 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Salary cap
irishman36
Salary cap
June 10, 2014 at 10:46PM View BBCode
Does anyone else wish the salary cap came into play more? Doesn't really seem to be part of the game at all as it stands. I've only had 1 team every even close and I am in three regular premium leagues and the two test leagues.
Closer
June 11, 2014 at 12:02AM View BBCode
I would say, if its there, it should have some influence in the game.
casperthegm
June 11, 2014 at 12:13AM View BBCode
It's been discussed and I'm a big fan of making it an important strategic part of the game. But first I think Chris wants to get some of the updates to the game implemented first. It is on the radar though from what I understand.
Admin
Chris
June 11, 2014 at 01:24AM View BBCode
The problems I have had with it are that the formulas to create salary are very finicky. The best solution is probably to just install a table of actual NFL salaries, and the top player at a position gets the top salary, the next best player gets the next salary, etc. It will probably not get into this update, which is already overdue and there is still so much work to be done.Chris
KLKRTR
? Set salaries based on positional value.
This is already done and seems to be working as intended.
? Install an escalator when players hit a certain age (no longer on rookie contract).
I'm pretty sure there's an age factor in the current system.
? Player skill needs to have a role, similar to what Chris described in the previous post (table of actual NFL salaries).
? Draft position should have an effect, at least early in a player's career.
This could be tricky, and it is mostly covered by the skill rating requirement, but a FB with a salary of 385 drafted at the end of the first round doesn't make much sense.
? Playing time escalators. This, to me, is the most important piece of the puzzle. Any player that reaches a threshold of playing time (varies by position) should have a percent increase in salary the following season. Any player with less than a second threshold of playing time (varies by position) should have a percent decrease in salary the following season.
This would eliminate some of the issues that come with "system" players. You see teams consistently win with low-salary players. These niche players don't have great overall grades (e.g. pass-blocking OT with low execution), and they have correspondingly low salaries.
? Attitude needs to stay in play.
This obviously adds a fun element of individualism.
AND/OR
Set the players' values as percents of the total league's salary cap. This can then be adjusted with the age and attitude attributes already in play (as well as other suggestions from earlier) to keep the final percentages from being the exact same from season to season.
For example, in the JBFL, each of the 16 teams has a salary cap of $128,000. This comes out to a total of $2,048,000. The most expensive player in the league is QB jay "super jc" cutler at $16,893. The second-most expensive player in the league is DE Nolan Smeja at $11,539.
For the QB, that is 13.2% of the team's salary cap and 0.8% of the league's salary cap. We're talking about an insanely talented individual here (A+/A+/A+/A), with a salary 146% of the next best QB. That said, Aaron Rodgers has the highest QB salary in the NFL. It is 16.5% of the team's salary cap (even after the large increase in salary cap this offseason) and 0.5% of the league's salary cap (despite there being twice as many teams). Aaron Rodgers isn't even getting paid that much more than the other QBs (106% of the salary of #2 Matt Ryan). There must be a way to set salaries based on percent of salary cap.
OR THE IDEAL SCENARIO
Free agency/defined-length contracts solves the salary cap problem every time. I'm sure it's not easy to implement, but it would fix the problem and add an added dimension to the oh-so-boring offseason and pre-season. Set rookie contracts to 5 years, all others to 3 years or less.
June 11, 2014 at 02:26AM View BBCode
To me, the best way to set up a competitive "market" for players is something like this:? Set salaries based on positional value.
This is already done and seems to be working as intended.
? Install an escalator when players hit a certain age (no longer on rookie contract).
I'm pretty sure there's an age factor in the current system.
? Player skill needs to have a role, similar to what Chris described in the previous post (table of actual NFL salaries).
? Draft position should have an effect, at least early in a player's career.
This could be tricky, and it is mostly covered by the skill rating requirement, but a FB with a salary of 385 drafted at the end of the first round doesn't make much sense.
? Playing time escalators. This, to me, is the most important piece of the puzzle. Any player that reaches a threshold of playing time (varies by position) should have a percent increase in salary the following season. Any player with less than a second threshold of playing time (varies by position) should have a percent decrease in salary the following season.
This would eliminate some of the issues that come with "system" players. You see teams consistently win with low-salary players. These niche players don't have great overall grades (e.g. pass-blocking OT with low execution), and they have correspondingly low salaries.
? Attitude needs to stay in play.
This obviously adds a fun element of individualism.
