Creating Comp Picks

[Gas2No99]

In regards to creating a better percentage of getting Compensation Draft Picks (CDP)

The more of your expired-contract unrestricted FAs sign elsewhere in relation to you (the team) signing FAs you are more likely to get a comp pick according to that formula. Idzik purposely did this in the off-season of 2013 and it netted us some comp picks for the 2014 draft.

Now, in the Chris Johnson situation, the Jets declined to pick up the option on his contract resulting in him now being an Unrestricted FA. If he signs with another team, does that factor into the formula of netting us a possible compensation pick?

From what I have observed so far from Ron Swanson (McCags) he values picks and if Bowles is the type of HC that can develop talent, I can see us spending more on a select few FAs and letting our own players walk - K.Wilson, D.Landry, M.Vick, W.Colon, d.Harris- so we always net-out with losing more players than we sign through free agency.

Thoughts?

PS- I think it's BULL$HIT that the Beagle won BIS @ Westminster. Swagger the OE Sheepdog should have won it!!!!

[Patriot Killa]

So probably 3.

[Jet9]

I hate comp picks in any sport. Especially since the cap or luxury tax is all subsidized by fellow franchises anyway.

I work in the bar/restaurant business. If my bar does well one month should I have to pay bar down the road a welfare tax because they can't run a successful business? No. Neither should any sports franchise.

And yes, I get the difference between franchises and sole proprietorships.

Truthfully, if you want American sport teams , of which there are way too many in each league, to try and actually win each year, relegation system is the easiest fit. IMHO of course.

[slats]

With the roster of a team coming off a 4-12 season and $50M -or more- to spend in free agency, this is really not the season to be thinking about an extra sixth or seventh round pick next year. I'll be surprised and disappointed if they don't sign more free agents than they let go. 

[DaBallhawk]

David Harris is the only guy that could net us a decent pick (4th maybe). The rest is just garbage, they're not gonna get much more than the vet minimum. We'll be lucky to get a 7th for any of those.

[PatsFanTX]

David Harris is the only guy that could net us a decent pick (4th maybe). The rest is just garbage, they're not gonna get much more than the vet minimum. We'll be lucky to get a 7th for any of those.

The Jets will be lucky to get a 6th round comp pick for Harris. Do you seriously think a team is dumb enough to pay him $8MM a year?

For details on the basics and methodology of projecting compensatory picks in general, please reference this post. To briefly sum up the key methodologies used specifically for 2015, this is what that projection will use:

OTC’s current salary cap estimate of $140 million; the official number will likely be different, but only enough to possibly impact one player.

Cutoff points between rounds and qualifying as follows, based on the contract’s Average Per Year (APY):

3rd/4th: $8,006,250 APY

4th/5th: $5,570,250 APY

5th/6th: $4,200,000 APY

6th/7th: $2,235,625 APY

Minimum: $730,000 APY (representing the four year veteran minimum salary for 2015)

Ties in APY will be broken by playing time as represented in snap counts, the only such usage of playing time for this projection.

Postseason honors as represented by being selected to the Pro Bowl will not be used; even if they were, this year it would only likely impact one player.

[Dinamite]

Chris Johnson was cut by the jets so he would not count towards compensatory picks. Doesn't matter much because jets will likely sign more FAs this offseason.

[CrazyCarl40]

Chris Johnson was cut by the jets so he would not count towards compensatory picks. Doesn't matter much because jets will likely sign more FAs this offseason.

He was not cut, his option was declined.

Anyone they lose this offseason would count towards the 2016 draft, but I suspect with the glaring holes and the massive cap space, they won't be getting any compensatory picks in 2016.

[DaBallhawk]

Do you seriously think a team is dumb enough to pay him $8MM a year?

 

Stop pretending just for a day that you know what you're talking about.

[PatsFanTX]

Stop pretending just for a day that you know what you're talking about.

 

I know that Kerley will never be considered an elite, stud WR.

