psap
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by psap on Dec 20, 2018 15:48:45 GMT
clearly i think its probably best to ride out this iteration and observe what happens. if mods are needed, or make the format better, then they can be added to the rules of the next iteration.
|
|
|
Post by shobob on Dec 20, 2018 17:35:49 GMT
I agree with this. Let's go with the current setup and see what happens
|
|
|
Post by toddemayer on Dec 20, 2018 19:19:20 GMT
I don’t mind the 1 keeper on the non-40 roster idea, other than that we should keep it as is. We all left DTW and established these rules together, keep it as is.
|
|
|
Post by shobob on Dec 20, 2018 19:42:32 GMT
If we're going to name a keeper, why does it have to be a player that hasn't played in the majors? I think the essential part of that concept is to encourage people to pay attention to collecting prospects, so it makes no sense to incentivize people to hold ML players in the minors just to keep their "keeper" eligibility. The keeper would need to be a player you drafted or signed as an IFA within the 3-season period. Leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by pwesseler on Dec 20, 2018 20:53:19 GMT
I would be fine with keeping my team. The contract I signed with McRae I'd be happy to keep for this cycle and the next. In fact, I'm half confused between this league and the other that I thought I was keeping my team. Anyway, if we want to limit how much you can spend on a free agent or for how many seasons, that is fine. If we want to somehow tier free agents so that only certain ones can have "max contracts" or similarly done, that could work depending on how we decide that.
There should be a max to coaching if that is an issue going forward.
I have not read all the comments but I don't know what a keeper would have to do with the free agent limiting franchise discussion.
Regardless, whatever is decided will be fine with me as long as it is in place before we start the process over again. There is no perfect world. I will adapt to the rules the best I can.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 21:58:28 GMT
All good comments.
This is simply a discussion about a potential problem and nothing may need tweaking at all.
I think it is good to get ahead of any potential issues and at least have these types of discussions well ahead of time like we are doing now.
Most importantly that we are alerted to any potential issues and we keep an eye on these issues to see if a "fix" is even necessary at all.
I sincerely appreciate everyone who has taken the time to post in this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by shobob on Dec 20, 2018 22:12:28 GMT
You know what? I like the idea of a coach salary cap. Something like 10-12. It's easily enforceable, and further forces spending to happen where it helps player development. While I'm at it I would cap prospect at 20 too
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 22:44:58 GMT
If we're going to name a keeper, why does it have to be a player that hasn't played in the majors? I think the essential part of that concept is to encourage people to pay attention to collecting prospects, so it makes no sense to incentivize people to hold ML players in the minors just to keep their "keeper" eligibility. The keeper would need to be a player you drafted or signed as an IFA within the 3-season period. Leave it at that. This is well said.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 22:56:17 GMT
I'd like to again try to turn our focus towards the actual issue at hand in this thread. I will try to summarize those posts addressing that potential issue: 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. My concern: A potential pitfall I think I'm seeing is that with the extra payroll an owner could potentially sign his own albatross and now that franchise has 2. For example, next season a team signs a mediocre talent for max. He is on the roster not only for the duration of the 2nd stint, but also 1 season into the 3rd. So this owner signs his own albatross in S3 of the 2nd stint, and now for the first season of stint 3 he is saddled with 40M is wasted payroll. Another idea that I threw out: The only time a keeper would be allowed is to offset the crippling effect of getting stuck with a franchise that is saddled with a "toxic contract", (however we decide to define that term). Maybe that's enough? Maybe the possibility of getting stuck with a franchise like that is reason enough to have a strong enough prospect which might balance it out a bit. Or instead of a keeper, any such franchise could be granted a supplemental pick of some kind during the Big Draft? Can we get some feedback and momentum going on this conversation?
|
|
|
Post by themojoking on Dec 20, 2018 22:57:42 GMT
For what its worth, my 2 cents is this. The genius of what Vitamin_C did in this world is keep the rules simple and straight forward. Sure the next draft will leave whoever has the final draft spots in a disadvantage. But I think that will always be the case no matter what new rules are implemented. Someone will find a way to manipulate the rules to their favor, while others will not grasp those same rules until it's too late. What I am saying is, I'd prefer to leave it as is, and understand that if I am randomly made the 30th pick I will have my work cut out for me. However if changes are made, I am fine with that. Just understand that any rule change will likely have both a positive and negative effect.
