|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 28, 2020 20:17:11 GMT
many people seem to be echoing the same major complaints:
scouting is devalued in rookie fa
we need more player retention methods
something about bucks
so here are my solutions:
1. remove the cap on bucks that can be traded. this will allow good players to move for their actual value rather than just whatever the cap is at the time. it makes bucks more valuable and may encourage articles.
2. an additional under 5m extension per season and make them both tradeable. this addresses the loss of tradeable asset which deals with player acquisition and retention while over the soft cap. previously we had one extension plus however many draft picks we owned, now we have the one extension that has to cover everything they did before plus rookie contracts.
3. increase box rewards or 1k per win. more income is always good.
4. decreased scouting costs. we saw a decrease this year but i think it needs to go down further. scouting was previously a sure thing: you were up in the draft and could control which player you got. now you scout and still have to compete for that player and hope rnjesus is on your side that day.
discuss
|
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Oct 28, 2020 20:20:56 GMT
1. yes
2. yes
3. apply a 2.5x multiplier to boxes... not 1k per win
4. meh... maybe slightly
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Oct 28, 2020 21:01:03 GMT
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes, but what they are reduced to depends on what we decided on answer 3. If we do not increase buck earnings then we should drastically cut scouting costs. If we implement #3 then we can reduce it, but not nearly as much.
as far as Scouting Tokens: I am not against this as an idea and think it creates a tradeable asset.
Limiting Scouts and/or Bids - I have long said we should limit the number of bids, and also think we could limit the number of scouts. Each team gets a set amount of bids/scouts and those each can be traded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 28, 2020 21:03:52 GMT
1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) Yes, but what they are reduced to depends on what we decided on answer 3. If we do not increase buck earnings then we should drastically cut scouting costs. If we implement #3 then we can reduce it, but not nearly as much. as far as Scouting Tokens: I am not against this as an idea and think it creates a tradeable asset. Limiting Scouts and/or Bids - I have long said we should limit the number of bids, and also think we could limit the number of scouts. Each team gets a set amount of bids/scouts and those each can be traded. scouts can be bought with bucks so what purpose do scouting tokens serve? |
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Oct 28, 2020 21:05:00 GMT
Limiting bids seems odd. Why limit them when there are even MORE players to bid on than ever?
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 28, 2020 21:33:35 GMT
1. Yes
2. Yes, but not tradeable
3. Yes to box scores, no to 1k per win
4. Maybe - need to see the dets
+5. Lift salary restrictions on trades - allow team over Soft Cap to take back any amount of salary as long as they remain under Hard Cap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 28, 2020 21:34:55 GMT
Limiting bids seems odd. Why limit them when there are even MORE players to bid on than ever? he has explained this many times and ive never once understood it |
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Oct 28, 2020 21:43:02 GMT
skrouseWhat is the argument against making extension slots tradeable?
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 28, 2020 23:01:10 GMT
skrouse What is the argument against making extension slots tradeable? Benefits a good team over the HC a lot more than a team trying to clear cap for rookie FA bids, which will create a one way flow of trade. Not really a fan. I think adding a 2nd is solid. That's a 100% increase from current state. |
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Oct 28, 2020 23:21:30 GMT
it makes bucks more valuable and may encourage articles.
eric:
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 28, 2020 23:45:15 GMT
I think the underlying idea of bid limits is to create a limited, tradeable currency. I thought about that but have come to dislike it
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 28, 2020 23:48:33 GMT
I think the underlying idea of bid limits is to create a limited, tradeable currency. I thought about that but have come to dislike it yeah like ok let me pay 10k each for someone elses offers so i can sign one guy. its worse than tokens. |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 28, 2020 23:52:42 GMT
What's the main opposition to removing the salary matching for over Soft Cap teams?
|
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Oct 29, 2020 0:24:16 GMT
What's the main opposition to removing the salary matching for over Soft Cap teams? I don’t really oppose it. I’m not sure if no limits whatsoever or just relaxing (1.5 instead of 1.15 or whatever) is the right move, but I’m fine with it in principle |
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Oct 29, 2020 0:25:15 GMT
skrouse What is the argument against making extension slots tradeable? Benefits a good team over the HC a lot more than a team trying to clear cap for rookie FA bids, which will create a one way flow of trade. Not really a fan. I think adding a 2nd is solid. That's a 100% increase from current state. I think it puts the onus on the selling team to really push for value. It’s not one way if they walk away with a mass of bucks or some other player they may want. |
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Oct 29, 2020 12:56:26 GMT
1. Agree with the trade cap going away.
2. Absolutely agree. I'd even go as far as stratifying the extensions and saying you get one lower-level and one mid-level extension. Lower-level being a newly signed player under 1.5 mil and a mid-level being 1.500001-5 mil. Both extend at 5 mil per year for up to 2 years. Perhaps make this more expensive, so it's 5k or so per season rather than the current low cost.
