PDA

View Full Version : How do RFAs and compensation work?



UnderArmour
03-04-2010, 08:41 AM
A player is tendered at such and such level to start the process off. Then other teams sign the player to an offer sheet if they want. So if the Saints hypothetically offered Marshall a $53 million dollar deal and the Seahawks hypothetically offered Marshall a $34 million dollar deal, which team would grab him? The Seahawks who have higher compensation or the Saints who signed him to a bigger contract?

Basically: Who ends up with the player? The team with the better compensation (the team selects which team) or the team with the better contact (the player selects the team)? I'm assuming RFAs work like trading Franchise players.

Nomad
03-04-2010, 08:47 AM
Good question because I don't know either!! I would like to see him go to the Seahawks and we get the 14th pick rather than the 32nd

Lonestar
03-04-2010, 06:11 PM
Rfa means they can sign with whomever they can work the best deal for them.
For example some of the teams closer to home can probably offer him less than a SEA. Most players would rather play in NOL than SEA anyway.

Who ever dose sigb him has to have their own first choice available. They can NOT use someone elses #1. Therefor he can't go to CHI or IIRC TPA as they traded it away it might have been JAX also. One of the Florida team IIRC.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

Denver Native (Carol)
03-04-2010, 07:05 PM
I would imagine a player could sign with any team they want, as long as that team has the compensation required. Also, the original team can match the offer.

tsiguy96
03-04-2010, 07:20 PM
I would imagine a player could sign with any team they want, as long as that team has the compensation required. Also, the original team can match the offer.

yep. player picks the team, we choose if we are gonna match the offer. what i dont know is if its the players OPTION to take our matched offer, or if he can go on this one year RFA tender tag and be whatever he will be next year.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-04-2010, 07:46 PM
yep. player picks the team, we choose if we are gonna match the offer. what i dont know is if its the players OPTION to take our matched offer, or if he can go on this one year RFA tender tag and be whatever he will be next year.

Starting Friday, clubs across the league have the option of signing restricted free agents to offer sheets. If one of the five aforementioned players signs an offer sheet, the Broncos would have the "right of first refusal," meaning that Denver has a seven-day period to match the offer and retain the player, or choose not to match.

http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=9894

Buff
03-04-2010, 07:57 PM
A player is tendered at such and such level to start the process off. Then other teams sign the player to an offer sheet if they want. So if the Saints hypothetically offered Marshall a $53 million dollar deal and the Seahawks hypothetically offered Marshall a $34 million dollar deal, which team would grab him? The Seahawks who have higher compensation or the Saints who signed him to a bigger contract?

Basically: Who ends up with the player? The team with the better compensation (the team selects which team) or the team with the better contact (the player selects the team)? I'm assuming RFAs work like trading Franchise players.

Carol pretty much covered it: all the RFA tender does is ensure our right to match any contract offer or be compensated if he leaves. Other than that it's pretty much free agency as usual. Marshall is free to talk to whichever team he chooses and sign a deal with whoever he wants, but we have the option to match it or let him walk and take the draft pick. So in your hypothetical, obviously he's going to take the deal that's worth $19 million more. The RFA really has no bearing on who he signs with, it's still up to him, it just puts limits on his freedom.

tsiguy96
03-04-2010, 08:03 PM
Carol pretty much covered it: all the RFA tender does is ensure our right to match any contract offer or be compensated if he leaves. Other than that it's pretty much free agency as usual. Marshall is free to talk to whichever team he chooses and sign a deal with whoever he wants, but we have the option to match it or let him walk and take the draft pick. So in your hypothetical, obviously he's going to take the deal that's worth $19 million more. The RFA really has no bearing on who he signs with, it's still up to him, it just puts limits on his freedom.

the question i have though, if we choose to match the offer, doesnt he have to agree to that too? and if he does not agree, hes still on the one year tender?

UnderArmour
03-04-2010, 08:19 PM
the question i have though, if we choose to match the offer, doesnt he have to agree to that too? and if he does not agree, hes still on the one year tender?

