Compensatory picks are out

[BrianS]

5 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

If you have a lot of other teams valuing your outgoing players that come available, it absolutely means that your team both drafted well, and coached them up....while continuing to draft well and replace those outgoing (overpriced) free agents.

The top 4 since the 1994 season when the comp picks were started are the Ravens, Cowboys, Packers, and Pats.

3 of the 4 are consistent winners in the NFL, the other was at one point, but has come back to Earth in the last 10 years...and before we start laughing at the Boys being there....they have been to the playoffs exactly 1 less time than us in the last decade.

See, I think you're kind of making my point.

Being good at your job as a GM doesn't correlate to gaining compensatory picks.  You can be excellent at your job and get none.  You can be terrible at your job and get not.  Likewise you can be excellent and gain them, or be horrible and gain them.  There are just too many factors to make that correlation stick.

[thefuzz]

1 minute ago, jfra78 said:

I think it would figure into next years comp anyway.  With him being cut, im not sure we would get a comp

It will, I meant to add that, and got sidetracked.

Not sure we will get many comp's next year if I had to guess.

[thefuzz]

Just now, BrianS said:

See, I think you're kind of making my point.

Being good at your job as a GM doesn't correlate to gaining compensatory picks.  You can be excellent at your job and get none.  You can be terrible at your job and get not.  Likewise you can be excellent and gain them, or be horrible and gain them.  There are just too many factors to make that correlation stick.

No, I'm not, you aren't following me, or how the comp picks work.

In essence, the comp picks come from you losing high end players to other teams, while limiting how many free agent players you bring into your building.  It means that you are drafting well, for a consistent amount of time...you know, how the Ravens and Packers have been doing forever?

Draft well, don't bring in many free agents, and you will get comp picks.

[stbugs]

46 minutes ago, catnip said:

Nothing for Olsen ?

First, he was released and second it would be 2021 anyway. This is for last years FAs. 

[stbugs]

32 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

No, I'm not, you aren't following me, or how the comp picks work.

In essence, the comp picks come from you losing high end players to other teams, while limiting how many free agent players you bring into your building.  It means that you are drafting well, for a consistent amount of time...you know, how the Ravens and Packers have been doing forever?

Draft well, don't bring in many free agents, and you will get comp picks.

You are exactly right. If you draft well consistently you will end up with more players hitting 2nd contracts than you can afford. It also can mean you spot FAs who play better than expected on one year deals and they get a new bigger deal. Sure there are exceptions but if you are a bad drafter you likely won’t have a net loss of FAs because you need to sign more to make up for it and you won’t have more than you can afford to resign. If you are a good drafter then you won’t need as many FAs and you will have guys who get big 2nd contracts that you can replace via the draft.

[Ricky Spanish]

1 hour ago, BrianS said:

Completely disagree.  The two have zero correlation.

Assume you draft really well - good players, players like your organization and want to stay.  Take team friendly deals to do so.  You get zero comps . . . and that's not doing your job?

Assume you draft really poorly - players you want gone.  You're forced to sign FA's off the market to cover for it.  You get zero comps.

Comp picks have zero correlation to doing your job or not doing your job as a GM.

Team friendly deals do not happen. 

Also if you're drafting so well, you won't be able to afford to keep all of the good players as they would cost too much, so they will hit free agency and you would then get a Comp pick. If you are always re-signing your talent without churning the roster, you're not being smart with the salary cap and developing new talent. 

You can also acquire comps by trading for guys who's contracts are about to expire after the upcoming season. The Pats and Eagles have been doing it for a few years now and they've been acquiring a ton of picks in the process while renting the services of a player who helps the team for a year before they make their money. Win-win. for everyone. 

That's honestly why I don't absolutely hate the Okung trade. If he balls out hard, we can either re-sign him or get a decent comp pick once he walks.

