Trading compensatory picks

[Superman]

Per Schefter, the NFL is expected to allow trading of compensatory picks starting with the 2016 draft. I never understood why they didn't allow them to be traded, personally, so I'm glad to see this.

 

And I bet the majority of people here don't care about this at all.

 

For first time this spring, NFL expected to allow teams to begin trading compensatory draft picks, per NFL sources. Should be more trades.

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter)

November 19, 2015

[Nobody]

Yeah, should have been a thing before

[Dustin]

Thos just increases the incentive to allow players to hit FA.

[12isthenew18]

I actually don't like it. Unless it helps us this time

[amfootball]

This is great news!  Thanks for posting.

[Patagonia Chris]

Will be interesting to see if teams are more aggressive with trading picks for veteran players now. Would you rather have the 200th pick in the draft or an established veteran for a couple of seasons like a Brandon Marshall or Vernon Davis?

[OffensivelyPC]

To be honest, I wouldn't want them to be traded, or if they were, they were devalued in some way.  For instance, if you trade a 3rd compensatory, any recipient gets a 4th to be added at the end of that compensation round.  If the point of giving compensation for basically havign a net loss in player fire power in the course of one year, that team should use it.  I think the giving of compensatory picks is already an arbitrary thing and I've never really liked them at all.  I like the idea even less that now tehy can be traded.  Maybe I would like them more if the Colts ever got anything above a 7th round comp pick.  But I digress...

 

Bottom line is, if you're just going to randomly compensate a team, for what they have lost, they should be the only ones to use it.  If it can go somewhere else, then just eliminate compensatory picks altogether.

[Superman]

Thos just increases the incentive to allow players to hit FA.

 

Maybe. It doesn't mean anyone gets more picks, but if you can trade a 3rd round comp pick for a vet before the draft, then the value of those comp picks might be higher to certain teams. But you're still not getting those picks until the following season, and only under certain conditions. It's only if you have comp picks basically every year that you can start relying on the ability to trade them.

[Superman]

To be honest, I wouldn't want them to be traded, or if they were, they were devalued in some way.  For instance, if you trade a 3rd compensatory, any recipient gets a 4th to be added at the end of that compensation round.  If the point of giving compensation for basically havign a net loss in player fire power in the course of one year, that team should use it.  I think the giving of compensatory picks is already an arbitrary thing and I've never really liked them at all.  I like the idea even less that now tehy can be traded.  Maybe I would like them more if the Colts ever got anything above a 7th round comp pick.  But I digress...

 

Bottom line is, if you're just going to randomly compensate a team, for what they have lost, they should be the only ones to use it.  If it can go somewhere else, then just eliminate compensatory picks altogether.

 

It's not random at all. It's formulaic.

 

And the compensation is an asset to be used for player acquisition. The whole draft order is basic on the same premise -- the worst teams get the better assets in the form of higher draft position. Likewise, the teams that lose good players in free agency get additional assets in the form of compensatory picks. Same principle behind it.

 

Locking comp picks with no trade ability is what doesn't make sense. If I have an asset and can use it for player acquisition, then I've still benefited. If I flip that pick for a player or for better draft position, I still used it to offset what I lost. I'm just no longer forced to use it to draft a player when I'd rather use it to acquire a veteran or to move up in the draft.

 

Also, once the Colts start drafting better, they'll begin to have more comp picks. We simply haven't had any UFAs of any real value leave the team, and that's mostly because we went so long without drafting any high quality players. It's the same reason we had so much cap space. That should change moving forward.

[southwest1]

Will be interesting to see if teams are more aggressive with trading picks for veteran players now. Would you rather have the 200th pick in the draft or an established veteran for a couple of seasons like a Brandon Marshall or Vernon Davis?

Good point PR. If a team is just a missing piece away from dominating their division & going from an also ran to a serious contender, some GMs may find this new change appealing.

 

Just out of curiosity PR, what will be your avatar/profile picture next season since Pagano will be gone? Start mulling it over now. Be original too. Any fan can choose an image of our new coach. Just saying. 

 

Naturally, you can do whatever you like of course. That is your right of course. I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. 

[Patagonia Chris]

Good point PR. If a team is just a missing piece away from dominating their division & going from an also ran to a serious contender, some GMs may find this new change appealing.

