|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 0:44:06 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? Another 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...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 1:00:42 GMT
What I could possibly get behind (still thinking it through), is where we vote on players that could potentially be signed to a "toxic contract".
If a player is deemed to have such a contract then the owner who drafts that franchise could have an additional protected prospect.
This eliminates the bloated payroll issue, and also requires no monitoring.
The biggest downside, obviously, is everyone won't agree on what is or isn't a "toxic contract"...
With some work though we could define the term more concretely.
|
|
|
Post by rockindock on Dec 20, 2018 1:50:47 GMT
Any rule large or small that can help bring in good talent should be considered. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 1:58:58 GMT
Any rule large or small that can help bring in good talent should be considered. IMO. talent owner wise or player pool wise? If it is player pool wise then, yes it is desired, but not necessary since everyone drafts from the same pool. In a worst case scenario, if everyone stopped developing altogether, the level of talent world wide would be diminished, but it just means that the 80+ OVR guys are the superstars instead of the 90+ OVR guys. That is only "worst case", which is unlikely. In S1 of this format there were several decent IFAs signed, and all but 4 1st rounders were signed, so the talent is still coming in, and I don't foresee that ever stopping.
|
|
|
Post by rockindock on Dec 20, 2018 2:13:44 GMT
Player pool wise. Do you really want to see the 90+ guys disappear? Then in 5 or 6 seasons the 80+ guys disappear. I think development is an important part of the game. It is a challenging aspect when the game is based upon short term results. Anyway, I found the original budgeting rules. Hard if not impossible to enforce now. At least without a bunch of WIS support.
Budgeting Restrictions:
MUST keep at least 10M allocated to HS/COLLEGE SCOUTING. It can be split any way you'd like (10/0; 5/5; 0/10; etc.) MUST keep at least 10M in the TRAINING budget. MUST keep at least 6M in the PROSPECT budget for the duration of the season. This total will include all money paid to amateur draft signees, BUT WILL NOT include any money spent on International Free Agents.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 2:23:36 GMT
No we don't want to see any diminishing of the talent pool at all, but as I tried to explain it is ultimately a non-issue.
As I've also explained it is very unlikely to happen as is evidenced by the draft results and IFA signings that have continued to happen in every iteration of the theme.
You are correct that the original budgetary rules are now unenforceable. What we've done instead was to implement a payroll cap of 100M which forces owners to spend money in other places. If you are at 20/20 medical/training then you max out payroll you still have 45M to spend. say you skimp on coaching and spend only 8M or so, you still have 37M to spend. No one wants advanced, so you spend on other scouting of some sort (either HS/College or INT'L). then you spend the remainder on acquiring said prospects. Even if you max out coaching you have 25 to spend and must sign draftees WTSFSM, so the pool of talent should never diminish. Adding the one minor league keeper would further ensure this to be the case, but even without it, there is no evidence that this is or will be a problem.
|
|
psap
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by psap on Dec 20, 2018 2:27:46 GMT
if you allow 1 keeper that is internally developed i don't think you will need to put parameters (ie, minimum requirements) on budgeting. nothing will eliminate the effects of what happens in FA (such as overbidding on average players), but i think this should diminish it as demands would then be put on all areas of the budgets (coach, prospect, ifa scout, college scout, hs scout) where as now i think that only coaching requires any budget funding while the other 4 really do not.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 2:35:03 GMT
if you allow 1 keeper that is internally developed i don't think you will need to put parameters (ie, minimum requirements) on budgeting. nothing will eliminate the effects of what happens in FA (such as overbidding on average players), but i think this should diminish it as demands would then be put on all areas of the budgets (coach, prospect, ifa scout, college scout, hs scout) where as now i think only coach requires funding while the other 4 really do not. We actually can't put minimums on budgeting because we have no way to know what anyone budgets. The only ones that are visible are payroll, coaching and prospect. I agree that the addition of a one minor league keeper rule would encourage both player development as well as potentially curtailing the excessive coach salaries paid for FA tiebreakers to some degree. Thirdly, it has the potential to help in owner retention between the 3 season sessions. I am not opposed to the idea, and have heard no objections or arguments against yet.