[DaBallhawk]

I know that Kerley will never be considered an elite, stud WR.

 

Considering you don't know anything that doesn't mean much.

[smaxor5]

I know that Kerley will never be considered an elite, stud WR.

 

The Jets will be lucky to get a 6th round comp pick for Harris. Do you seriously think a team is dumb enough to pay him $8MM a year?

For details on the basics and methodology of projecting compensatory picks in general, please reference this post. To briefly sum up the key methodologies used specifically for 2015, this is what that projection will use:

OTC’s current salary cap estimate of $140 million; the official number will likely be different, but only enough to possibly impact one player.

Cutoff points between rounds and qualifying as follows, based on the contract’s Average Per Year (APY):

3rd/4th: $8,006,250 APY

4th/5th: $5,570,250 APY

5th/6th: $4,200,000 APY

6th/7th: $2,235,625 APY

Minimum: $730,000 APY (representing the four year veteran minimum salary for 2015)

Ties in APY will be broken by playing time as represented in snap counts, the only such usage of playing time for this projection.

Postseason honors as represented by being selected to the Pro Bowl will not be used; even if they were, this year it would only likely impact one player.

I hate it but he's right.  In a year where we have 50 mil in cap space and are forced to spend it we won't be getting any comp picks.  HOWEVER...tendering Damon Harrison will be interesting as he is a RFA.  That's pretty much the only way we are getting an extra draft pick.

[Sperm Edwards]

With the roster of a team coming off a 4-12 season and $50M -or more- to spend in free agency, this is really not the season to be thinking about an extra sixth or seventh round pick next year. I'll be surprised and disappointed if they don't sign more free agents than they let go. 

 

This was all I could think of. It was easy to look smart in picking up 4 picks when we were up against the cap in Idzik's first year here. When the team has serious holes and is $50M under the spending limit - not to mention under the minimum - they're not going to be in a position to look away from certain players because they're true FAs instead of players acquired only by trade or by being cut from the prior team.

 

Don't bet on a single compensatory pick for us in 2016.

[BroadwayJets]

This season we have none, but next year we should have a few.

 

 

Edit: also, the salaries they receive after FA matters a lot. Harris may be the only one getting above 3 mil. Which would probably mean like 4/5. Maybe Landry will sign somewhere for a one year, same with Vick. I'd say those are our only hopes at 3 picks next season. Kyle Wilson is dogsh*t

[Ghost]

David Harris is the only guy that could net us a decent pick (4th maybe). The rest is just garbage, they're not gonna get much more than the vet minimum. We'll be lucky to get a 7th for any of those.

We're going to sign so many players that even if Harris does get paid top dollar, our acquisituations will cancel Harris' contract. I wish we had those extra comp picks this year and not last year. ****ing Idzik.

[DaBallhawk]

We're going to sign so many players that even if Harris does get paid top dollar, our acquisituations will cancel Harris' contract. I wish we had those extra comp picks this year and not last year. ****ing Idzik.

 

That's why I don't think it's worth letting him walk. Unless Macc can figure out a way to bring in a replacement that wouldn't cancel out the Harris compensation I think he should be re-signed.

[Ghost]

That's why I don't think it's worth letting him walk. Unless Macc can figure out a way to bring in a replacement that wouldn't cancel out the Harris compensation I think he should be re-signed.

I love Harris, but I feel like we need to get younger and faster. I won't mind keeping him for cheap as long as he only plays on 1st and 2nd downs.

[DaBallhawk]

I love Harris, but I feel like we need to get younger and faster. I won't mind keeping him for cheap as long as he only plays on 1st and 2nd downs.

 

If there was a 24 year old David Harris around I'd agree but I don't see anybody that would fit the bill.

[aec4]

In regards to creating a better percentage of getting Compensation Draft Picks (CDP)

The more of your expired-contract unrestricted FAs sign elsewhere in relation to you (the team) signing FAs you are more likely to get a comp pick according to that formula. Idzik purposely did this in the off-season of 2013 and it netted us some comp picks for the 2014 draft.