AND/OR
Set the players' values as percents of the total league's salary cap. This can then be adjusted with the age and attitude attributes already in play (as well as other suggestions from earlier) to keep the final percentages from being the exact same from season to season.
For example, in the JBFL, each of the 16 teams has a salary cap of $128,000. This comes out to a total of $2,048,000. The most expensive player in the league is QB jay "super jc" cutler at $16,893. The second-most expensive player in the league is DE Nolan Smeja at $11,539.
For the QB, that is 13.2% of the team's salary cap and 0.8% of the league's salary cap. We're talking about an insanely talented individual here (A+/A+/A+/A), with a salary 146% of the next best QB. That said, Aaron Rodgers has the highest QB salary in the NFL. It is 16.5% of the team's salary cap (even after the large increase in salary cap this offseason) and 0.5% of the league's salary cap (despite there being twice as many teams). Aaron Rodgers isn't even getting paid that much more than the other QBs (106% of the salary of #2 Matt Ryan). There must be a way to set salaries based on percent of salary cap.
OR THE IDEAL SCENARIO
Free agency/defined-length contracts solves the salary cap problem every time. I'm sure it's not easy to implement, but it would fix the problem and add an added dimension to the oh-so-boring offseason and pre-season. Set rookie contracts to 5 years, all others to 3 years or less.
Hodor
I was just saying in another thread something about it.
In the NFL, nobody can SEE/measure the skills of the players, so the wages are based on players' results.
In SD, everybody can see/measure the players' skills, so the wages are based on these players' skills.
Sure, we could make wages based on players results (so players in winning teams would demand more money than players in losing ones), but I can't see the point in doing that... this would mean that a successful team would struggle to keep its mediocre skilled players but it won't matter, since those players can be easily replaced by a new batch of cheap mediocre skilled players again. Or even worse/better, those big teams now will be able to afford the better players, who are now cheaper than the mediocre skilled ones.
IF the "big" teams were loaded with the so-called best players in the leagues, almost reaching the salary cap all the time, then yes, putting more pressure on the cap would "punish" these teams and make it more even... but I don't think that that's the case, I think that the teams that would find it easier to manage more pressure on the salary cap would be those teams that are used to find mediocre-skilled players and be successful with them.
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that if you try to put more pressure on the salary cap, like in 90% of the things in the game, the teams that would suffer more would be the smaller teams and the big teams won't even notice.
---
Now, if you want to totally change the game, then...
*Make the actual skill levels hidden.
Nobody knows for sure how good is x player in catching. Nobody knows the real number/grade.
*Have the option to scout players and then show the "scouted skill values".
This scouted skill values shouldn't be accurate, actually they should overlap (i.e. if a player is scouted as B+ in catching, he could actually be B or A-)
How this scouting system works, there's plenty of ways to do it, both for College players as well as for the Pros, both in your team or in other teams.
*With the players actual values hidden, and only showing some idea of their values through scouting, players would still have a "Display Skill Value".
*The "Display Skill Value" would be visible for everybody (just like the actual values we have today), but these ones would be based on the players' performances.
A player who has caught a lot of passes would have A+ in catching (even if his hidden actual skill value is -let's say- "B" in catching).
*When valuating players, you'll see their Display Skill Value -based solely on performances- (Catching A+), then you could scout him and get his Scouted Skill Value -based on actual skill, but inaccurate- (Catching B+) and then you can try to make a guess... is that player A-? B+? B?
*Then, the wages of the players should be based on their "Display Skill Value" (If a player performs great, he should be great, so he should cash it great) and THEN big teams would actually struggle to keep their stars, because this way a big team doesn't know for sure if his "great" player is really as great as he performs, or if he's just an easily replaceable mediocre skilled player.
*It would be more fun, but sadly, in the end, it would be the same... since the small teams won't know for sure neither if that defensive tackle with no sacks is just a worthless bust, or if he's a great player waiting for a small adjustment in the team system to finally start shinning.
But it would be more fun, anyway.
June 11, 2014 at 05:34AM View BBCode
I don't think there's a fair way to make salaries relevant the way the game is now.I was just saying in another thread something about it.
In the NFL, nobody can SEE/measure the skills of the players, so the wages are based on players' results.
In SD, everybody can see/measure the players' skills, so the wages are based on these players' skills.
Sure, we could make wages based on players results (so players in winning teams would demand more money than players in losing ones), but I can't see the point in doing that... this would mean that a successful team would struggle to keep its mediocre skilled players but it won't matter, since those players can be easily replaced by a new batch of cheap mediocre skilled players again. Or even worse/better, those big teams now will be able to afford the better players, who are now cheaper than the mediocre skilled ones.
