|
Post by foulballz on Dec 19, 2018 16:11:45 GMT
First off, I want to point out I'm not advocating or for the following idea at all, I'm just presenting it for discussion sake. I'm a firm believer in less rules and oversight.
Amnesty Idea-
Each team could choose one player on their roster to amnesty. The way it works is if you have a player with a crap contract that you don't want, you send him to rookie league for the duration of the seasons. You would then be allowed to budget the players salary into your cap space.
Example: Joe Blow is your typical AAAA player and makes $20 mil/yr. You choose to amnesty him and send him to rookie league where he must stay while he's on your roster. You are then allowed to budget an extra $20 mil towards player payroll to cover his cost. So you'd be working with a $120 mil max player payroll.
Since there'd potentially be 32 different payroll maxes in the league, it'd probably require volunteers to monitor. Ideally one owner in each division would volunteer to monitor their division and the volunteer of same division in other league. So 8 owners would each check on 4 teams.
I'd also suggest the Amnesty rule ONLY applies if franchises are getting picked in the first round of the initial 2 round draft. If say even 3 (or whatever number) owners choose draft position in the first round instead of a franchise the rule goes out the window. They knew what they were getting themselves into. I also now think it's highly unlikely to be needed anyways. If you got stuck with big contract, the dude is likely still a starter. Then you'd have a top pick and get an MVP candidate for $327K. Thats $20,327,000 in payroll for an MVP candidate and another starter on your team. I could live with that and assume most people could.
|
|
|
Post by idigapygmy on Dec 19, 2018 16:54:52 GMT
what about allowing people, ahead of the draft, to keep their team while still drafting new players every three years.
|
|
|
Post by foulballz on Dec 19, 2018 18:48:16 GMT
My problem with that is the least desirable teams are the most likely to be abandoned or not renewed for the next draft. That'll make recruiting harder. It'll also affect the big draft since picking higher will have an inherent advantage. Ideally everybody starts as equal as possible before each big draft. Those stuck with less desirable teams may not necessarily have a top pick to offset it.
As it stands with the 2 round either franchise or big draft order draft, I personally wouldn't care what my initial draft order would be. To me, that must mean it's about as fair and even as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2018 22:55:23 GMT
First off, I want to point out I'm not advocating or for the following idea at all, I'm just presenting it for discussion sake. I'm a firm believer in less rules and oversight. Amnesty Idea- Each team could choose one player on their roster to amnesty. The way it works is if you have a player with a crap contract that you don't want, you send him to rookie league for the duration of the seasons. You would then be allowed to budget the players salary into your cap space. Example: Joe Blow is your typical AAAA player and makes $20 mil/yr. You choose to amnesty him and send him to rookie league where he must stay while he's on your roster. You are then allowed to budget an extra $20 mil towards player payroll to cover his cost. So you'd be working with a $120 mil max player payroll. Since there'd potentially be 32 different payroll maxes in the league, it'd probably require volunteers to monitor. Ideally one owner in each division would volunteer to monitor their division and the volunteer of same division in other league. So 8 owners would each check on 4 teams. I'd also suggest the Amnesty rule ONLY applies if franchises are getting picked in the first round of the initial 2 round draft. If say even 3 (or whatever number) owners choose draft position in the first round instead of a franchise the rule goes out the window. They knew what they were getting themselves into. I also now think it's highly unlikely to be needed anyways. If you got stuck with big contract, the dude is likely still a starter. Then you'd have a top pick and get an MVP candidate for $327K. Thats $20,327,000 in payroll for an MVP candidate and another starter on your team. I could live with that and assume most people could. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to this. Could it be any player making any amount? or maybe a threshold of 10M or something? Obviously, the HUGE downside to this is having to monitor and then what to do in case of a breach?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2018 22:59:47 GMT
what about allowing people, ahead of the draft, to keep their team while still drafting new players every three years. I like the moving teams every time unless, of course, you drafted them again. For example, I really dislike playing in the West. I don't like any of the parks that can play there, so I'd hate to have gotten stuck in the West during the first run, and now I am stuck there forever? I don't like that. Additionally I feel that when choosing your franchise, division rivals can be a factor to be considered. Look at the AL North, for example. mohawkman finished last but his 87 wins would have been good enough to win 3 of the 7 other divisions.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2018 23:02:20 GMT
Another idea I have thought about and have warmed up to a bit more is perhaps allowing one (and only one) non 40-man prospect to be "protected".