3. Increase box score rewards 2.5 times and make participation bonuses like setting DCs much larger. Maybe 10k each for on-time and correct. There should be a baseline that every GM should easily have enough per season to make the upgrade cap and their two extensions if they want and then they'd need to work for more scouting bucks.
4. Cut scouting costs to about 1/5 of what they are now. The uncertainty of FA means you're going to use a lot more scouts than you did before and you aren't going to be sure if you can even get those players. They should be drastically cheaper.
5. I would not mind seeing scouting slots become a tradeable asset. Each GM has the capacity to do about 5 scouts per season but can trade for the ability to do more (still have to pay) or pay for a newly created assistant coach to add say an additional 3 slots (that aren't tradeable).
6. Is the team cap on upgrades each year tradeable yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 29, 2020 15:09:47 GMT
1. Agree with the trade cap going away. 2. Absolutely agree. I'd even go as far as stratifying the extensions and saying you get one lower-level and one mid-level extension. Lower-level being a newly signed player under 1.5 mil and a mid-level being 1.500001-5 mil. Both extend at 5 mil per year for up to 2 years. Perhaps make this more expensive, so it's 5k or so per season rather than the current low cost. 3. Increase box score rewards 2.5 times and make participation bonuses like setting DCs much larger. Maybe 10k each for on-time and correct. There should be a baseline that every GM should easily have enough per season to make the upgrade cap and their two extensions if they want and then they'd need to work for more scouting bucks. 4. Cut scouting costs to about 1/5 of what they are now. The uncertainty of FA means you're going to use a lot more scouts than you did before and you aren't going to be sure if you can even get those players. They should be drastically cheaper. 5. I would not mind seeing scouting slots become a tradeable asset. Each GM has the capacity to do about 5 scouts per season but can trade for the ability to do more (still have to pay) or pay for a newly created assistant coach to add say an additional 3 slots (that aren't tradeable). 6. Is the team cap on upgrades each year tradeable yet? 5. tradeable scouting slots are interesting 6. no |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 29, 2020 15:57:29 GMT
Benefits a good team over the HC a lot more than a team trying to clear cap for rookie FA bids, which will create a one way flow of trade. Not really a fan. I think adding a 2nd is solid. That's a 100% increase from current state. I think it puts the onus on the selling team to really push for value. It’s not one way if they walk away with a mass of bucks or some other player they may want. I anticipate there will be a lot more sellers than buyers. And the seller will just have to take what they can get before the buyer goes elsewhere. Most buyers will most likely be teams over the soft cap who would then be able to get a 3rd or 4th player extended that otherwise would have been in the FA pool.
I guess I just feel two is enough and that we don't need to be able to trade them.
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 29, 2020 15:59:21 GMT
You know the extensions are a lot like protection slots. Not exactly but they are a mechanism for player retention. And I don't like that we can trade those.
Think about that trade market. There isn't a lot of negotiation there. It's almost always slots for bucks and there tends to be a market set by the first handful of trades made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 29, 2020 16:03:05 GMT
I think it puts the onus on the selling team to really push for value. It’s not one way if they walk away with a mass of bucks or some other player they may want. I anticipate there will be a lot more sellers than buyers. And the seller will just have to take what they can get before the buyer goes elsewhere. Most buyers will most likely be teams over the soft cap who would then be able to get a 3rd or 4th player extended that otherwise would have been in the FA pool.
I guess I just feel two is enough and that we don't need to be able to trade them.
wouldnt you rather be able to get 10k for somethinf you wont use instead of not getting 10k for it? and yeah, i think people will use them all. because they can be used on rookies which could then be demoted |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 29, 2020 16:19:03 GMT
I anticipate there will be a lot more sellers than buyers. And the seller will just have to take what they can get before the buyer goes elsewhere. Most buyers will most likely be teams over the soft cap who would then be able to get a 3rd or 4th player extended that otherwise would have been in the FA pool.