[thefuzz]

5 minutes ago, stbugs said:

You are exactly right. If you draft well consistently you will end up with more players hitting 2nd contracts than you can afford. It also can mean you spot FAs who play better than expected on one year deals and they get a new bigger deal. Sure there are exceptions but if you are a bad drafter you likely won’t have a net loss of FAs because you need to sign more to make up for it and you won’t have more than you can afford to resign. If you are a good drafter then you won’t need as many FAs and you will have guys who get big 2nd contracts that you can replace via the draft.

Yup.

It's why it's really smart to trade for players rather than pick them up as FA's if you are in need, and the money lines up.

Think the Pats with Michael Bennett, and the Giants with Leonard Williams.

Neither team is going to get dinged for bringing them in on the comp formula, and the Giants may actually get that 3rd back, or possibly a 4th depending on LW's next contract, Pats essentially got a cheap pass rusher by swapping a 5th for a 7th.

 

 

[Wes21]

56 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Yup.

It's why it's really smart to trade for players rather than pick them up as FA's if you are in need, and the money lines up.

Think the Pats with Michael Bennett, and the Giants with Leonard Williams.

Neither team is going to get dinged for bringing them in on the comp formula, and the Giants may actually get that 3rd back, or possibly a 4th depending on LW's next contract, Pats essentially got a cheap pass rusher by swapping a 5th for a 7th.

 

 

This was part of the logic the Eagles used when they traded a 3rd rounder to rent Golden Tate for half a season.  They paid a 3rd but were going to get the benefit of his next deal in terms of comp picks.

[MasterAwesome]

2 hours ago, thefuzz said:

No, I'm not, you aren't following me, or how the comp picks work.

In essence, the comp picks come from you losing high end players to other teams, while limiting how many free agent players you bring into your building.  It means that you are drafting well, for a consistent amount of time...you know, how the Ravens and Packers have been doing forever?

Draft well, don't bring in many free agents, and you will get comp picks.

You know what else dictates how many high-end players you let go and limits how many free agent players you bring in? Cap space...so theoretically a GM who is terrible at managing the cap could also find themselves with a surplus of compensatory picks due to not being able to re-sign all their highly coveted players because of mishandling other contracts. Which plays into the other guy’s point about there not being a direct correlation between compensatory picks and the overall ability of your GM. The GM in that scenario may very well be a solid drafter, but not be able to extend their players beyond their rookie contracts due to poor cap management.

[45catfan]

7 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Panthers get nada.

Not sure if anybody was expecting anything anyway, but there ya go...

Some of us have figured this for a while.  We signed more pricey FAs than our UFAs got paid last off season. As a general rule of thumb, that nets you no comp picks.  

This is the very reason why we need to stay away from the FA market outside of tier-3 guys or tier-2 guys much later once they drop their asking price as they linger in FA.  No tier-1 guys this off season....that kills comp picks, hence the no comp picks this year.

[Pazhoosier89]

4 hours ago, thefuzz said:

It will, I meant to add that, and got sidetracked.

Not sure we will get many comp's next year if I had to guess.

Depends on if we sign any ufa's ourselves but we do have a lot of free agents that will get signed elsewhere. Bradberry will probably be the highest value as far as a pick.

[bababoey]

7 hours ago, catnip said:

Nothing for Olsen ?

He was cut.  He won't count

[thefuzz]

16 hours ago, MasterAwesome said:

You know what else dictates how many high-end players you let go and limits how many free agent players you bring in? Cap space...so theoretically a GM who is terrible at managing the cap could also find themselves with a surplus of compensatory picks due to not being able to re-sign all their highly coveted players because of mishandling other contracts. Which plays into the other guy’s point about there not being a direct correlation between compensatory picks and the overall ability of your GM. The GM in that scenario may very well be a solid drafter, but not be able to extend their players beyond their rookie contracts due to poor cap management.

If you are a bad cap guy, you are a bad GM, no matter how good you draft.

 

[thefuzz]

15 hours ago, Pazhoosier89 said:

Depends on if we sign any ufa's ourselves but we do have a lot of free agents that will get signed elsewhere. Bradberry will probably be the highest value as far as a pick.

James should net us a 3rd, that is, if Marty doesn't go haywire and bring in a bunch of FA's again like last year, only to finish drafting in the top 10.