 

Just out of curiosity PR, what will be your avatar/profile picture next season since Pagano will be gone? Start mulling it over now. Be original too. Any fan can choose an image of our new coach. Just saying. 

 

Good question. Last season I was "TRichWasASteal". I'm hoping that if I have to change my screen name for next season it's because our new GM gave Pagano an extension.

[southwest1]

Good question. Last season I was "TRichWasASteal". I'm hoping that if I have to change my screen name for next season it's because our new GM gave Pagano an extension.

You know what PR. I never even considered that Jimmy would do that. Release Grigs & retain Pags. But, you're absolutely right that is definitely a possibility too. 

 

Kudos to you sir for opening my eyes to something I never considered before. I just figured Chuck is automatically gone since he refused to sign an extension. 

[ColtRider]

It's not random at all. It's formulaic.

 

And the compensation is an asset to be used for player acquisition. The whole draft order is basic on the same premise -- the worst teams get the better assets in the form of higher draft position. Likewise, the teams that lose good players in free agency get additional assets in the form of compensatory picks. Same principle behind it.

 

Locking comp picks with no trade ability is what doesn't make sense. If I have an asset and can use it for player acquisition, then I've still benefited. If I flip that pick for a player or for better draft position, I still used it to offset what I lost. I'm just no longer forced to use it to draft a player when I'd rather use it to acquire a veteran or to move up in the draft.

 

Also, once the Colts start drafting better, they'll begin to have more comp picks. We simply haven't had any UFAs of any real value leave the team, and that's mostly because we went so long without drafting any high quality players. It's the same reason we had so much cap space. That should change moving forward.

You're right. "Formulaic!" (love that word) If the NFL is trying to counter-balance teams (more competitive & even strength) with this change, what wouldn't locking comp picks with no trade ability be negative? Did they consider this? I'm not up to speed, so if you can enlighten more, much appreciated.

[ColtRider]

You know what PR. I never even considered that Jimmy would do that. Release Grigs & retain Pags. But, you're absolutely right that is definitely a possibility too. 

 

Kudos to you sir for opening my eyes to something I never considered before. I just figured Chuck is automatically gone since he refused to sign an extension.

Either that, or Chuck was trying to improve on his worth. Extending to next year and then signing a multi- year deal.

... How the heck are you, SW1?

[NewColtsFan]

Good question. Last season I was "TRichWasASteal". I'm hoping that if I have to change my screen name for next season it's because our new GM gave Pagano an extension.

 

I confess I'm curious....

 

How much of Pagano's contract situation is Irsay,  and how much of it is Grigson?

 

I think it's ultimately Irsay's call.     But I also suspect Grigson's finger prints are all over this as well......

 

Just thinking out loud........

[OffensivelyPC]

It's not random at all. It's formulaic.

 

And the compensation is an asset to be used for player acquisition. The whole draft order is basic on the same premise -- the worst teams get the better assets in the form of higher draft position. Likewise, the teams that lose good players in free agency get additional assets in the form of compensatory picks. Same principle behind it.

 

Locking comp picks with no trade ability is what doesn't make sense. If I have an asset and can use it for player acquisition, then I've still benefited. If I flip that pick for a player or for better draft position, I still used it to offset what I lost. I'm just no longer forced to use it to draft a player when I'd rather use it to acquire a veteran or to move up in the draft.

The fact that they even have a formula to give extra draft picks - the concept itself - is what's arbitrary.  I understand the process in which they dole them out is formulaic.  But teams who get extra compensation for losing players - whether it s through poor performance, bad deals, economically beneficial to the team to move on without said player - those teams get them because they made a business decisions they believed to be in their best interest.  No one drops a player hoping to get a compensatory pick.  Other than the fact that it was agreed to between the NFL owners, what is the purpose of compensating teams for doing something it thinks is in its best interest?  To me, having comp picks at all is what doesn't make sense.   

 

I don't disagree that you shouldn't be able to trade compensatory picks in principle.  Make the most out of what you have.  I'm not saying it doesn't make sense.  But the compensatory picks are basically gifts given to certain teams, when all 32 teams are trying to do the same thing - make their team better.  When you get something over and above someone else, even though you're all basically operating under the same set of rules, I just personally don't like that team using it for anything other than the way it was intended to be used.  But that's the crabby person talking.  I don't hate the idea of trading comp picks as much as I just don't like the idea of having a compensatory pick system altogether.