IF the "big" teams were loaded with the so-called best players in the leagues, almost reaching the salary cap all the time, then yes, putting more pressure on the cap would "punish" these teams and make it more even... but I don't think that that's the case, I think that the teams that would find it easier to manage more pressure on the salary cap would be those teams that are used to find mediocre-skilled players and be successful with them.
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that if you try to put more pressure on the salary cap, like in 90% of the things in the game, the teams that would suffer more would be the smaller teams and the big teams won't even notice.
---
Now, if you want to totally change the game, then...
*Make the actual skill levels hidden.
Nobody knows for sure how good is x player in catching. Nobody knows the real number/grade.
*Have the option to scout players and then show the "scouted skill values".
This scouted skill values shouldn't be accurate, actually they should overlap (i.e. if a player is scouted as B+ in catching, he could actually be B or A-)
How this scouting system works, there's plenty of ways to do it, both for College players as well as for the Pros, both in your team or in other teams.
*With the players actual values hidden, and only showing some idea of their values through scouting, players would still have a "Display Skill Value".
*The "Display Skill Value" would be visible for everybody (just like the actual values we have today), but these ones would be based on the players' performances.
A player who has caught a lot of passes would have A+ in catching (even if his hidden actual skill value is -let's say- "B" in catching).
*When valuating players, you'll see their Display Skill Value -based solely on performances- (Catching A+), then you could scout him and get his Scouted Skill Value -based on actual skill, but inaccurate- (Catching B+) and then you can try to make a guess... is that player A-? B+? B?
*Then, the wages of the players should be based on their "Display Skill Value" (If a player performs great, he should be great, so he should cash it great) and THEN big teams would actually struggle to keep their stars, because this way a big team doesn't know for sure if his "great" player is really as great as he performs, or if he's just an easily replaceable mediocre skilled player.
*It would be more fun, but sadly, in the end, it would be the same... since the small teams won't know for sure neither if that defensive tackle with no sacks is just a worthless bust, or if he's a great player waiting for a small adjustment in the team system to finally start shinning.
But it would be more fun, anyway.
Closer
June 11, 2014 at 11:27AM View BBCode
I wonder what this league would be like if it was blind like the TCL baseball league. Can't see + or - signs and can't see improvement numbers.
Hodor
Just to be clear, that's not what I meant at all.
That way you just have inconclusive info: a couple of guys with A catching are still better than a couple of guys with B catching, you just don't know which one of those two is the best.
In real life you have "misleading" info: a couple of guys with 1000+ yards COULD be better than a couple of guys with less than 500, but probably is the other way around and for some reason they've been performing better.
---
After thinking about it (damn, my life should be more interesting), I want to rewrite what I said last night with an example:
Let's say a player (in the game) wants to rework his contract after a successful season.
With (partially or complete) visible skills:
The player demands a wage according to his performance.
I offer a wage according to his skills.
Chances are that there'll be a difference; since I have reliable info about his actual value, I can make a solid decision about keeping him or cutting him.
With no visible skills other than those based on player's performance:
The player demands a wage according to his performance.
I have to assume that that's his real value.
There's a bigger chance that I don't make a solid decision, since I don't have reliable info about the player's actual value, I'll have to make a gamble.
Let's say I end up releasing the player.
With (partially or complete) visible skills:
The player is still demanding a high wage, and there won't be many people willing to pay it, since everybody can see that the player is not worth that much.
Chances are that he ends up lowering his demands and then I could sign him again for a lower wage.
(Actually, if we go this route, then we should be able to negotiate the contract before releasing the player in the first place, but that's a whole different topic).
With no visible skills other than those based on player's performance:
Several teams will be willing to pay what my former player wants, since as far as anyone can see, he's one of the best players in the league.
That would hurt their salary cap though, and most likely they'll be forced to release one of their own players, who may or may not be worse than the guy they're just signing in.
They'll have to take that gamble aswell.
---
---
Another way to look at it is to ask this question:
When I look at a successful team, do I really believe that his players are better than mine?
[Edited on 6-11-2014 by Hodor]
June 11, 2014 at 01:02PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Closer
I wonder what this league would be like if it was blind like the TCL baseball league. Can't see + or - signs and can't see improvement numbers.
Just to be clear, that's not what I meant at all.