This would possibly make draft and/or IFA more appealing and might also encourage a bit more focus on development.
Thoughts?
|
|
psap
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by psap on Dec 19, 2018 23:16:15 GMT
Another idea I have thought about and have warmed up to a bit more is perhaps allowing one (and only one) non 40-man prospect to be "protected". This would possibly make draft and/or IFA more appealing and might also encourage a bit more focus on development. Thoughts? ...as long as it is not a holdover from the prior Iteration. It should be someone you took at the amateur draft or signed as a IFA during the 3 year span. And is this you V_C? Softened up a bit from that salty "it will never happen on my watch" response you had to me. Thanks for the open mind and reconsidering . To me this allows more options to the owner to prioritize for... 1) allows owners to fund their top tier FA hunt by loading up on coaching budgets, 2) or to allocate funds to IFA/Prospects, or 3) fund HS/College scouting if your squad just isn't competitive or perhaps you have an exodus of FAs and will be rewarded with lots of amateur draft picks. But i do realize that the flip side is the tanking concern. Maybe an additional rule is required to protect or anti-incentivize against that.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2018 23:21:42 GMT
Another idea I have thought about and have warmed up to a bit more is perhaps allowing one (and only one) non 40-man prospect to be "protected". This would possibly make draft and/or IFA more appealing and might also encourage a bit more focus on development. Thoughts? ...as long as it is not a holdover from the prior Iteration. It should be someone you took at the amateur draft or signed as a IFA during the 3 year span. And is this you V_C? Softened up a bit from that salty "it will never happen on my watch" response you had to me. Thanks for the open mind and reconsidering . I wouldn't place any restrictions on who the player was, so long as he wasn't yet on the 40, (actually, as I type this, I don't even think that stipulation is necessary. Maybe just make it a player who has no BL service time). Say you are in S3 and you have no way to make the post season, you MAY decide to trade a BL'er for such a player with the intention of protecting him. Again, I am just throwing ideas out, and not entirely sure I am 100% on board myself, but at the moment can't see too many pitfalls for allowing this small change to the hard line stance I took in World Chat.
|
|
psap
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by psap on Dec 19, 2018 23:31:27 GMT
...as long as it is not a holdover from the prior Iteration. It should be someone you took at the amateur draft or signed as a IFA during the 3 year span. And is this you V_C? Softened up a bit from that salty "it will never happen on my watch" response you had to me. Thanks for the open mind and reconsidering . I wouldn't place any restrictions on who the player was, so long as he wasn't yet on the 40, (actually, as I type this, I don't even think that stipulation is necessary. Maybe just make it a player who has no BL service time). Say you are in S3 and you have no way to make the post season, you MAY decide to trade a BL'er for such a player with the intention of protecting him. Again, I am just throwing ideas out, and not entirely sure I am 100% on board myself, but at the moment can't see too many pitfalls for allowing this small change to the hard line stance I took in World Chat. I actually do not like the idea of being able to trade for a keeper. I think that would have undesirable unintended consequences also - ie, allows teams to ignore IFA/amateur draft budgets and just trade for a franchises 2nd best player. I think if we go this route it should be a home grown player only.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2018 23:50:51 GMT
I wouldn't place any restrictions on who the player was, so long as he wasn't yet on the 40, (actually, as I type this, I don't even think that stipulation is necessary. Maybe just make it a player who has no BL service time). Say you are in S3 and you have no way to make the post season, you MAY decide to trade a BL'er for such a player with the intention of protecting him. Again, I am just throwing ideas out, and not entirely sure I am 100% on board myself, but at the moment can't see too many pitfalls for allowing this small change to the hard line stance I took in World Chat. I actually do not like the idea of being able to trade for a keeper. I think that would have undesirable unintended consequences also - ie, allows teams to ignore IFA/amateur draft budgets and just trade for a franchises 2nd best player. I think if we go this route it should be a home grown player only. Yeah, I think maybe you are correct. That places much more of a premium on drafting solid players on your own. If you punt IFA and the draft then your "keeper" won't be so good.