I guess I just feel two is enough and that we don't need to be able to trade them.
wouldnt you rather be able to get 10k for somethinf you wont use instead of not getting 10k for it? and yeah, i think people will use them all. because they can be used on rookies which could then be demoted I would rather not have 10K and have a shot at a good player from a good team that can't be resigned.
And I disagree regarding rookies, people will only really be extending the good ones. Minor league spots will still be limited.
I think a better solution for this is to come up with a multi year min contract for rookies that can be offered in FA to replace the old 2nd round contracts. Once that teams over the soft cap can offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 29, 2020 16:27:24 GMT
wouldnt you rather be able to get 10k for somethinf you wont use instead of not getting 10k for it? and yeah, i think people will use them all. because they can be used on rookies which could then be demoted I would rather not have 10K and have a shot at a good player from a good team that can't be resigned.
And I disagree regarding rookies, people will only really be extending the good ones. Minor league spots will still be limited.
I think a better solution for this is to come up with a multi year min contract for rookies that can be offered in FA to replace the old 2nd round contracts. Once that teams over the soft cap can offer.
there is no way to do that. first year players can only be offered 332817, no more no less. 10% raise from that is less than the 2nd year min. so the software doesnt support any form of multi year rookie contract offers which over the softcap. out of the box solution: start everyone with 1 experience |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 29, 2020 16:39:25 GMT
I would rather not have 10K and have a shot at a good player from a good team that can't be resigned.
And I disagree regarding rookies, people will only really be extending the good ones. Minor league spots will still be limited.
I think a better solution for this is to come up with a multi year min contract for rookies that can be offered in FA to replace the old 2nd round contracts. Once that teams over the soft cap can offer.
there is no way to do that. first year players can only be offered 332817, no more no less. 10% raise from that is less than the 2nd year min. so the software doesnt support any form of multi year rookie contract offers which over the softcap. out of the box solution: start everyone with 1 experience Ok so then why don't we just allow rookie minimum contract extensions, the same we we used to for 2nd rounder but instead of just a 3rd year option it's a 2nd and/or 3rd year option. I would actually be fine to make them all two year extensions, really no point of just a 2nd year option because it doesn't result in birds.
Sounds like a manual process so really up to eric. |
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 29, 2020 16:47:47 GMT
there is no way to do that. first year players can only be offered 332817, no more no less. 10% raise from that is less than the 2nd year min. so the software doesnt support any form of multi year rookie contract offers which over the softcap. out of the box solution: start everyone with 1 experience Ok so then why don't we just allow rookie minimum contract extensions, the same we we used to for 2nd rounder but instead of just a 3rd year option it's a 2nd and/or 3rd year option. I would actually be fine to make them all two year extensions, really no point of just a 2nd year option because it doesn't result in birds.
Sounds like a manual process so really up to eric. yeah my initial idea was rookie min extensions but delap morphed it into this. i. would prefer the min extensions. its nice to be able to consistently have expirings with birds even if theyre bad. |
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Oct 29, 2020 16:53:19 GMT
there is no way to do that. first year players can only be offered 332817, no more no less. 10% raise from that is less than the 2nd year min. so the software doesnt support any form of multi year rookie contract offers which over the softcap. out of the box solution: start everyone with 1 experience Ok so then why don't we just allow rookie minimum contract extensions, the same we we used to for 2nd rounder but instead of just a 3rd year option it's a 2nd and/or 3rd year option. I would actually be fine to make them all two year extensions, really no point of just a 2nd year option because it doesn't result in birds.
Sounds like a manual process so really up to eric. I'm OK with that. My thought process was mostly spurred on by rookie MINs... then changed into a tradeable asset. I am more concerned about the actual extensions than the asset... but both are cool. |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 29, 2020 16:59:40 GMT
Ok so then why don't we just allow rookie minimum contract extensions, the same we we used to for 2nd rounder but instead of just a 3rd year option it's a 2nd and/or 3rd year option. I would actually be fine to make them all two year extensions, really no point of just a 2nd year option because it doesn't result in birds.
Sounds like a manual process so really up to eric. I'm OK with that. My thought process was mostly spurred on by rookie MINs... then changed into a tradeable asset. I am more concerned about the actual extensions than the asset... but both are cool. Yeah sounds like we want a way to keep min rookies under contracts for a more than 1 year to see if they break out or just become decent.
Rookie Min extensions sound like the way to go. I would put no limits on them in terms of the amount we can use.