That way you just have inconclusive info: a couple of guys with A catching are still better than a couple of guys with B catching, you just don't know which one of those two is the best.
In real life you have "misleading" info: a couple of guys with 1000+ yards COULD be better than a couple of guys with less than 500, but probably is the other way around and for some reason they've been performing better.
---
After thinking about it (damn, my life should be more interesting), I want to rewrite what I said last night with an example:
Let's say a player (in the game) wants to rework his contract after a successful season.
With (partially or complete) visible skills:
The player demands a wage according to his performance.
I offer a wage according to his skills.
Chances are that there'll be a difference; since I have reliable info about his actual value, I can make a solid decision about keeping him or cutting him.
With no visible skills other than those based on player's performance:
The player demands a wage according to his performance.
I have to assume that that's his real value.
There's a bigger chance that I don't make a solid decision, since I don't have reliable info about the player's actual value, I'll have to make a gamble.
Let's say I end up releasing the player.
With (partially or complete) visible skills:
The player is still demanding a high wage, and there won't be many people willing to pay it, since everybody can see that the player is not worth that much.
Chances are that he ends up lowering his demands and then I could sign him again for a lower wage.
(Actually, if we go this route, then we should be able to negotiate the contract before releasing the player in the first place, but that's a whole different topic).
With no visible skills other than those based on player's performance:
Several teams will be willing to pay what my former player wants, since as far as anyone can see, he's one of the best players in the league.
That would hurt their salary cap though, and most likely they'll be forced to release one of their own players, who may or may not be worse than the guy they're just signing in.
They'll have to take that gamble aswell.
---
---
Another way to look at it is to ask this question:
When I look at a successful team, do I really believe that his players are better than mine?
[Edited on 6-11-2014 by Hodor]
dirtdevil
that depends on who you ask. :lol:
June 11, 2014 at 02:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hodor
When I look at a successful team, do I really believe that his players are better than mine?
that depends on who you ask. :lol:
dirtdevil
all of which is a long-winded way of saying, if you want the cap to count for more, lower the cap. if your goal in altering the cap system is to force the 'top' teams back into the pack though, it's not going to do that. nothing is.
June 11, 2014 at 02:57PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
as to the salary cap discussion, I don't really feel like the solutions here are practical, in the main. I don't know that a lot of people would have the time to get maximum value out of a scouting-based system (of whatever kind). in my experience, the more complicated you make a system, the more that system favours those who put the most time in. while that may be fair, it isn't always the best way to run a sim-game. right now the top teams are already almost always those who put the most time in, but there is an opportunity for those who put in less to still have some level of success. that keeps those people engaged, and keeps the playing. if the game gets more complicated, no matter what system you go to, what you'll see is the difference between those who put in more time and those who don't widening, probably substantially. while I would probably expect to be among those who would benefit from that striation, I don't think that's a good thing for the sim overall.
all of which is a long-winded way of saying, if you want the cap to count for more, lower the cap. if your goal in altering the cap system is to force the 'top' teams back into the pack though, it's not going to do that. nothing is.
Hodor
I agree.
June 11, 2014 at 07:02PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
as to the salary cap discussion, I don't really feel like the solutions here are practical, in the main. I don't know that a lot of people would have the time to get maximum value out of a scouting-based system (of whatever kind). in my experience, the more complicated you make a system, the more that system favours those who put the most time in. while that may be fair, it isn't always the best way to run a sim-game. right now the top teams are already almost always those who put the most time in, but there is an opportunity for those who put in less to still have some level of success. that keeps those people engaged, and keeps the playing. if the game gets more complicated, no matter what system you go to, what you'll see is the difference between those who put in more time and those who don't widening, probably substantially. while I would probably expect to be among those who would benefit from that striation, I don't think that's a good thing for the sim overall.
all of which is a long-winded way of saying, if you want the cap to count for more, lower the cap. if your goal in altering the cap system is to force the 'top' teams back into the pack though, it's not going to do that. nothing is.
I agree.
Bucs1010
June 12, 2014 at 03:24AM View BBCode
I agree with Dirt, maybe the simplest and best way is to just lower the cap. The tricky part is to figuring out what the cap number should be dropped to without killing too many teams. In the 32 team MAFL league, only 10 teams are over 100,000 threshold, showing that the 128,000 limit is far too high. Dropping the salary cap to around 105-110 would increase trades league wide to stay under the cap and also increase the talent on the WW each rewarding those with high picks. Just my .02
Hodor
Just keep in mind that the teams affected by this won't be the "top" teams.
