RFA Bidding

[69ers]

I would hope that owners in our leagues (3001/3002) would take the time to understand RFA bidding and not make initial bids that acually benefit the original owner if they match...

Very frustrating...

[Tunaboys123]

I'm not sure I understand the problem...

Can't anyone just up the bid on a player if they're that concerned ???

Also, with the draft pick compensation, who's to say that individuals won't want to take an additional pick, instead of matching the offer... even if the bid is a low one

I can tell you that I've let go of players in RFA for low money, just to get the draft pick...

[69ers]

Tuna,



Let me start of by saying this is not about any one owner. This is an observation that I have seen through RFA this and last year. My frustration comes from wanting these leagues to be the best of the best where all owners are involved and not only know all of the league rules, but understand the specific intricacies of the rules. Is this a bit optimistic? I think so, but it doesn’t preclude us from trying to make it better.



As far as my post, let’s look at this situation. Team A has restricted free agency rights to a good, young Joe Montana with a current salary of 1.70 million per year and a 4th round pick compensation. Team B wants to bid on Joe Montana and wants to try and get him at low salary. Once the RFA bid locks, Team A has the choice of letting Joe Montana go for a 4th round pick, or resigning him to the higher of these two: 1.) his current salary or 2.) the total contract of Team B’s RFA bid (salary X years = total contract).



Scenario 1: Team B bids 0.350 for 4 years (total contract of 1.40 million). Team A now has a choice of retaining Joe Montana at 1.70 million (the higher of the two salaries) or letting him go for a 4th round pick. Team B made a SMART RFA bid because his total bid is just less than the current salary. This forces Team A to make a tough decision. Team A may be willing to let Team B have Joe at a reduced salary because Team B would have to give up a 4th round pick. Team B would be “paying” for the right to get Joe at a minimum salary. Or, Team A may fully intend on keeping Joe at that salary not wanting or needing the 4th round pick.



Scenario 2: Team B bids 0.350 for 5 years (total contract of 1.75 million). Team A now has a choice of retaining Joe Montana at a salary of 0.350 for 5 years (the higher of the two salaries) or letting him go for a 4th round pick. Team B made a POOR RFA bid because his total bid is more than the current salary. This allows Team A to retain Joe and get him at a lower salary! Either choice Team A makes is going to benefit him because of the poor bid. If Joe Montana is any player at all, Team A would jump at the chance to match the bid because they get the player at a 1.35 million per year pay cut!



One of the goals of making an RFA bid is to make the decision tough on the original owner. You don’t want to give them a freebee. I have seen many times where an owner makes an RFA bid that falls under scenario #2. This is BAD (good for the original owner, though)! In scenario 2, Team A is loving life because he gets to retain a quality player at a highly reduced salary because Team B made a bad RFA bid. If Team B had made a smart RFA bid, like scenario 1, then Team A would not be benefiting in salary cap room because he retained the player. Team A would retain the player at their higher salary.



It’s OK to make low RFA bids on players in hopes of getting a good player in return because the original owner wanted the draft pick. In the case where they original owner may not want the draft pick, don’t make an RFA bid where they get to retain the player at a lower salary. The original owner would then be getting something for nothing.



Here is a decent article that points this out as well…



http://www.efsnews.com/artman/publish/article_15.shtml



Does this help to understand the problem?



Skip

69ers

[Tunaboys123]

There are definitely some subtleties to this league, that I'm slowly learning...

I must confess, I didn't really think about that, or for that matter fully understand the RFA process, but it does make sense.

Lesson learned for RFA next season...

Thanks for the lesson!

[Royal Slave]

I see what you're saying, Skip, but you also have to consider the number of years on the contract.

If an owner is pushed against the limit on the number of years he has doled out already, then it would be a tough decision on whether or not to commit five years to one player (considering the player's career could end on any given play).

[69ers]

Royal Slave wrote:
I see what you're saying, Skip, but you also have to consider the number of years on the contract.

If an owner is pushed against the limit on the number of years he has doled out already, then it would be a tough decision on whether or not to commit five years to one player (considering the player's career could end on any given play).

Slave,

I completely agree with what you are saying, looking at available contractsIS a factor in the decision making process. However, you are muddying the waters ofTHIS sitaution with an issue that was not involved in this scenario and isn't involved in most cases. Available contracts is rarelya foremost concern in the RFA decisionprocess, especially for a good young player. In my scenario (which is closely based on an actual RFA situation and many others)available contracts was not an issue. What was the issue and is the issue in most every BAD RFA bid I see, is a basic non-understanding of the intricacies of RFA bidding.

That being said, even if a player is closely looking at avaialble contracts in making an RFA decision, I would bet most owners would take a good young player who is near the top of scoring at his positionfor 5 years @ 0.350 million vs. 1 year @ 1.5 million. There are many more benefits to the first option than the second. Now if that player was toward the end of his career, then it is a different story. There a billion factors to consider in making an RFA bid or matching an RFA bid.

