Next to each players name that is an RFA the highest draft pick allowed to be taken as compensation is listed.

Please remember those are the highest picks you can claim. If someone has 2.2 and your player ranked out at 2.3 you cannot take the 2.2 but can take any pick 2.3 and lower.

Indianappolis:
Franchise: Reggie Wayne, Jared Allen
RFA: Earnest Graham (1.10), Jason Witten (1.2), Chris Harris (1.2), Demorrio Williams (5.5)

Bad Axe:
Franchise: Carson Palmer, Aaron Kampman
RFA: Javon Walker (6.15), Deion Branch (3.15), Scott Fujitta (3.11), Troy Polamalu (6.13)

Coastal Bend:
Franchise: Peyton Manning, Ray Lewis
RFA: Marion Barber double tagged (1.7), Donnie Edwards (2.10), James Harrison (1.14)

Baton Rouge:
Franchise: Clinton Portis, EJ Henderson
RFA: Anquan Boldin (2.4), Marques Colston (1.10), Trent Cole (1.3), Freddie Keiaho (4.15)

Bangor:
Franchise: Tom Brady, DJ Williams
RFA: Ryan Grant (1.16), Antonio Gates (1.3), Michael Boley (2.3), Osi Umenyiori (1.6)

Wichita:
Franchise: Jamal Lewis, Adalius Thomas
RFA: Justin Fargas (2.9), Jake Delhomme (2.4 over ten games missed due to injury thus 2006 ranking), Calvin Pace (3.14), Derrick Brooks (3.3)

Grim:
Franchise: Ladainian Tomlinson, Kawika Mitchell
RFA: Michael Turner (6.1), Ben Roethlisberger (1.8 ), Morlon Greenwood (2.5), Julian Peterson (3.6)

Pottsville:
Franchise: Steve Smith, Will Witherspoon
RFA: Thomas Jones (2.5), David Garrard (1.16)

Rhode Island:
Franchise: Steven Jackson, Mike Peterson
RFA: Chad Johnson double tagged (1.7)

Chicago:
Franchise: Willis McGahee, Keith Bullock
RFA: Andre Johnson double tagged (2.5), Gary Brackett (2.1), Patrick Kerney (1.2)

Florida:
Franchise: Brandon Jacobs, Nick Barnett
RFA: Plaxico Burress (1.14), Terrel Owens (Any pick), Gibril Wilson (1.12)

Wisconsin:
Franchise: Brian Westbrook, Brian Urlacher
RFA: Drew Bree's (Any pick), Torry Holt (1.11), Angelo Crowell (1.13), Bart Scott (4.8 )

Honolulu:
Franchise: Derek Anderson, Karlos Dansby
RFA: Julius Jones (3.15), Roy Williams (2.13), Stephen Cooper (2.11), Johnathon Vilma (money only)

Detroit:
Franchise: Larry Johnson, Keith Brooking
RFA: Larry Fitzgerald double tagged (Any pick), Bradie James (3.15), Elvis Dumervil (2.5)

West Virgiania:
Franchise: Randy Moss, Antonio Pierce
RFA: TJ Housmanzadeh double tagged (1.6), Lance Briggs double tagged (2.16)

Alburque:
Franchise: Willie Parker, London Fletcher
RFA: Tony Romo (Any pick), Wes Welker (1.9), David Thornton (1.16), Shaun Phillips (2.2)

the current auction happenings are exactly why I do not like the RFA MAX compensation rules (which incl the top 5 clause)

A team owning 2 of the top 4 picks in the draft is able to bid insanely on RFAs without running the risk (with most of the players available) of forfeiting those picks if they acquire said players


I would be so in favor of abolishing this rule

billybob wrote (View Post): › the current auction happenings are exactly why I do not like the RFA MAX compensation rules (which incl the top 5 clause) A team owning 2 of the top 4 picks in the draft is able to bid insanely on RFAs without running the risk (with most of the players available) of forfeiting those picks if they acquire said players I would be so in favor of abolishing this rule

Actually the reason that a team can bid "insanely" is due to having traded for enough draft picks to afford the 2.2 m compensation possible (or 4.4) required.

Also, as long as the player is in the same round, you can take a future pick. So we have been risking our our 1st rd picks from next year at certain times throughout the auction.

Although I would be in favor of a change saying if next years draft pick is taken it could be any pick instead of from that specific round, I have always been in favor of this rule with the top 5 exception.

This rule is what adds a ton to the different possible strategies that keep the league interesting and more players in play each year.

In another league I am in which is geared more towards keeping your RFA tagged players, the auction was over in 3 days with barely any bidding, what is the point in even having it???

Trading has to take into account trading for early picks or trading them away, and is taken into account for the other team in those trades.

Also, any trading for players to tag adds even more strategy to this, trade for a player you want but be prepared to pay to keep him, or don't trade for him and try to win him yourself.

I think that is the beauty of the current system, so many levels to consider when doing any action.

And having a system for RFAs to change teams is not a bad thing IMO, I know many would prefer RFA to be more of a keeper than more of an available player, I am just not on that side (I am already in dynasty leagues for that kind of carry over).

