LOL, this is why you don't cut top tier guys. Alen may have had a down year but my goodness the guy is a top 5 DE in this league.
I already have a prelim deal in place for Mario if I win (although if someone wants to up that...I'd listen). Wouldn't take the risk without having some insurance. And yes Allen is a potential 15 sack guy. Even at 30 he's a franchise player.
question... i figured I'd ask this here so everyone can see the answer. (nothing isn't calculated)... ... so my question has to do with a tender compensation... lets say, as an example, a player has a 3rd round tender (RFA)... and I place a bid on that player and end up being the highest bidder within the 24 hour period. But I have 2 3rd round picks. Who decides which third round pick is given as compensation? Is it the highest? the lowest? which is it? And obviously this question applies to all situations where multiple picks are involved.
I can understand the reasoning behind cutting Allen and trying to get him cheaper but this is proof that it just takes two teams to run up a player's cost.
I need people to help update the free agency threads, fellas. Please volunteer for a position here. Try to pick a position where you won't do much bidding on... or at least will be bidding primarily on the lower tiered players. I'd really appreciate the help!
it's a bit tricky, the CBA states that you have to give up your pick (The Raiders actually caused this to happen way back. They'd get the last pick in a round and use that to steal guys), but there's nothing stating what it would be if you no longer had your pick, but had others, but following the spirit of the rule, it'd be the highest one.
you could have just said "the highest pick is automatically selected"... but no, you had to make this about your team.
Well, it's technically not true. If a team keeps their own pick and gets a higher one, they still would give up their pick, not the better one.
naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Noooooooooooooo! I think there plenty of teams that've moved their picks that could use a late first. I could be off on that though.
I think I understand that the better pick goes... but then Mach said something that didn't make sense. Is he saying that if I only have the 30th pick, my original pick, and then at some point in the future, I obtain a pick better than that, if I have to give up a first as part of compensation for a tender bid, I give up my original pick only? hold on while I have a seizure... aod foanfdnoasndf'poandfpoansdof sfdnoasnf
Let's say you make an offer on Danario Alexander (using him solely because I know he's a first round tendered RFA) and the San Diego GM accepts compensation rather than matching your bid. You'll give him #16 overall because it's your original draft pick (IE, it was never traded for). However let's say you traded #22, Janoris Jenkins, and a few other things for #6. San Diego would still receive #16 overall because it's your original draft pick even though you own a higher first round draft pick in #6 overall. This doesn't affect many teams though because people trade draft picks like candy. That's my understanding but Mach would have to confirm.
I think so. I'll use my situation as an example. I have 3. If I get 30, and I bid on Cruz lets say, I have to give up 3. If I get 1 or 2 I still have to give up 3. If I trade 3 in a deal that nets me 30 and also get 1 or 2, then I'd give up 1 or 2. You know, we can make it straight better pick to make everyone's life a lot easier. I like this idea.
Yah amazing numbers....if he ever puts a few healthy seasons together before injuries ruin him...it should be amazing.
Someone's testy Has nothing to do with "balls" and everything to do with budgets. I had a set number (which my Mario trade partners knew I had) I could go to without it affecting my FA targets. Was all business Venge. Nothing personal.