Now, in the Chris Johnson situation, the Jets declined to pick up the option on his contract resulting in him now being an Unrestricted FA. If he signs with another team, does that factor into the formula of netting us a possible compensation pick?

From what I have observed so far from Ron Swanson (McCags) he values picks and if Bowles is the type of HC that can develop talent, I can see us spending more on a select few FAs and letting our own players walk - K.Wilson, D.Landry, M.Vick, W.Colon, d.Harris- so we always net-out with losing more players than we sign through free agency.

Thoughts?

PS- I think it's BULL$HIT that the Beagle won BIS @ Westminster. Swagger the OE Sheepdog should have won it!!!!

Chris johnsons contract didn't expire, it was terminated, so it won't be considered.

[#27TheDominator]

I would imagine that a smart GM would alternate years, getting comp picks one year and structuring to sign plenty the next.  This would seem to be a non-comp pick year to me.

 

I hate comp picks in any sport. Especially since the cap or luxury tax is all subsidized by fellow franchises anyway.

I work in the bar/restaurant business. If my bar does well one month should I have to pay bar down the road a welfare tax because they can't run a successful business? No. Neither should any sports franchise.

And yes, I get the difference between franchises and sole proprietorships.

Truthfully, if you want American sport teams , of which there are way too many in each league, to try and actually win each year, relegation system is the easiest fit. IMHO of course.

 

I think the purpose is that because of the salary cap, if a team does well it cannot afford to keep its own players.  They will (rightfully) be entitled to go get paid elsewhere.  In baseball they have the luxury tax, in basketball you have things like the Larry Bird and Derrick Rose rules.  Football has comp picks.

[Jet9]

I would imagine that a smart GM would alternate years, getting comp picks one year and structuring to sign plenty the next. This would seem to be a non-comp pick year to me.

I think the purpose is that because of the salary cap, if a team does well it cannot afford to keep its own players. They will (rightfully) be entitled to go get paid elsewhere. In baseball they have the luxury tax, in basketball you have things like the Larry Bird and Derrick Rose rules. Football has comp picks.

Right. All this stems from salary caps and revenue sharing which is just another word for welfare....for billionaires BTW.

[patman]

Right. All this stems from salary caps and revenue sharing which is just another word for welfare....for billionaires BTW.

Please explain how this is welfare, by that I mean where somebody derives income while not performing work.  The nfl is set up the best of any sport. Regardless of the home market small market teams such as Green Bay have a legitimate chance of competing and teams like the pats can not keep a team together for 10 years,,

[PatsFanTX]

Please explain how this is welfare, by that I mean where somebody derives income while not performing work. The nfl is set up the best of any sport. Regardless of the home market small market teams such as Green Bay have a legitimate chance of competing and teams like the pats can not keep a team together for 10 years,,

Great point, truly amazing how the Pats dynasty has continued for 15 years with free agency and the salary cap.

I guess some teams are run better than others.

[Jet9]

Please explain how this is welfare, by that I mean where somebody derives income while not performing work. The nfl is set up the best of any sport. Regardless of the home market small market teams such as Green Bay have a legitimate chance of competing and teams like the pats can not keep a team together for 10 years,,

GB is a small market team?

They're as popular as the Steelers and Cowboys in the US. In fact they're value is more than the steelers and dolphins.

Oh right, they play in a small town. I guess that makes the Jets, Giants and 49ers small market.

As for the welfare argument, I give you the Pittsburgh Pirates and NY Islanders. Google it and get back to me.

And regarding the Pats, I don't think success should be punished.

[patman]

GB is a small market team?

They're as popular as the Steelers and Cowboys in the US. In fact they're value is more than the steelers and dolphins.

Oh right, they play in a small town. I guess that makes the Jets, Giants and 49ers small market.

As for the welfare argument, I give you the Pittsburgh Pirates and NY Islanders. Google it and get back to me.