Any Rookie signed to a min contract can be extended 2 years to match the old 2nd round contracts. Seems pretty straight forward. eric, thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Oct 29, 2020 17:58:38 GMT
I agree with the rookie min contract extension proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 30, 2020 0:52:44 GMT
we've seen a lot of rookies go for mins early in FA (i.e. before day five) so i'm hesitant to go "hog wild" on min extensions
also, to my mind the reduced ability for overcap teams to retain young talent is a feature, not a bug, so i don't think more extensions (rookie or otherwise) for them makes sense. teams over the cap SHOULD feel like they have reduced retention ability, and as above with how many rookies are going for mins and no one really knowing how they'll turn out, i don't think we have reason to believe that if rookies are good they'll get big money and keep overcap teams out of the picture that way
with all that said, i think an undercap extension on top of the extension everyone gets would be good, and making the everyone extension tradeable would also work pretty easily. i would want to try this before we tried rookie scale extensions, since those would obviously be much more powerful, and again would expect those to be limited to undercap teams
.
it's not clear to me what we gain from removing the soft cap for trading purposes. if we end up in a scenario where overcap teams have exactly as much flexibility to acquire and retain rookies as they did in a draft system, what's the point?
.
i'm extremely hesitant to increase free bucks because 10k missing playoffs + 8k on time correct DC + 3k boxes is 21k, doing a podcast for 30k once every three seasons would be enough to fully upgrade a player every year, so the "not enough to upgrade" doesn't seem right to me. if scouting specifically is what's too expensive the appropriate answer to me seems to be to reduce scout costs or introduce scout tokens, with the point of scout tokens being to address the specific issue of scout expense while by definition not impacting anything else - we'd have to reevaluate the trade cap, amnesty costs, lab costs, camp costs, extension costs, coach costs, Germany costs, fines... that seems like a big can of worms we could avoid really easily if the problem is just scout costs, especially since they've always been malleable
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 30, 2020 1:02:53 GMT
Can't say i disagree with much, other than i only see 6 rookie mins thus far. One per team would be on par with a draft, so i think an extension for each is appropriate owing to the fact we solved the equal access problem a draft presents that FA solves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 30, 2020 1:04:18 GMT
we've seen a lot of rookies go for mins early in FA (i.e. before day five) so i'm hesitant to go "hog wild" on min extensions also, to my mind the reduced ability for overcap teams to retain young talent is a feature, not a bug, so i don't think more extensions (rookie or otherwise) for them makes sense. teams over the cap SHOULD feel like they have reduced retention ability, and as above with how many rookies are going for mins and no one really knowing how they'll turn out, i don't think we have reason to believe that if rookies are good they'll get big money and keep overcap teams out of the picture that way with all that said, i think an undercap extension on top of the extension everyone gets would be good, and making the everyone extension tradeable would also work pretty easily. i would want to try this before we tried rookie scale extensions, since those would obviously be much more powerful, and again would expect those to be limited to undercap teams . it's not clear to me what we gain from removing the soft cap for trading purposes. if we end up in a scenario where overcap teams have exactly as much flexibility to acquire and retain rookies as they did in a draft system, what's the point? . i'm extremely hesitant to increase free bucks because 10k missing playoffs + 8k on time correct DC + 3k boxes is 21k, doing a podcast for 30k once every three seasons would be enough to fully upgrade a player every year, so the "not enough to upgrade" doesn't seem right to me. if scouting specifically is what's too expensive the appropriate answer to me seems to be to reduce scout costs or introduce scout tokens, with the point of scout tokens being to address the specific issue of scout expense while by definition not impacting anything else - we'd have to reevaluate the trade cap, amnesty costs, lab costs, camp costs, extension costs, coach costs, Germany costs, fines... that seems like a big can of worms we could avoid really easily if the problem is just scout costs, especially since they've always been malleable just a couple of follow ups 1. thoughts on removing the cap on tradeable bucks? 2. i'm not sure keeping good teams from acquiring and retaining talent was ever the goal of rookie fa, at least not from my perspective. while close but not the same, the goal for me was to prevent elite player acquisition and retention based off of things such as "because it was their turn to have a good pick". previously title winners could end up with 1.1, now not only does no one have 1.1 but most anyone that an overthecap team can end up signing will be players that have been passed on by everyone with space (unless they use mle which you and others consider foolish). plus not having that bad player with birds will hurt trading because we will be more limited in the ability to match contracts without giving up someone we dont want to give up. |
|