[Superman]

The fact that they even have a formula to give extra draft picks - the concept itself - is what's arbitrary.  I understand the process in which they dole them out is formulaic.  But teams who get extra compensation for losing players - whether it s through poor performance, bad deals, economically beneficial to the team to move on without said player - those teams get them because they made a business decisions they believed to be in their best interest.  No one drops a player hoping to get a compensatory pick.  Other than the fact that it was agreed to between the NFL owners, what is the purpose of compensating teams for doing something it thinks is in its best interest?  To me, having comp picks at all is what doesn't make sense.   

 

I don't disagree that you shouldn't be able to trade compensatory picks in principle.  Make the most out of what you have.  I'm not saying it doesn't make sense.  But the compensatory picks are basically gifts given to certain teams, when all 32 teams are trying to do the same thing - make their team better.  When you get something over and above someone else, even though you're all basically operating under the same set of rules, I just personally don't like that team using it for anything other than the way it was intended to be used.  But that's the crabby person talking.  I don't hate the idea of trading comp picks as much as I just don't like the idea of having a compensatory pick system altogether.

 

Yeah I assumed the issue was more with the compensatory system itself than with this change. So if we're going to talk about it...

 

The purpose of compensatory picks is to allow teams to recoup something when they lose players to free agency. Sometimes those decisions are made in what you might call the team's best interests, but more likely, they got outbid for a player they really wanted to keep. It happens every year. The Lions wanted to keep Suh, and offered him big money to do so. And so on. So it's not just teams saying 'we think we're better without that guy.' It's more like 'we want you to stay, but we can only afford so much.' 

 

The cap is supposed to be an equalizer in certain respects, but even with the same cap, teams have different cash considerations. One team might have had to throw some big bonuses around the previous year, maybe even some staggered bonuses from earlier contracts, and now needs to heal from that cash spend and can't justify doing another $20m bonus for a player that they want. They might offer a more balanced structure, but another team offers to give him that big check right now. Team A might be at a different level of roster development than Team B, and therefore have more cap space to throw around for a few years. Even with a so-called hard cap, things aren't equal from team to team.

 

Thus, compensatory picks. Not that this makes you fall in love with the concept of comp picks, but there's a clear reason for them. And it's definitely not perfect; the idea of getting a late 90's pick for losing a player like Suh isn't exactly an equalizing. But it helps.

 

At the end of the day, it's still up to teams to draft well, first to have players worthy of being signed by other teams, and second to make good use of the comp picks they get.

[CanuckColt]

Oh no!  This just gives Grigson more chances to trade draft picks away for more over-the-hill duds.

[Superman]

Oh no!  This just gives Grigson more chances to trade draft picks away for more over-the-hill duds.

 

[OffensivelyPC]

Yeah I assumed the issue was more with the compensatory system itself than with this change. So if we're going to talk about it...

 

The purpose of compensatory picks is to allow teams to recoup something when they lose players to free agency. Sometimes those decisions are made in what you might call the team's best interests, but more likely, they got outbid for a player they really wanted to keep. It happens every year. The Lions wanted to keep Suh, and offered him big money to do so. And so on. So it's not just teams saying 'we think we're better without that guy.' It's more like 'we want you to stay, but we can only afford so much.' 

 

The cap is supposed to be an equalizer in certain respects, but even with the same cap, teams have different cash considerations. One team might have had to throw some big bonuses around the previous year, maybe even some staggered bonuses from earlier contracts, and now needs to heal from that cash spend and can't justify doing another $20m bonus for a player that they want. They might offer a more balanced structure, but another team offers to give him that big check right now. Team A might be at a different level of roster development than Team B, and therefore have more cap space to throw around for a few years. Even with a so-called hard cap, things aren't equal from team to team.

 

Thus, compensatory picks. Not that this makes you fall in love with the concept of comp picks, but there's a clear reason for them. And it's definitely not perfect; the idea of getting a late 90's pick for losing a player like Suh isn't exactly an equalizing. But it helps.