And regarding the Pats, I don't think success should be punished.

I don't know much about baseball at all, the last time I watched a whole game was Clemens vs Pedro the year Clemens went to Toronto. I know even less about hockey. I know it is played on ice.  and I noted the NFL model is the apex, why are you bringing up other leagues. 

 

 

Why do you consider SF metro are a small market? it is twice the size of the boston market.  And by the jets, it is not the town that the stadium is located in but the market that the stadium serves.  I guess the pats play in a market of 15,000.

[#27TheDominator]

Please explain how this is welfare, by that I mean where somebody derives income while not performing work.  The nfl is set up the best of any sport. Regardless of the home market small market teams such as Green Bay have a legitimate chance of competing and teams like the pats can not keep a team together for 10 years,,

 

If by set up the best you mean the best able to screw the players, you're right.

[Jet9]

I don't know much about baseball at all, the last time I watched a whole game was Clemens vs Pedro the year Clemens went to Toronto. I know even less about hockey. I know it is played on ice.  and I noted the NFL model is the apex, why are you bringing up other leagues. 

 

 

Why do you consider SF metro are a small market? it is twice the size of the boston market.  And by the jets, it is not the town that the stadium is located in but the market that the stadium serves.  I guess the pats play in a market of 15,000.

 

Um because the conversation has become about salary caps in sports? Anyway, there's no salary floor in baseball. So the Pirates basically pocketed money for 20 years. The NY Islanders were using buyouts of other players to get to the salary floor. Their owner created Computer Associates, he can swing it. 

 

 

I was making a joke about the populations of East Rutherford and Santa Clara (similar pop. to Green Bay).  Packers are #13 in value and #3 most popular in the country.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/14/poll-finds-broncos-surpass-cowboys-as-nfls-most-popular-team/

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/

 

When you have a national sport like what the NFL is now there's really no such thing as small market. Maybe you could make the case for J'Ville and Tennesee. Some of these teams are in very bad sports towns. So you know what? Move  IMO if you can't compete in sports you either move or fold.  McDonalds would do the same thing with their franchises. But instead we use tax money to fund stadiums that NEVER EVER live up to the over-inflated guesstimates of politicians. Or, successful teams foot the bill. 

[Jet9]

If by set up the best you mean the best able to screw the players, you're right.

 

 

Agreed. The NFL players are the worst taken care of by their bosses than any other sport. 

[patman]

Um because the conversation has become about salary caps in sports? Anyway, there's no salary floor in baseball. So the Pirates basically pocketed money for 20 years. The NY Islanders were using buyouts of other players to get to the salary floor. Their owner created Computer Associates, he can swing it. 

 

 

I was making a joke about the populations of East Rutherford and Santa Clara (similar pop. to Green Bay).  Packers are #13 in value and #3 most popular in the country.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/14/poll-finds-broncos-surpass-cowboys-as-nfls-most-popular-team/

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/

 

When you have a national sport like what the NFL is now there's really no such thing as small market. Maybe you could make the case for J'Ville and Tennesee. Some of these teams are in very bad sports towns. So you know what? Move  IMO if you can't compete in sports you either move or fold.  McDonalds would do the same thing with their franchises. But instead we use tax money to fund stadiums that NEVER EVER live up to the over-inflated guesstimates of politicians. Or, successful teams foot the bill. 

No it was not, you interjected other sports into the conversation after I said the NFL was the best model for parity. Until the rules were changed recently in Baseball that was no reason for the Pitt to try to spend money to compete and develop players only to lose them to 1/2 dozen teams that had revenue streams 10x theirs just because of the market they were located in.  The big money teams made it impossible for small market teams to compete. The fans in those cities were punished just for living in a less affluent community. 

 

And no, the overall health of the league benefits from each team having and equal footing  or at least in the realm of say 90%.  

[patman]

Agreed. The NFL players are the worst taken care of by their bosses than any other sport. 