|
|
|
Post by foulballz on Dec 20, 2018 3:05:04 GMT
I'll make the counterpoint and say exactly what I'd do if we got to keep one prospect. First off, the player I drafted first overall last season is getting called up next year and is going to help me win games. If we get to keep a prospect, I'm not calling him up. He's not that much better than what I have, but will be a solid starter for the next round. I love winning games right now as much as anybody, and if I'm willing to hold off I"m sure many others will too, and in more extreme situations. My guy will only have 2 yrs. under his belt, I'm sure guys with more experience will be held back. So in the next series I don't plan on drafting high so my only choice in getting a solid keeper is to get him in IFA. Anybody drafting outside the top 10 should feel the same way. I'm going to figure competition will be heavy. So I'll max out my payroll and skimp everywhere else, possibly even medical and training so I can be prepared to spend $40 mil on an IFA. IFA spending will be insane, I guarantee it. So instead of a prospect entering the world for $5 mil, it costs $40 mil. That extra money came at the expense of training and medical, which actually hurts player development even more since major leaguers become worthless after injuries and decline sooner. I know not trading for keepers was mentioned, which would be a necessary clause I think. Otherwise I'm trading my $40 mil IFA in the second season for a solid starter because I'll pick up another one that year anyways. Parity gets off balance because people also have to think about competing in the next round, and not just winning now. Or the people that budget big for IFA missed out because again, competition is fierce. You could've invested $20 mil in IFA scouting and $40 mil towards prospect budget and got skunked. You tried, but now at the next draft, everybody else has a bonus cheap starter on their team before the big draft even starts and you don't. Makes it harder to stick around if you're at a disadvantage like that and harder to recruit. I think at the start of a new round, everyone should be equal and on an even playing field.
|
|
psap
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by psap on Dec 20, 2018 3:52:32 GMT
ok, so i have come to terms that no matter the rules deployed, foulballz is going to be a few steps ahead of most everyone and many ahead of me. i'm sure that is why he wins the WS in 30% of his seasons.
but while foulballz and the other playoff teams with poor amateur draft position are bidding up the IFA market, aren't the bottom ten finishers doing the same in preparation for the amateur draft? and maybe the middle teams who could lean either way are putting money into coaching to chase the top FA's?
am i mistaken? i'm sure foulballz can find the flaw in the logic with my thought pattern? aren't there more strategies to pursue here? and what about the randomness of the IFA prospects? if no IFA studs materialize? or what if you burn your $40m prospect budget too early on an IFA and better ones follow?
i really like how you laid out what you would do. it helps to think along. idk, maybe no change is the best change. does this create more options or just more inequality?
|
|
|
Post by shobob on Dec 20, 2018 3:55:28 GMT
This seems a little bit extreme to me. I do believe FB's point about such a rule encouraging people to hold back prospects. One prospect per franchise held in the minors over 3 seasons would not add up to much of a problem IMO. Can the effect really be as strong as causing massive bidding wars for IFAs? I'm sceptical about that.
|
|
|
Post by shobob on Dec 20, 2018 3:58:12 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. Nobody has a comment on this?
|
|
psap
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by psap on Dec 20, 2018 4:15:25 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. Nobody has a comment on this? would this be instead of a keeper player or in conjunction with?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 4:17:10 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. Nobody has a comment on this? I don't quite understand it's intended purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2018 4:35:41 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. Nobody has a comment on this? I don't know if it would be quite that extreme, but based on the millions spent on coaches and the number of max contracts doled out, it isn't too far fetched to imagine it. The original intent of this thread was to try and find a "fix" for a problem that may never materialize (though i think it is likely there will be at least a few instances, based on what we've seen so far). While at the very core, keepers go directly against the intent of the world exactly for the reasons laid out by foulballz, maybe my "toxic contract" idea could still work to some degree. 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. Or instead of a keeper, any such franchise could be granted a supplemental pick of some kind during the Big Draft?
|
|