Sure, the Wolverines are one of those 10 teams above the 100k threshold, but only for $200 (less than the minimum wage of one player).
There's only 9 teams above the 101k threshold, and only 1 of them made it to the playoffs this season (Charlotte - 115k).
Lowering the cap to 115k would force Orlando (7-9) to get rid of 12k in wages... one of those wide outs or one of those defensive ends could end up playing for the Reapers, the Bootleggers, the Sinners, the Frogs, the Mob or even the Wolverines (even they fit in your current 100k budget)... for free or for a very cheap price.
I don't mind if the salary cap is dropped, obviously it's too high, but I'm not sure if that would be an improvement for the league.
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by Hodor]
June 12, 2014 at 04:03AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Bucs1010
I agree with Dirt, maybe the simplest and best way is to just lower the cap. The tricky part is to figuring out what the cap number should be dropped to without killing too many teams. In the 32 team MAFL league, only 10 teams are over 100,000 threshold, showing that the 128,000 limit is far too high. Dropping the salary cap to around 105-110 would increase trades league wide to stay under the cap and also increase the talent on the WW each rewarding those with high picks. Just my .02
Just keep in mind that the teams affected by this won't be the "top" teams.
Sure, the Wolverines are one of those 10 teams above the 100k threshold, but only for $200 (less than the minimum wage of one player).
There's only 9 teams above the 101k threshold, and only 1 of them made it to the playoffs this season (Charlotte - 115k).
Lowering the cap to 115k would force Orlando (7-9) to get rid of 12k in wages... one of those wide outs or one of those defensive ends could end up playing for the Reapers, the Bootleggers, the Sinners, the Frogs, the Mob or even the Wolverines (even they fit in your current 100k budget)... for free or for a very cheap price.
I don't mind if the salary cap is dropped, obviously it's too high, but I'm not sure if that would be an improvement for the league.
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by Hodor]
Admin
Early in the game's history, we had the opposite problem; every team was squeezed by the cap, so we put limits on incoming draftee salaries and how much any player's salary could go up in the offseason. In addition, we don't have long-term contracts, so player salaries can fall the moment that a player starts to decline.
I don't want to get into the whole "salary league" contract negotiation stuff... I tried playing in a baseball salary league once and dealing with all that was like pulling teeth. But I do acknowledge that not having a "market value" for players keeps salaries down. Maybe there is a middle ground?
In the NFL, there are restricted free agents and unrestricted free agents. Basically, anyone with four or more years and an expired contract can sign with anyone; less service and an expired contract and they can entertain offers but the existing club has right of first refusal.
So maybe the middle ground is to treat players like restricted free agents:
- Each player has a contract length. This is set automatically, so there is no time-consuming contract negotiation phase. The auto contract length would be set based on player age, draft position, salary, etc. and would range from 1 to 5 years.
- In the final year of a player's contract, he appears on a Free Agent list and other teams can make a bid for them. The team that already has the player can match that bid up until draft time. We would have to have a limit on how far over the cap an owner could go with total bids, like 10%; this prevents owners from making bids on everyone just to drive up player prices. Conversely, an owner can offer to lower a salary of a player he owns, but there is a chance another team will snap up the player, or the player may just choose to retire.
- Players would simply go with the highest bid, with ties going to the existing team or the earliest bid.
Would this overly complicate the game, or cause problems by allowing owners to drive up other owners' payrolls or snatch key players away from them? Obviously this is something that a league would have the ability to turn off.
Chris
June 12, 2014 at 04:10PM View BBCode
Note that the cap can be dropped individually by league. No leagues have yet requested a cap adjustment.Early in the game's history, we had the opposite problem; every team was squeezed by the cap, so we put limits on incoming draftee salaries and how much any player's salary could go up in the offseason. In addition, we don't have long-term contracts, so player salaries can fall the moment that a player starts to decline.
I don't want to get into the whole "salary league" contract negotiation stuff... I tried playing in a baseball salary league once and dealing with all that was like pulling teeth. But I do acknowledge that not having a "market value" for players keeps salaries down. Maybe there is a middle ground?
In the NFL, there are restricted free agents and unrestricted free agents. Basically, anyone with four or more years and an expired contract can sign with anyone; less service and an expired contract and they can entertain offers but the existing club has right of first refusal.