Nah, he'd be given an identical contract, hence the poison pill tactic of guaranteeing salaries based on factors affecting only the matching team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill#Sports

While it can often refer to a salary structure or clause that would affect all teams equally, it has taken on a new specific meaning of a clause that has unbalanced impact. For example, in March 2006, the Minnesota Vikings offered Steve Hutchinson, an offensive guard with the Seattle Seahawks, a seven-year, $49 million contract of which $16 million was guaranteed. This contract offer had two poison pills in it. One was the salary structure, which would require the team to pay $13 million in the first year of the contract. That salary structure would apply to both teams equally, as the Seahawks would also have to pay $13 million in the first contract year, were they to match the offer. The second was a clause that required Hutchinson to be the highest paid player on the offensive line, or else the entire contract would be guaranteed. Since the Seahawks had another offensive lineman, Walter Jones, with a higher salary and the Vikings did not, this clause would have required the Seahawks to guarantee $49 million, and it effectively eliminated the Seahawks' opportunity to match the contract offer.

In the wake of this contract offer, similar clauses have appeared in other contract offers, including a contract offered to Vikings wide receiver Nate Burleson by the Seahawks, which, with irony fully intended, was structured as a seven year, $49 million deal. The contract given to Burleson had two vengeful poison pill clauses in response to the contract offered to Hutchinson. Firstly, it stipulated that if Burleson were to play five or more games in the state of Minnesota during any single season over the life of the contract, the entire $49 million would become guaranteed. Secondly, if Burleson were to earn more per year on average than all of his team's running backs combined, the $49 million would be guaranteed. Since the Vikings play half of their games at home in Minnesota, and their running backs combined earned less per year than the $7 million in Burleson's contract, Minnesota was unable to match it.

tsiguy96
03-04-2010, 08:22 PM
Nah, he'd be given an identical contract, hence the poison pill tactic of guaranteeing salaries based on factors affecting only the matching team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill#Sports

yes but waht if the player refuses that contract?

Buff
03-04-2010, 09:44 PM
the question i have though, if we choose to match the offer, doesnt he have to agree to that too? and if he does not agree, hes still on the one year tender?

Well, if he signs with another team and we match it, then that means we just signed him to a contract extension... So, yeah, he has no choice at that point.

But if no other teams sign him, he doesn't have to sign his tender offer until right before the regular season... Meaning he can skip all of the off season stuff with no fines or anything.

tsiguy96
03-04-2010, 09:47 PM
Well, if he signs with another team and we match it, then that means we just signed him to a contract extension... So, yeah, he has no choice at that point.

But if no other teams sign him, he doesn't have to sign his tender offer until right before the regular season... Meaning he can skip all of the off season stuff with no fines or anything.

i dont think it does mean we signed him to a contract extension to this team against his will. i think he can sign their tender, we have the option to match it, if we match it, what i want to know if the player then has the right to refuse to sign it with this team.

Buff
03-04-2010, 10:13 PM
i dont think it does mean we signed him to a contract extension to this team against his will. i think he can sign their tender, we have the option to match it, if we match it, what i want to know if the player then has the right to refuse to sign it with this team.

The answer is no. He knows that by signing the other offer his team has the right to sign him to the identical deal without any opportunity to reject it. That's why the famous Steve Hutchinson poison pill came into play, by getting clever with the language his agent made it so there was no way Seattle could afford to match the contract.

UA posted the details:


This contract offer had two poison pills in it. One was the salary structure, which would require the team to pay $13 million in the first year of the contract. That salary structure would apply to both teams equally, as the Seahawks would also have to pay $13 million in the first contract year, were they to match the offer. The second was a clause that required Hutchinson to be the highest paid player on the offensive line, or else the entire contract would be guaranteed. Since the Seahawks had another offensive lineman, Walter Jones, with a higher salary and the Vikings did not, this clause would have required the Seahawks to guarantee $49 million, and it effectively eliminated the Seahawks' opportunity to match the contract offer.

Buff
03-05-2010, 11:47 AM
Here is a question I have:

If someone signs one of our RFAs prior to the draft, do we get compensated with a draft pick in 2010 or 2011?

The other question is, when is the deadline to sign RFAs? Because if the deadline is after the draft, then I'd see no reason why any team would sign a RFA until after they've already used their picks this year... I'm inclined to think that either all compensation will be via 2011 picks, or that the deadline is before the draft and all compensation is via 2010 picks.

Buff
03-05-2010, 02:08 PM
Frank Schwab answered my question. The deadline to sign a RFA is April 15th and the draft pick compensation comes in the 2010 draft.