out. But it has my vote. And I think it might be worth implementing to the upcoming draft.

I'm in agreement with the concept, and the numbers look good for a first implementation.  Alternatively, we could say if the player is within the top X at their position, you'd get Y for a pick, using the same scale as for contract extensions.

I'm not in favor of applying a new rule to this years RFA's / Draft.  Owners would have likely made different decisions when applying their RFA tags, knowing they could receive compensations for some players and not others, rather than strictly focusing on players they'd want to retain.