|
|
|
Post by shobob on Dec 20, 2018 23:20:55 GMT
I'd like to again try to turn our focus towards the actual issue at hand in this thread. I will try to summarize those posts addressing that potential issue: 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. My concern: A potential pitfall I think I'm seeing is that with the extra payroll an owner could potentially sign his own albatross and now that franchise has 2. For example, next season a team signs a mediocre talent for max. He is on the roster not only for the duration of the 2nd stint, but also 1 season into the 3rd. So this owner signs his own albatross in S3 of the 2nd stint, and now for the first season of stint 3 he is saddled with 40M is wasted payroll. Another idea that I threw out: The only time a keeper would be allowed is to offset the crippling effect of getting stuck with a franchise that is saddled with a "toxic contract", (however we decide to define that term). Maybe that's enough? Maybe the possibility of getting stuck with a franchise like that is reason enough to have a strong enough prospect which might balance it out a bit. Or instead of a keeper, any such franchise could be granted a supplemental pick of some kind during the Big Draft? Can we get some feedback and momentum going on this conversation? In general, I would be against any leeway on the salary cap, no matter the reason. Having someone potentially get amnesty for 40m would make their player payroll balloon to a ridiculous 140m, leaving only 45 to be divided up for the rest of expenditures. Here's my idea for a "toxic" contract mechanism 1. During playoffs of the final season before the big draft, there would be nominations for and then voting on which contracts to deem "toxic"; each returning owner would be required to vote. 2. Whichever contracts receive more than 50% of the votes are deemed to be "toxic" 3. These players are then banned from the big draft, but as compensation, there is a supplemental round between rounds 2 & 3 in the big draft in which the new owners of these contracts participate 4. Draft order for this supplemental round is determined by number of votes received in the toxicity vote (most votes=highest pick, in the event of a tie, older player is considered more toxic) 5. For each pick gained in the supplemental round, the choosing team loses a pick off the end of the draft.
|
|
|
Post by bruinsfan911 on Dec 20, 2018 23:30:02 GMT
For what its worth, my 2 cents is this. The genius of what Vitamin_C did in this world is keep the rules simple and straight forward. Sure the next draft will leave whoever has the final draft spots in a disadvantage. But I think that will always be the case no matter what new rules are implemented. Someone will find a way to manipulate the rules to their favor, while others will not grasp those same rules until it's too late. What I am saying is, I'd prefer to leave it as is, and understand that if I am randomly made the 30th pick I will have my work cut out for me. However if changes are made, I am fine with that. Just understand that any rule change will likely have both a positive and negative effect. I have just finished reading this thread, and haven't yet had time to read all 75ish World Chat posts that were put up a couple of days ago, so forgive me if I am about to say something that's already been covered somewhere. However, I would tend to agree with the statement that we should simply plan on leaving the rules as is until we figure out for sure if there's an issue. Out of the suggested rule tweaks that I've seen thrown around on this thread, here's my personal preference list: 1. Compensation Picks in Big Draft for "toxic contracts" ....I don't want to put any numbers on it right now, but I do think it should be based on AAV 2. One keeper that has to be a player you've drafted or signed via the IFA process 3. Coaching Salary cap 4. Amnesty Player idea (Vit_C's thoughts on how this could get exploited is well said and I'd have to think it would be taken advantage of in precisely that manner by at least one person) FWIW, I think we could implement both rules 1 and 2 above (the Comp Picks and Keeper) fairly easily and still maintain the win-now spirit of the world.
|
|
|
Post by foulballz on Dec 21, 2018 3:04:36 GMT
I agree with you all that amnesty rule won't work due to reason Vit_C pointed out. Nice brainstorm session guys! So from what I gather there are 3 main topics we are discussing here to try and improve the world.
1. Coaching budget cap ---- I don't see the issue here. I assume everybody puts money in their favorite categories and puts leftover into either coaching or prospect. It's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. If I didn't max coaching budget, I'd have maxed prospect budget. Either way I'm competing with others for the best coaches or the best IFA's. There's still competition there.