But in the end, it isn't insane bidding, with proxy bidding, it is always 1 bid high enough to actually win the player, so if two teams put a players value at that point, not sure how insane it is.

I like the top 5 rule but do think it needs to be amended next year to the likes of top 5 rule. Any other RFA'd player outside the current top 5 rule can request any level compensation. Basically Michael Turner was signed to be the Falcons starter this year thus his value went up. Currently the team losing him may not request more than the 6.1 pick per chart. Given he is a starter and indeed more valuable than that 6.1 pick in some teams mind (higher pick over money) I'd say we make it Turner can net any pick from 1.6 on down but may not take 1.1-1.5. This should keep the initial top 5 rule intact although teams can still trade into top 5 before RFA that were in playoffs it ought to help even the compensation out as we value Michael Turner, Jonathon Vilma as well even though today their comp level is akward.

Fairknight wrote (View Post): › I like the top 5 rule but do think it needs to be amended next year to the likes of top 5 rule. Any other RFA'd player outside the current top 5 rule can request any level compensation. Basically Michael Turner was signed to be the Falcons starter this year thus his value went up. Currently the team losing him may not request more than the 6.1 pick per chart. Given he is a starter and indeed more valuable than that 6.1 pick in some teams mind (higher pick over money) I'd say we make it Turner can net any pick from 1.6 on down but may not take 1.1-1.5. This should keep the initial top 5 rule intact although teams can still trade into top 5 before RFA that were in playoffs it ought to help even the compensation out as we value Michael Turner, Jonathon Vilma as well even though today their comp level is akward.

Sounds like a good compormise, but would prefer it go top 10, with the top 5 exceptions kept.

I personally like it the way it is. You don't have to take the 6.1 pick, you take the money or you keep Turner for the new market value. I wouldn't mind the cahnge, but just because some think Turner is worthy of a first round pick, doesn't mean everyone thinks that. Then who decides who demands what pick? Turner has proven he's a great back-up. So, because he goes to a team that will start him, he's all of a sudden worthy of a first rounder? Makes no sense to me.

Can the previous team opt to match the salary and keep Turner? I didn't know that was a possibility. Or would they just have to outbid the other teams to keep him?

komments wrote (View Post): › Can the previous team opt to match the salary and keep Turner? I didn't know that was a possibility. Or would they just have to outbid the other teams to keep him?

No, they are in the auction as well, so they would have to top the bid amount to keep Turner in the auction.

don't know why Turner is the name brought up because that's not what brought my initial comments into this

Wreck nailed it in his comments - it's all about how you view the RFA process

I look at it as it was designed and intended to be; a player retention tool (ask the HAFA architect if you don't believe me) - and I don't think the measures in affect give the owning team enough leverage - that is my OPINION

Others look at the RFA auction from a player acquisition perspective and like the rules in effect for that reason

we will likely never agree so I care not to even engage in the debate over it

I'd prefer a rule change that allows the original team to match any final salary bid made on an RFA'd player, just like they do in the NFL.

Just my two cents here.

Best idea yet!

Scribe wrote (View Post): › I'd prefer a rule change that allows the original team to match any final salary bid made on an RFA'd player, just like they do in the NFL. Just my two cents here.

BeerWoodyToo wrote (View Post): › Best idea yet! Scribe wrote (View Post): › I'd prefer a rule change that allows the original team to match any final salary bid made on an RFA'd player, just like they do in the NFL. Just my two cents here.

They already have this option, except instead of match it will cost only 25k more than what the other team was willing to pay, just keep bidding if you want to keep the player!!!

Wrecking Crew wrote (View Post): › BeerWoodyToo wrote (View Post): › Best idea yet! Scribe wrote (View Post): › I'd prefer a rule change that allows the original team to match any final salary bid made on an RFA'd player, just like they do in the NFL. Just my two cents here. They already have this option, except instead of match it will cost only 25k more than what the other team was willing to pay, just keep bidding if you want to keep the player!!!

There is obviously a difference in that the other team can continue to bid. I like the idea that Scribe mentions, but the price the current tag owner should have to match is the bidding teams proxy, not at the price the player was won.

Thus the problem. Proxys are private and only known to the team who has that proxy set. Also proxys can be raised or lowered at anytime dependant on any teams strategy. It is inaccurate to use it. This has been brought up over the past several years and was shot down every time.

Only 7 RFA players changed teams through the RFA auction out of how many? Over 50 players. Some might have been lost but their teams bid to retain their player thus bid to win and in its own way right to match. If they didn't think the player was worth said amount they'd not have bid enough to keep him.

Fairknight wrote (View Post): › Thus the problem. Proxys are private and only known to the team who has that proxy set. Also proxys can be raised or lowered at anytime dependant on any teams strategy. It is inaccurate to use it. This has been brought up over the past several years and was shot down every time. Only 7 RFA players changed teams through the RFA auction out of how many? Over 50 players. Some might have been lost but their teams bid to retain their player thus bid to win and in its own way right to match. If they didn't think the player was worth said amount they'd not have bid enough to keep him.

I agree, it gives a true value of what the player is worth to both the team winning the player and the fact that the player isn't worth that much to the team letting him go (be it the tagging team or not)