I would gladly take the risk of a minimum salary for 5 years on a good, young player knowing that his career could be over with one play. Worse case scenario is that he gets cut and because he had a low salary, you take a very small salary and contract hit for a few years.

The point was this: look closely at your RFA bids and make a smart bid based on the scenario at hand. DO NOT make a bid that gives the original owner something for nothing (i.e. a good young player at a HUGE reduction in salary per year).

[RFLers]

69ers and Royal,

You both make some good points. I hadn't thought too much before about the number of contract years involved. I mainly look at salaries.

I've noticed in just about every league I'm in, that some owner will enter a multi-year bid at a relatively low salary that in aggregate exceeds the current salary. As pointed out, this, effectively, gives a salarly reduction to the current owner.

I think this happens for many reasons, but primarily because not everyone understands how RFA matching works.

Another reason I think it happens is because some owners are ready at the exact second RFA opens, and they place ideal bids for all the key players. Other owners who don't have that much time on their hands or don't have constant access to the Internet are aced out.

In those cases I think some owners say "Screw him. I can't get that player and I don't want that other owner to get him either. I'd rather let the current owner keep him."

I've never done that but I've been tempted. Just my two cents.

[69ers]

RFLers wrote:
Another reason I think it happens is because some owners are ready at the exact second RFA opens, and they place ideal bids for all the key players. Other owners who don't have that much time on their hands or don't have constant access to the Internet are aced out.

In those cases I think some owners say "Screw him. I can't get that player and I don't want that other owner to get him either. I'd rather let the current owner keep him."

I've never done that but I've been tempted. Just my two cents.

RFLers,

You make a very good point as well. There are times when an "on the ball" owner will maketheoptimum low salary / high contract RFA bid just under the current salary, in effect squeezing out any other "good"RFA bid. This scenario is discussed in the article I linked to and I happen to agree with what the author states.

In the process of normal RFA bidding where two or more owners are going after the same player and the bid becomes a "bad" RFA bid, then that is acceptable. Taking myscenario inmy original postas an example...

In scenario 1, Team B made a good initial RFA bid. Now let's say that Team C comes in and wants Joe Montana at a low salary as well and bids 0.400 million @4 years (total of 1.60 million). Team C has made an optimum "good" RFA bid. Team B really wants Joe Montana, so they bid 0.350 million @ 5 years. Team C made an optimum bid because the next highest bid that Team B made would make the total salary more than the current salary, turning it into a "bad RFA bid. To me, that is acceptable because two owners are actively going after the same guy (for whatever reason - spite, need for the player, etc.). If through the process of teams bidding on a RFA player the salary becomes "bad", then there is a reason for it.

**What isn't acceptable is when an owner makes an INITIAL RFA bid that is bad. Then if no one else bids on that player, the original owner gets a freebee. That is the scenario I have seen more than once and as an opposing owner, I don't want another owner to get a freebee just because there is a basic misunderstanding of how RFA bidding goes.

Like I said before, this isn't a knock on anyone. I have learned this through trial and error as well. But my hope is that these leagues are a cut above, better than the rest. For that to happen, I beleive there needs to be a dialogue where, at the appropriate times, we discuss situations like this where we can help other owners (perhaps ones with no experience in this type of league setup) get a good understanding of just how unique, exciting, difficult, and intricate the rules of this league are. It isn't easy and I continue to learn just as I hope others do as well.

Skip

[Royal Slave]

My brain hurts.

I think I'm going to have to pull up this thread and re-read it every time I ever make an RFA bid in the future. :D

[69ers]

As we get closer to RFA, just wanted to refresh everyone's memory of this topic. I recommend visiting this article as well...

http://www.efsnews.com/artman/publish/article_15.shtml

Good luck to all!

[sol diablos]

I've been trying to place a bid for 15 minutes and it will not let me.... very frustrating watching all the guys I wanted get bid on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sol diablos]

This is so f******* frustrating. I can't bring up the RFA bidding page. It just hangs and then times out. Everyother screen is a bit slow but at least accessible. @#$%^%&%*&*(^&*(&#$%@^&* I'm really pissed... been sitting around waiting then I get shut out because of computer problems !

[sol diablos]

THIS IS BULLSH*T! My computer is working fine but I am not able to access the RFA Bid screen. However I see on the Transactions screen other owners some how have the ability to place RFA bids. I am not one to b*tch but this time I am F********** pissed off!!!!!

[69ers]

Diablos, I feel your pain. Have run into issues before with the UFA bid process and losing out on a player because of website issues. Not much I can do, but sympathize.

[sid]

Post these issues in P&G please