PDA

View Full Version : 5th Round Comp pick explanation...



Jom112
03-25-2009, 11:43 PM
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... epressbox/ (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/viewfromthepressbox/)



DANA POINT, Calif. No conspiracy theory here, folks.

And for those who wondered otherwise, the Steelers did not get jobbed when the NFL only gave them a fifth-round compensatory draft pick even though they lost perennial Pro Bowl guard Alan Faneca to free agency last year.

At the end of a seven-page booklet that details how compensatory picks are awarded and that so much space is needed to explain how the complicated formula works is another blog item for another day is the explanation for why the Steelers did not get a higher compensatory pick in April's draft.

Teams that lose a free agent with 10 or more seasons of NFL experience can get no better than a fifth-round compensatory pick for that player.

What happened in the case of the Steelers: the addition of running back Mewelde Moore and the loss of outside linebacker Clark Haggans essentially canceled each other out. The left Faneca, who suited up for the Steelers from 1998-2007, as the only player in the formula the NFL uses to determine compensatory picks.

Ultimately, the Steelers got the most they could have for losing of Faneca as they have the first compensatory pick in the fifth round.




/conspiracy

Flasteel
03-26-2009, 06:18 AM
And there you have it.

Hopefully the sky is no longer falling.

Mister Pittsburgh
03-26-2009, 07:24 AM
That is stupid to have a stipulation in the formula like that. He signed like the 3rd highest contract that offseason.

WoodleyofTroy
03-26-2009, 07:28 AM
Wait a second here...how is this only now coming out about a player being in the league 10 years? This Adamtj covers this crap like Kiper and the Draft. And how is that even fair anyways? He's still a pro bowler....something is still not right.

steelblood
03-26-2009, 08:18 AM
The inks is still wet on that stipulation.

phillyesq
03-26-2009, 08:47 AM
JOM, thanks for posting the explanation. Even if I don't like it, it is nice to know that there is some reason for the fifth round pick.

Jom112
03-26-2009, 09:24 AM
Wait a second here...how is this only now coming out about a player being in the league 10 years? This Adamtj covers this crap like Kiper and the Draft. And how is that even fair anyways? He's still a pro bowler....something is still not right.

http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2009/03/te ... efore.html (http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2009/03/ten-year-rule-has-been-used-before.html)

AdamJT13 missed it, but is providing some good background information on it now. Above is a story about past occurrences when it has happened...

SidSmythe
03-26-2009, 10:31 AM
I think the rule makes sense.
Just be happy we got something you friggin' babies :Beer :moon :tt1

Northern_Blitz
03-26-2009, 10:35 AM
:Agree

/conspiricy

100$handshake
03-26-2009, 12:40 PM
It's page 8,489 of the 10,000 page NFL rulebook.

MeetJoeGreene
03-26-2009, 03:01 PM
The inks is still wet on that stipulation.

$$$$$$ :Agree

They had to make sure it wouldn't impact the Pats* first before adding it.

buckeyehoppy
03-26-2009, 03:20 PM
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/viewfromthepressbox/



DANA POINT, Calif. No conspiracy theory here, folks.

And for those who wondered otherwise, the Steelers did not get jobbed when the NFL only gave them a fifth-round compensatory draft pick even though they lost perennial Pro Bowl guard Alan Faneca to free agency last year.

At the end of a seven-page booklet that details how compensatory picks are awarded and that so much space is needed to explain how the complicated formula works is another blog item for another day is the explanation for why the Steelers did not get a higher compensatory pick in April's draft.

Teams that lose a free agent with 10 or more seasons of NFL experience can get no better than a fifth-round compensatory pick for that player.

What happened in the case of the Steelers: the addition of running back Mewelde Moore and the loss of outside linebacker Clark Haggans essentially canceled each other out. The left Faneca, who suited up for the Steelers from 1998-2007, as the only player in the formula the NFL uses to determine compensatory picks.

Ultimately, the Steelers got the most they could have for losing of Faneca as they have the first compensatory pick in the fifth round.




/conspiracy


Under the same criteria, when the Steelers let Max Starks walk after this coming season, they should be looking at a 3rd Round comp in the 2011 Draft.