Why, they get 54% of all the revenues. If your talking about non guaranteed contracts, do you want to pay for some high priced non performing player sitting on the bench, I don't. The teams pay their money to players who earn it.  Why should a very good player have to suffer because 10% of the cap is taken up by the slug that is backing him up?

 

Look at the Knicks this year all that money wasted. The union rank and file voted on the contract.

[Jet9]

Why, they get 54% of all the revenues. If your talking about non guaranteed contracts, do you want to pay for some high priced non performing player sitting on the bench, I don't. The teams pay their money to players who earn it.  Why should a very good player have to suffer because 10% of the cap is taken up by the slug that is backing him up?

 

Look at the Knicks this year all that money wasted. The union rank and file voted on the contract.

 

No it was not, you interjected other sports into the conversation after I said the NFL was the best model for parity. Until the rules were changed recently in Baseball that was no reason for the Pitt to try to spend money to compete and develop players only to lose them to 1/2 dozen teams that had revenue streams 10x theirs just because of the market they were located in.  The big money teams made it impossible for small market teams to compete. The fans in those cities were punished just for living in a less affluent community. 

 

And no, the overall health of the league benefits from each team having and equal footing  or at least in the realm of say 90%.  

 

What rules were changed recently in baseball? The Yankees and Sox and Dodgers can still spend whatever they want. Luxury tax has been around since '03. 

 

Anyway, agree to disagree.

[patman]

I believe the revenue sharing method was changed during the last CBA.  

[j4jets]

In regards to creating a better percentage of getting Compensation Draft Picks (CDP)

The more of your expired-contract unrestricted FAs sign elsewhere in relation to you (the team) signing FAs you are more likely to get a comp pick according to that formula. Idzik purposely did this in the off-season of 2013 and it netted us some comp picks for the 2014 draft.

Now, in the Chris Johnson situation, the Jets declined to pick up the option on his contract resulting in him now being an Unrestricted FA. If he signs with another team, does that factor into the formula of netting us a possible compensation pick?

From what I have observed so far from Ron Swanson (McCags) he values picks and if Bowles is the type of HC that can develop talent, I can see us spending more on a select few FAs and letting our own players walk - K.Wilson, D.Landry, M.Vick, W.Colon, d.Harris- so we always net-out with losing more players than we sign through free agency.

Thoughts?

PS- I think it's BULL$HIT that the Beagle won BIS @ Westminster. Swagger the OE Sheepdog should have won it!!!!

 

All our FAs will get us nothing more than a 6 round pick except David Harris. Harris might net us a 5th or maybe a 4th if he gets highly overpaid. Those picks are nice, but we have lots of holes of our own and need to pick several FAs to replace the ones we lose, plus more. Much rather trade 4-5 spots down in the 2nd round to pick up n extra pick.

[Jet9]

Why, they get 54% of all the revenues. If your talking about non guaranteed contracts, do you want to pay for some high priced non performing player sitting on the bench, I don't. The teams pay their money to players who earn it.  Why should a very good player have to suffer because 10% of the cap is taken up by the slug that is backing him up?

 

Look at the Knicks this year all that money wasted. The union rank and file voted on the contract.

 

 

"Very good players" don't suffer. They go get paid in free agency. 

 

Guaranteed contracts suck, agreed. 

 

NFL doesn't take care of it's players physically at all. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. "Concussion Protocol" is a joke. If there is EVER evidence that a guy got woozy from a hit he shouldn't be allowed on the field that same day, no way. 

 

And don't even get me started on the retired players. 

[patman]

"Very good players" don't suffer. They go get paid in free agency. 

 

Guaranteed contracts suck, agreed. 

 

NFL doesn't take care of it's players physically at all. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. "Concussion Protocol" is a joke. If there is EVER evidence that a guy got woozy from a hit he shouldn't be allowed on the field that same day, no way. 

 

And don't even get me started on the retired players. 

 

Agreed on the retired players, it is terrible how both the union and the teams neglect the guys that played in the 60s and 70s