 

At the end of the day, it's still up to teams to draft well, first to have players worthy of being signed by other teams, and second to make good use of the comp picks they get.

It makes a little more sense when you put it that way as to why they have the system in general, looking at it from that angle.   I don't believe things like comp picks will make or break a team's future.  In the end, the owners have agreed to it upon themselves, so I can accept that.  Probably wouldn't get my vote when they voted on it in the early 90s, but whatevs.  And like you said, it's on the teams to draft well, and typically, when we're at teh end of the 3rd round, we're not talking about too many guys who will be much in the NFL (unless of course you're the Patriots and decide to draft Tom Brady with your 6th round compensatory selection).  

[Superman]

It makes a little more sense when you put it that way as to why they have the system in general, looking at it from that angle.   I don't believe things like comp picks will make or break a team's future.  In the end, the owners have agreed to it upon themselves, so I can accept that.  Probably wouldn't get my vote when they voted on it in the early 90s, but whatevs.  And like you said, it's on the teams to draft well, and typically, when we're at teh end of the 3rd round, we're not talking about too many guys who will be much in the NFL (unless of course you're the Patriots and decide to draft Tom Brady with your 6th round compensatory selection).  

 

It's definitely not make or break. The likelihood of getting a rookie starter with a late 90s pick is something like 13%, and on average, he'll start 28 games (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/breaking-down-the-nfl-draft/). And that's for third round comp picks. Not even talking about the more common 6th and 7th round comp picks, where the likelihood of being a starter drops to around 3%. And you only get these comp picks a year after you lost the player for which you're being compensated.

 

This idea of finding stud players late in the draft is definitely romanticized. It can happen, but in general, you're getting depth and STs guys. You might get a capable spot starter. 

 

Still, I'd gladly take the extra picks, especially if I can trade them.

[HiltonTD]

To be honest, I wouldn't want them to be traded, or if they were, they were devalued in some way.  For instance, if you trade a 3rd compensatory, any recipient gets a 4th to be added at the end of that compensation round.  If the point of giving compensation for basically havign a net loss in player fire power in the course of one year, that team should use it.  I think the giving of compensatory picks is already an arbitrary thing and I've never really liked them at all.  I like the idea even less that now tehy can be traded.  Maybe I would like them more if the Colts ever got anything above a 7th round comp pick.  But I digress...

 

Bottom line is, if you're just going to randomly compensate a team, for what they have lost, they should be the only ones to use it.  If it can go somewhere else, then just eliminate compensatory picks altogether.

 

A draft pick is just an asset, just like a player is an asset.  If you lose a player, you're losing an asset of value and the compensatory pick does exactly as its name suggests, it compensates the team with a draft pick asset, IF certain parameters are met.

 

Like for example, if our Colts hadn't extended TY Hilton and lost him to free agency next year, the team that signs him would give him a pretty monster contract.  Based on his newly signed contract, they'll add compensatory value of a 3rd rounder..  but, if after losing TY Hilton a week later the Colts get a deal done with Alshon Jeffery for a monster deal, then they would take away the compensatory pick because you made up for that loss of value due to free agency using free agency.  If they signed a lesser receiver like Mohamed Sanu, they would just give you a compensatory pick to reflect the value gap between Hilton and Sanu, so like a 5th or 6th rounder.

 

There are certainly some gray areas with the formula, but drafting a player to coach up and development for 3-5 years only to lose him to the Free Agency system is a pretty gut wrenching loss of resources.  I have no problem with them compensating teams for developing an NFL quality player and then losing all that work to another team because of this free agency process that is forced on the league and players.

 

EDIT:

 

Here is a breakdown of the currently known rules from this website:  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2406361-nfl-compensatory-picks-2015-rules-formula-explanation-and-latest-projections

 

• All Free Agents Are Not Considered Equal: The NFL makes its determination on what round compensatory players correlate to via a combination of factors: "salary, playing time and postseason honors," per a 2012 press release. The exact formula, again, is not public; however, it's a pretty good bet that the more money a player makes, the higher his compensatory value. In essence: Look for the Detroit Lions to land squarely in the third round next year after losing Ndamukong Suh to the Miami Dolphins.