Never mind that Starks couldn't carry Faneca's jock strap and will never sniff a Pro Bowl. But Starks will have 6 years in and will have been paid over $15 over his last two seasons on the Steelers.

If the comp rules for losing FAs are this arbitrary, you pretty much have to over pay a player to guarantee any return of value for him. Lose a player who's been with your team for a while and you can forget about getting equal value, even if he is an annual Pro Bowler.

The upside is that if the Steelers can't get Jimmy Hate's deal done, we should be well compensated judging from his length of service.

RuthlessBurgher
03-26-2009, 03:26 PM
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/viewfromthepressbox/



DANA POINT, Calif. No conspiracy theory here, folks.

And for those who wondered otherwise, the Steelers did not get jobbed when the NFL only gave them a fifth-round compensatory draft pick even though they lost perennial Pro Bowl guard Alan Faneca to free agency last year.

At the end of a seven-page booklet that details how compensatory picks are awarded and that so much space is needed to explain how the complicated formula works is another blog item for another day is the explanation for why the Steelers did not get a higher compensatory pick in April's draft.

Teams that lose a free agent with 10 or more seasons of NFL experience can get no better than a fifth-round compensatory pick for that player.

What happened in the case of the Steelers: the addition of running back Mewelde Moore and the loss of outside linebacker Clark Haggans essentially canceled each other out. The left Faneca, who suited up for the Steelers from 1998-2007, as the only player in the formula the NFL uses to determine compensatory picks.

Ultimately, the Steelers got the most they could have for losing of Faneca as they have the first compensatory pick in the fifth round.




/conspiracy


Under the same criteria, when the Steelers let Max Starks walk after this coming season, they should be looking at a 3rd Round comp in the 2011 Draft.

Never mind that Starks couldn't carry Faneca's jock strap and will never sniff a Pro Bowl. But Starks will have 6 years in and will have been paid over $15 over his last two seasons on the Steelers.

If the comp rules for losing FAs are this arbitrary, you pretty much have to over pay a player to guarantee any return of value for him. Lose a player who's been with your team for a while and you can forget about getting equal value, even if he is an annual Pro Bowler.

The upside is that if the Steelers can't get Jimmy Hate's deal done, we should be well compensated judging from his length of service.

The amount we have paid Starks over the past 2 season would not enter into the compensatory pick discussion if he signs elsewhere next year. It is how much the team that signs him away from us pays him that determines what level of comp pick a team gets.

frankthetank1
03-26-2009, 05:16 PM
that is so stupid. the fact that faneca was a pro bowler every season should matter more than having 10 seasons under his belt. no logic at all. its stupid faneca will bring a lower pick than max starks would get

NorthCoast
03-26-2009, 10:46 PM
I am just trying to understand the league's reasoning behind this stipulation. Why penalize a team that lets a long-term vet walk? Is this something they are trying to discourage, and why? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Jom112
03-26-2009, 11:18 PM
I am just trying to understand the league's reasoning behind this stipulation. Why penalize a team that lets a long-term vet walk? Is this something they are trying to discourage, and why? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Let me start off by saying I think the entire compensatory pick process is crap.

That being said, if I had to offer up a reason (guess) behind the 10 year rule I would say it's because most times when you sign an aging veteran your going to cut them before their contract ends. In Faneca's case he signed a 5 year $40 Mil contract ($8 Mil per). The $8 Mil should get a 3rd round comp according the forumla. But in most cases those contracts are back heavy and the big cap hit number will come in years 4 and 5, where most likely the team will just cut the player anyway. So the real value of the contract is less.

Although looking at Faneca's cap hit numbers it looks pretty even with only a $1 Mil difference in the final couple of years. Whoever Fanca's agent is, that person did a good job.

I don't like it, but that's the only reasoning I could see behind it...

aggiebones
03-31-2009, 11:09 AM
I think the reason for the rule is to interact with the reason they have compensation picks in the first place.
I think they feel that if you got 10 years of service out of a guy, then you've gotten your reward. I think the design of these bonus picks is to reward teams that lose a guy after 1-2 contracts.
And if you go get an 8 years veteran and he leaves 3 years later, you shouldn't really get compensated for that. Its mostly just to protect teams that get screwed by a guy just when he starts performing well and leaves.