The Packers will sign at least one, probably 2 free agents starters in 2016.

[Patler]

I think it matters. Or at least it should especially in the case of Peppers and Guion. Its not just preventing a comp pick to us, its awarding a comp pick to a rival.

Peppers and Guion didn't count toward draft pick compensation, but I don't get your argument. Are you suggesting that TT does or should avoid signing a player who can help because the signing might mean the Packers will get a lower compensatory pick for a player they lost? Generally it is a low pick anyway, I doubt that enters into his decision making at all, since the awarding of picks doesn't occur for a year anyway, and a lot can happen that impacts it.

As for the awarding of picks to a rival, a player worthy of draft pick compensation will be signed by someone and the rival will receive compensation anyway. What incentive is there for GB not to sign him?

[3irty1]

Peppers and Guion didn't count toward draft pick compensation, but I don't get your argument. Are you suggesting that TT does or should avoid signing a player who can help because the signing might mean the Packers will get a lower compensatory pick for a player they lost? Generally it is a low pick anyway, I doubt that enters into his decision making at all, since the awarding of picks doesn't occur for a year anyway, and a lot can happen that impacts it.

As for the awarding of picks to a rival, a player worthy of draft pick compensation will be signed by someone and the rival will receive compensation anyway. What incentive is there for GB not to sign him?

That is what I'm suggesting. The formula for comp picks is a mystery but the largest component seems to be the new players salary. It can mean a lower comp pick, or one less comp pick altogether. Those low picks nearly always translate to a rostered player as well as another number in the numbers game of the draft so I think the value is not insignificant.

I guess all I'm saying is that free agents like Peppers and Guion who were cut should be valued higher than free agents with expired contracts all else being equal. Of course you're right that all else is never equal but with how difficult it is to find value in free agency I like going after cuts.

[mraynrand]

Are you suggesting that TT does or should avoid signing a player who can help because the signing might mean the Packers will get a lower compensatory pick for a player they lost?

I don't get it. I thought the compensation only worked one way. How does this formula work? Say the Packers don't lose any starters who might have given them a compensatory pick but they pick up a FA worth a compensatory pick for another team? The NFL does't take picks away, right? But then they lower the composition for a lost starter if you pick up another player? Does it matter if it's at a similar position? This sounds mighty fishy to me.

[Patler]

I don't get it. I thought the compensation only worked one way. How does this formula work? Say the Packers don't lose any starters who might have given them a compensatory pick but they pick up a FA worth a compensatory pick for another team? The NFL does't take picks away, right? But then they lower the composition for a lost starter if you pick up another player? Does it matter if it's at a similar position? This sounds mighty fishy to me.

Are you seriously asking, or being sarcastic? (Voice inflection is difficult to interpret through written words!)

Strictly speaking, if you lose more UFAs than you sign, you should receive compensation for the difference. Also strictly speaking, if you sign as many as you lose, regardless of contract size, you will not receive compensation. In reality, it has not always worked out that way, and determining the level of compensation has been sort of a balancing act:

(# and quality of UFAs lost) - (# and quality of UFAs signed)

This year they lost two who signed large contracts indicating high quality (supposedly, playing time and post season honors also are factors in the calculation). Theoretically they will get two draft picks, both of which should be toward the higher end of the awardable picks. If the Packers had signed an UFA to a similar contract, it would likely would have offset one they lost and the net result would have been just one pick to the Packers.

It sometimes gets muddled, because rules require that 32 picks be doled out, no more, no less. If there are insufficient FA signings for compensation, the remaining picks are to be awarded in order of draft priority. I don't think that has ever happened. What does sometimes happen is that picks are lowered based on signings. If the Packers lost House and Williams but signed two real low level UFAs, they might have gotten one or two low round picks instead of the higher ones they are likely to get after signing no one.

What also seems to happen sometimes is that a team who has a net loss of 3 or 4 players receives fewer but higher picks than you might expect. For example, if there was a net loss of 4 that you thought might be worth 2 sixth and 2 seventh round picks, they might get 3 in the sixth, instead. It all depends on how active the market was, because only 32 picks can be awarded.

Not all losses are subject to compensation, and the league has never explained where the cutoff is. I think it varies from year to year, depending on how active the FA market was, so they can award the 32 picks. However, historically an UFA who signs a one-year minimum contract has not be compensated for, so the Packers will get nothing for the loss of Jamarii Lattimore.

Long and short of it is that if you sign a decent unrestricted free agent, it is likely to lower or eliminate a compensatory pick you might have otherwise received for a free agent you lost.

[mraynrand]

Are you seriously asking, or being sarcastic? ..

(# and quality of UFAs lost) - (# and quality of UFAs signed)

Thanks for the response. Makes some sense. I honestly thought it was based on what you lost. That equation does't work for teams who only acquire... ??

[Patler]

Thanks for the response. Makes some sense. I honestly thought it was based on what you lost. That equation does't work for teams who only acquire... ??

The system is designed to compensate teams that lose players as a result of the FA system. If a team only acquires players, it has no impact on them. If a team gains as many as it loses, no compensation is needed either because the FA system didn't really harm them.

[woodbuck27]

Are you seriously asking, or being sarcastic? (Voice inflection is difficult to interpret through written words!)

Strictly speaking, if you lose more UFAs than you sign, you should receive compensation for the difference. Also strictly speaking, if you sign as many as you lose, regardless of contract size, you will not receive compensation. In reality, it has not always worked out that way, and determining the level of compensation has been sort of a balancing act:

(# and quality of UFAs lost) - (# and quality of UFAs signed)

This year they lost two who signed large contracts indicating high quality (supposedly, playing time and post season honors also are factors in the calculation). Theoretically they will get two draft picks, both of which should be toward the higher end of the awardable picks. If the Packers had signed an UFA to a similar contract, it would likely would have offset one they lost and the net result would have been just one pick to the Packers.

It sometimes gets muddled, because rules require that 32 picks be doled out, no more, no less. If there are insufficient FA signings for compensation, the remaining picks are to be awarded in order of draft priority. I don't think that has ever happened. What does sometimes happen is that picks are lowered based on signings. If the Packers lost House and Williams but signed two real low level UFAs, they might have gotten one or two low round picks instead of the higher ones they are likely to get after signing no one.

What also seems to happen sometimes is that a team who has a net loss of 3 or 4 players receives fewer but higher picks than you might expect. For example, if there was a net loss of 4 that you thought might be worth 2 sixth and 2 seventh round picks, they might get 3 in the sixth, instead. It all depends on how active the market was, because only 32 picks can be awarded.

Not all losses are subject to compensation, and the league has never explained where the cutoff is. I think it varies from year to year, depending on how active the FA market was, so they can award the 32 picks. However, historically an UFA who signs a one-year minimum contract has not be compensated for, so the Packers will get nothing for the loss of Jamarii Lattimore.

Long and short of it is that if you sign a decent unrestricted free agent, it is likely to lower or eliminate a compensatory pick you might have otherwise received for a free agent you lost.

A solid explanation Patler.

Thanks.