|
Post by London Redcoats on Jan 6, 2016 10:44:40 GMT -6
Is it possible for the commissioner to override the MFL positions? I'm wondering what should happen if someone signs a player as a Safety but then MFL re-classified them as a LineBacker. This is all hypothetical of course....
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Jan 8, 2016 0:31:30 GMT -6
mfl is really good w/ their position tags.
i like the andre ellington rule though.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 16, 2016 10:43:18 GMT -6
At the end of the season have the period you can waive players last longer than the period you can add them.
There may be a good reason I'm missing for why it's the other way around at the moment, but by having a few days at the end of the season where you can waive players after free agency is closed, people can clean up their rosters a bit without the issues of this year (cutting big names and distorting a last minute FA market). To be clear, I'm not talking about the kind of contracts Johnstown cut (they were dead anyway), I'm talking about having an opportunity to cut larger multi-year deals. As it stands doing that at the end of the season could distort things and doing it at the beginning of the season would forbid you from rebidding on those players when FA re-opens which seems an unnecessary penalty.
There is obviously the other problem of how do you define when a player is "too good" to waive when FA is still open, but I can't say I have a great solution for that.
|
|
|
Post by betterthangoodell (Omaha) on Feb 23, 2016 13:30:27 GMT -6
Winner of the losers bracket gets a compensatory pick, 1.17. This would keep people more involved throughout the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 23, 2016 16:26:15 GMT -6
Hell, instead of the winner of the losers bracket getting 1.17, how about the losers bracket determine draft order.
Winner of losers bracket gets 1.1 pick, 2nd gets 1.2, and so forth instead of the worst team getting 1.1 and 2nd worse getting 1.2. This would prevent tanking and reward teams for actually trying
|
|
|
Post by betterthangoodell (Omaha) on Feb 23, 2016 19:36:33 GMT -6
Hell, instead of the winner of the losers bracket getting 1.17, how about the losers bracket determine draft order. Winner of losers bracket gets 1.1 pick, 2nd gets 1.2, and so forth instead of the worst team getting 1.1 and 2nd worse getting 1.2. This would prevent tanking and reward teams for actually trying That might be a little rough, changing the dynamic of an attempt at parity as opposed just a little something extra on top.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 23, 2016 19:58:25 GMT -6
Don't really like either suggestion that much. I think giving the 1.01 to the 9th best team each year is a bit tough on genuinely struggling teams, and will also just encourage a different kind of tanking. When people realise their contending team might not quite have enough, all you have to do is just miss out on the playoffs and suddenly you'll have a shot at the 1.01. I don't feel like we have that big a problem with tanking as it is. I could get on board with giving the losing bracket winner a draft pick but the 1.17 is pretty valuable when they'll likely already have a high-ish 1st. Maybe 2.17 but that's still pretty useful especially in an IDP league. I'd be most comfortable with 3.17 and can comfortably say that would be incentive enough for me to keep putting a good team out. But maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Feb 23, 2016 22:00:42 GMT -6
have 1st round be finish have 2nd round and beyond be placed by loser bracket (loser bracket winner gets 2.1 3.1 etc)
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 23, 2016 23:37:30 GMT -6
Do it like the nba lottery, a just want some extra excitement...
|
|
|
Post by Leeds Cougars on Feb 24, 2016 14:10:08 GMT -6
Hell, instead of the winner of the losers bracket getting 1.17, how about the losers bracket determine draft order. Winner of losers bracket gets 1.1 pick, 2nd gets 1.2, and so forth instead of the worst team getting 1.1 and 2nd worse getting 1.2. This would prevent tanking and reward teams for actually trying I like this, I have mooted something similar in an other league; as Zack has noted, it prevents tanking as the winner gets the 1.1 pick, you can do similar brackets for teams 5-8 and 9-12.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 24, 2016 18:59:57 GMT -6
Another idea is to raise our salary cap to be in line with the NFL salary cap where it goes up potentially in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 24, 2016 22:25:32 GMT -6
Just going back to the "incentives to avoid tanking", to put a finer point on my thinking, I believe disparity between "good" and "bad" teams is a bigger issues in this league than tanking. Hence my focus on giving the best picks to the "bad" teams rather than the most motivated/active.