[21isSuperman]

This is one of the best gifs I've seen posted on these forums

[amfootball]

The Pats will get a high 3rd comp pick for losing Revis so I wonder if Bill will trade that to get more picks as the team is without it's number one and has traded away other picks this season to acquire players.

[Narcosys]

Thos just increases the incentive to allow players to hit FA.

I'd rather keep my good players than get some late round compensatory picks.

[Dustin]

I'd rather keep my good players than get some late round compensatory picks.

Others wouldn't.

[OffensivelyPC]

 

A draft pick is just an asset, just like a player is an asset.  If you lose a player, you're losing an asset of value and the compensatory pick does exactly as its name suggests, it compensates the team with a draft pick asset, IF certain parameters are met.

 

Like for example, if our Colts hadn't extended TY Hilton and lost him to free agency next year, the team that signs him would give him a pretty monster contract.  Based on his newly signed contract, they'll add compensatory value of a 3rd rounder..  but, if after losing TY Hilton a week later the Colts get a deal done with Alshon Jeffery for a monster deal, then they would take away the compensatory pick because you made up for that loss of value due to free agency using free agency.  If they signed a lesser receiver like Mohamed Sanu, they would just give you a compensatory pick to reflect the value gap between Hilton and Sanu, so like a 5th or 6th rounder.

 

There are certainly some gray areas with the formula, but drafting a player to coach up and development for 3-5 years only to lose him to the Free Agency system is a pretty gut wrenching loss of resources.  I have no problem with them compensating teams for developing an NFL quality player and then losing all that work to another team because of this free agency process that is forced on the league and players.

 

EDIT:

 

Here is a breakdown of the currently known rules from this website:  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2406361-nfl-compensatory-picks-2015-rules-formula-explanation-and-latest-projections

 

• All Free Agents Are Not Considered Equal: The NFL makes its determination on what round compensatory players correlate to via a combination of factors: "salary, playing time and postseason honors," per a 2012 press release. The exact formula, again, is not public; however, it's a pretty good bet that the more money a player makes, the higher his compensatory value. In essence: Look for the Detroit Lions to land squarely in the third round next year after losing Ndamukong Suh to the Miami Dolphins.

 

I understand how it works.  My issue is with having them at all (see my above conversation with Supes).

[OffensivelyPC]

The Pats will get a high 3rd comp pick for losing Revis so I wonder if Bill will trade that to get more picks as the team is without it's number one and has traded away other picks this season to acquire players.

here's usually only 3 compensatory picks in the 3rd round on average every year, and they are at the end of the round, so it sounds funny when you say that it will be a "high 3rd comp pick."  

[OffensivelyPC]

It's definitely not make or break. The likelihood of getting a rookie starter with a late 90s pick is something like 13%, and on average, he'll start 28 games (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/breaking-down-the-nfl-draft/). And that's for third round comp picks. Not even talking about the more common 6th and 7th round comp picks, where the likelihood of being a starter drops to around 3%. And you only get these comp picks a year after you lost the player for which you're being compensated.

 

This idea of finding stud players late in the draft is definitely romanticized. It can happen, but in general, you're getting depth and STs guys. You might get a capable spot starter. 

 

Still, I'd gladly take the extra picks, especially if I can trade them.

Not to get incredibly off topic, but that's one of the things I have really liked about Grigson, is his ability to do well late in the draft.  He's not just getting capable spot starters in the 3rd-5th round.  He's getting good starters.  Like really good in some cases. It's just those 1st round misses and FA injuries that have really come to haunt him..  If Grigson ends up being gone, I hope we keep the scouting staff the same; whoever we got that's influencing our draft board over the past few years.

[amfootball]

here's usually only 3 compensatory picks in the 3rd round on average every year, and they are at the end of the round, so it sounds funny when you say that it will be a "high 3rd comp pick."  

I meant high in terms of the highest pick available for comp. They got the highest last year for Talib as well I believe.

[Jason_]

The Pats will get a high 3rd comp pick for losing Revis so I wonder if Bill will trade that to get more picks as the team is without it's number one and has traded away other picks this season to acquire players.

 

I'm sure the rest of Colts nation will also be on pins and needles waiting to see what Bill does. ;)

[HiltonTD]

I understand how it works.  My issue is with having them at all (see my above conversation with Supes).

 

Yea Superman articulated and explained it a lot better than I did