2. Player Pool/Development ----- This one has been discussed ad nauseam between most of us, but I'll put it out again. First player development, players are going to development regardless of the owner does unless they actively deprive them of doing so. And who's going to actively destroy a player? There's no rule to prevent that. Even keeper rule doesn't help the second best prospect in the system.
-----Player pool. Good players will get drafted or signed in IFA, no question. As far as IFA, I believe the help section or something even states that any IFA's not scouted will be added to the international player pool at the end of the season so they're all getting picked up. Somebody's always got prospect money at the end of the season to spend on these so it'll happen. I looked into last year to make sure that was the case and sure enough some guy signed a dozen prospects at the same time at the end of the year. I'm sure he just scooped up what was left.(He did).
-------- Amateur Draft. I can't say for sure that all the best prospects get drafted, but it's hard to believe they aren't. We could do a test on this I suppose. Someone with a high budget could name a random guy they see and anyone that sees him could vote "aye" And someone with low scouting does the same.
3. The Bad Contracts ------ Not sure how to prevent this without hard to enforce rules so I'll just say right now that if we go into the next draft with no keeper rule, I'll take the #32 pick in the initial 2 round draft
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 21, 2018 3:46:12 GMT
I agree with you all that amnesty rule won't work due to reason Vit_C pointed out. Nice brainstorm session guys! So from what I gather there are 3 main topics we are discussing here to try and improve the world. 1. Coaching budget cap ---- I don't see the issue here. I assume everybody puts money in their favorite categories and puts leftover into either coaching or prospect. It's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. If I didn't max coaching budget, I'd have maxed prospect budget. Either way I'm competing with others for the best coaches or the best IFA's. There's still competition there. 2. Player Pool/Development ----- This one has been discussed ad nauseam between most of us, but I'll put it out again. First player development, players are going to development regardless of the owner does unless they actively deprive them of doing so. And who's going to actively destroy a player? There's no rule to prevent that. Even keeper rule doesn't help the second best prospect in the system. -----Player pool. Good players will get drafted or signed in IFA, no question. As far as IFA, I believe the help section or something even states that any IFA's not scouted will be added to the international player pool at the end of the season so they're all getting picked up. Somebody's always got prospect money at the end of the season to spend on these so it'll happen. I looked into last year to make sure that was the case and sure enough some guy signed a dozen prospects at the same time at the end of the year. I'm sure he just scooped up what was left.(He did). -------- Amateur Draft. I can't say for sure that all the best prospects get drafted, but it's hard to believe they aren't. We could do a test on this I suppose. Someone with a high budget could name a random guy they see and anyone that sees him could vote "aye" And someone with low scouting does the same. 3. The Bad Contracts ------ Not sure how to prevent this without hard to enforce rules so I'll just say right now that if we go into the next draft with no keeper rule, I'll take the #32 pick in the initial 2 round draft I also don't have an issue with coaching budgets. It is a smart use of resources. I think there are only a few who still worry about player pool and development. They will eventually see that it's a non issue. I like shobob's suggestion of evaluating the bad contracts near the end of S3. We may determine it is a non issue also. I think supplemental picks is the easiest fix, and it'd be easy to do. Everyone should be honest in their evaluation, cause the franchises won't carry over so there's no incentive to not evaluate the contracts fairly. In fact it is in the best interest of everyone to do so. No need for foulballz to volunteer to take the crappiest franchise. This is a solid fix if the problem ever actually materializes.
|
|
|
Post by foulballz on Dec 21, 2018 15:20:29 GMT
Woah, I didn't volunteer to take the crappiest franchise!! I said I'd take the last pick in initial 2 round draft. I still think enough big draft slots will go in the first round so nobody has to get stuck with worst franchise unless they choose to do so.
Thinking out loud here, and I like the supplemental pick idea a lot, but is it possible to have a rule where the supplemental picks are in place, but if a certain number (3, 5 or whatever) of owners pick big draft slot in the first round, it goes out the window? This might be tough to put in since people might draft certain franchises because of the supplemental picks so we can't take them away after the fact. I think I answered my own question. I just like less rules. Easier to follow and keep tabs on.
|
|