Zach, what's the thinking behind moving the salary cap inline with the NFL cap? Isn't it pretty arbitrary and a big shift like that would be so hard to implement given at all times there will be contracts put in place based on the lower cap?
|
|
|
Post by Leeds Cougars on Feb 25, 2016 1:23:16 GMT -6
Another idea is to raise our salary cap to be in line with the NFL salary cap where it goes up potentially in the future. maybe a 2% increase each season would be enough, that would be around $2.5m increase which would cover a few rookie draft picks.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 25, 2016 20:16:33 GMT -6
The increase would be to be directly in line with the NFL salary cap since we are trying to make it as close to the NFL as possible. I get that you sign contracts at lower salary caps but that is also what happens in the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 26, 2016 8:35:26 GMT -6
I get it. But there is a point to which there will always be differences. Does it add a degree of realism having the same salary cap number for a 20 man roster with no O-line, no ST, etc. as for a real 53 man roster...I'm not sure it does, especially not for the hassle of making the transition.
|
|
|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Feb 26, 2016 23:20:01 GMT -6
Ya'll do realize that our cap adjusts already based on tier movement of the league as a whole right?
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 27, 2016 2:03:13 GMT -6
Haha yep, was thinking that. How is the change looking this year? Up a bit again?
|
|
|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Feb 27, 2016 11:28:25 GMT -6
Honestly I am not sure yet. I just finished placing all players into tiers. The next step is to go through every team and adjust salaries up and down and track how players moved for the year, that will determine our cap shift for the year. I honestly think it might be down a bit but that is just a totally random guess from placing a few hundred players into their tiers..I could be totally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by London Redcoats on Feb 29, 2016 3:26:34 GMT -6
Could we look at how the contract discount rules are applied? There was at least one instance of a playing signing for a position discount and then immediately being traded to another team.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Feb 29, 2016 13:11:49 GMT -6
To Joe's point above it's obviously up to Chance if we discuss it, but I don't have any issues with people using discounts and then trading. The most egregious example was Marshawn Lynch last year where Seattle and Phoenix (I think it was you guys) used Phoenix's position discounts to bid on Lynch going way above Phoenix's cap limit but then immediately trading him to Seattle and taking some salary discounts in the trade as well. Given the structure of our league there are always going to be ways to use the rules like that so I think trying to close each "loophole" will be fruitless and we should probably just embrace it as long as it never goes so far as something more like collusion. And if it does as usual that is the Commish's call to make.
The only exception might be the soft cap which if we took away, or included a slight limit to (max of $5m above the hard cap or something) would eliminate the most extreme examples like the one above.
As ever, just my view.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Feb 29, 2016 22:53:03 GMT -6
How is this any different than MLB teams overpaying for a player and then trading him and agreeing to pay part of his salary (ie. Josh Hamilton lol)
|
|
|
Post by London Redcoats on Mar 1, 2016 7:28:56 GMT -6
I don't think that discount "abuse" is a big problem. My concern is that at some point in the future we will see reciprocal trades where the RB coach bids on RBs and then trades them to the WR coach for discounted WRs. Obviously perfectly within the rules and I certainly wouldn't blame someone for perusing this strategy but I don't think it is good for the competitive balance of the league. How is this any different than MLB teams overpaying for a player and then trading him and agreeing to pay part of his salary (ie. Josh Hamilton lol) To be honest it's no different to a player signing with an NFL team for "a discount" and then being traded elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Mar 1, 2016 16:14:28 GMT -6
Joe, I feel like your post contradicts itself a bit, as long as there is a discount system at all people might do that sort of thing. But it doesn't really worry me if they do and I doubt we'll see many trades like that because it's a headache to put in place given timing doesn't necessarily line up, but there's nothing stopping people from doing it now using the flex discounts for RBs or WRs.
Zach, the difference is signing someone with the intention of an immediate trade, a structure that doesn't exist in the NFL (unlike the NBA of course). I don't have issues with people doing it though, it's just when the soft cap gets abused a bit at the same time it gets a little silly.
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Mar 1, 2016 23:08:15 GMT -6
the difference between what we did and what happens in the nfl/mlb is that players must be on the squad for a number of days. even the nba it was like mid december before a signed FA can be traded.
|
|