|
|
|
Post by rockindock on Dec 20, 2018 0:07:29 GMT
what about allowing people, ahead of the draft, to keep their team while still drafting new players every three years. Like foulballz I'm just throwing this out for discussion, or not. The original premise of this world was all about winning short term. I think that is still the basic idea. However, it would be nice to keep good players (drafted or IFA's) coming in. What if the top 6-8 teams (wins) or division champions + wild cards, were required to keep their team for the next season or more? Maybe those teams would be stuck with contracts they don't necessarily want but can't get rid of. It may limit the bidding up of free agents without restricting budgets. You may think twice about offering a max contract if you are stuck with it for a season or two beyond the current season. The players on those teams would still be subject to the big draft. And the winning teams will be able to participate as well. This idea may promote the one and done philosophy. An owner wins one then quits. So I'm not sure I'm liking my idea.
|
|
|
Post by shobob on Dec 20, 2018 0:18:10 GMT
Another idea I have thought about and have warmed up to a bit more is perhaps allowing one (and only one) non 40-man prospect to be "protected". This would possibly make draft and/or IFA more appealing and might also encourage a bit more focus on development. Thoughts? By "protected", you mean "keep/bring along"? Because in all likelihood, you'll be switching franchises at the big draft. I am for this idea, in the form of being able to name one of YOUR OWN draft picks or IFA signees to keep pre-big draft.
|
|
|
Post by shobob on Dec 20, 2018 0:24:33 GMT
We could come up with something like this: The owner of the team with the highest Post-big draft committed payroll is forced to keep that team if he wants to participate in the next draft.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 0:30:29 GMT
what about allowing people, ahead of the draft, to keep their team while still drafting new players every three years. Like foulballz I'm just throwing this out for discussion, or not. The original premise of this world was all about winning short term. I think that is still the basic idea. However, it would be nice to keep good players (drafted or IFA's) coming in. What if the top 6-8 teams (wins) or division champions + wild cards, were required to keep their team for the next season or more? Maybe those teams would be stuck with contracts they don't necessarily want but can't get rid of. It may limit the bidding up of free agents without restricting budgets. You may think twice about offering a max contract if you are stuck with it for a season or two beyond the current season. The players on those teams would still be subject to the big draft. And the winning teams will be able to participate as well. This idea may promote the one and done philosophy. An owner wins one then quits. So I'm not sure I'm liking my idea. With regard to "keepers" we are really not wanting to do keepers at all. I mentioned above I may be open to the idea of, perhaps one and only one minor league keeper, for the sole intent of promoting development. Additionally a guy who has groomed a prospect will be much more inclined to come back for a 2nd stint if he gets to keep a prospect he's drafted and developed. Any more than that lone exception, and I couldn't even consider it. Ultimately, while I don't mind hearing opinions and ideas folks may have, I can wholeheartedly state that there are several ideas that we've come to have no interest in. The world has a strict focus and anything that might deter from that primary focus is not something I am interested in. Having said that, the main purpose of this particular thread is to discuss a potential problem that is only perceived as a problem by some. So we must tread lightly with regards to "fixing" it, to ensure we aren't introducing a bigger problem. For the most part we have tweaked and discussed and through experience have come up with (what I and others feel to be) the best set of rules to date.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 0:31:06 GMT
Another idea I have thought about and have warmed up to a bit more is perhaps allowing one (and only one) non 40-man prospect to be "protected". This would possibly make draft and/or IFA more appealing and might also encourage a bit more focus on development. Thoughts? By "protected", you mean "keep/bring along"? Because in all likelihood, you'll be switching franchises at the big draft. I am for this idea, in the form of being able to name one of YOUR OWN draft picks or IFA signees to keep pre-big draft. Exactly.
|
|