So maybe the middle ground is to treat players like restricted free agents:
- Each player has a contract length. This is set automatically, so there is no time-consuming contract negotiation phase. The auto contract length would be set based on player age, draft position, salary, etc. and would range from 1 to 5 years.
- In the final year of a player's contract, he appears on a Free Agent list and other teams can make a bid for them. The team that already has the player can match that bid up until draft time. We would have to have a limit on how far over the cap an owner could go with total bids, like 10%; this prevents owners from making bids on everyone just to drive up player prices. Conversely, an owner can offer to lower a salary of a player he owns, but there is a chance another team will snap up the player, or the player may just choose to retire.
- Players would simply go with the highest bid, with ties going to the existing team or the earliest bid.
Would this overly complicate the game, or cause problems by allowing owners to drive up other owners' payrolls or snatch key players away from them? Obviously this is something that a league would have the ability to turn off.
Chris
dirtdevil
June 12, 2014 at 04:23PM View BBCode
it would complicate the game, but not as much as some other options. whether that would be for better or worse I don't think I could say without trying it.
blakjakshalak
I do have some questions for thought:
-What happens when a player is traded? Do you just get them for the term of the contract or can you re-sign him?
-Can you re-sign your own players early or do you have to let the contract expire and expose him to free agency? Or another scenerio, say you have a promising youngster who has a year left on his contract. The guy in front of him retires or gets traded. You believe that the youngster will be good and you want to lock him up. Can you re-sign for a salary based on his current value as a backup, or is there a way to set his price based on a projected value?
-Are salaries fixed for the term of the contract or do they escelate by year?
-How will abandoned teams' contracts be dealt with?
Just a few off the top of my head.
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by blakjakshalak]
June 12, 2014 at 04:59PM View BBCode
I think that's a pretty good compromise. I'm no fan of all that contract stuff but it doesn't sound too onerous.I do have some questions for thought:
-What happens when a player is traded? Do you just get them for the term of the contract or can you re-sign him?
-Can you re-sign your own players early or do you have to let the contract expire and expose him to free agency? Or another scenerio, say you have a promising youngster who has a year left on his contract. The guy in front of him retires or gets traded. You believe that the youngster will be good and you want to lock him up. Can you re-sign for a salary based on his current value as a backup, or is there a way to set his price based on a projected value?
-Are salaries fixed for the term of the contract or do they escelate by year?
-How will abandoned teams' contracts be dealt with?
Just a few off the top of my head.
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by blakjakshalak]
Admin
I'm going to look at this.
Chris
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by Admin]
June 12, 2014 at 04:59PM View BBCode
I think part of the problem is as long as there is at least one really good player at a position, other players salaries get artificially depressed. Maybe fixing things is as easy as ignoring the top 4 or 5 players when setting salary parameters for the position, then folding them back in for the final calculation. This would also make salaries a lot more consistent between leagues. It is such an obvious solution I have no idea why I never thought of it before.I'm going to look at this.
Chris
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by Admin]
Admin
You would get them for the remainder of the contract
In his final year you could increase his salary offer. The system will automatically renegotate his salary and enter that as your default offer (which is effectively what it does now) and you have right of first refusal so you can match any offer another team makes. For simplicity, though, I don't think I'd add length of contract as a negotiating point, i'd let that be system calculated.
The "short answer" is that they are fixed.
The long answer? Well, that depends on your point of view.
From the point of view of the player, his contract escalates by 7% each year. From the point of view of the owner, the contract doesn't change.
Take, for example, [url=http://football.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=2265750]Billy Shelton[/url]. His salary is 3421. 3421 what? 3421 "salary units". In Shelton's world, which is in the year 2000, he put 1.762 million dollars in the bank that year, and next year he will put about 1.885 million in the bank, but his salary will still be 3421 "salary units". Salary units are based on 2009 dollars, so in sim year 2009, Shelton will bank 3.421 million (assuming the unlikely scenario he is still earning 3421 salary units).
Nobody has to ever deal with a single salary or contract. They will automatically have the auto-negotiated values applied. What can happen, though, is that other teams can make higher offers for players in their last year and poach players from those teams.
Chris
June 12, 2014 at 06:07PM View BBCode
Originally posted by blakjakshalak
-What happens when a player is traded? Do you just get them for the term of the contract or can you re-sign him?
You would get them for the remainder of the contract
-Can you re-sign your own players early? Say, you have a promising youngster who has a year left on his contract. The guy in front of him retires or gets traded. You believe that the youngster will be good and you want to lock him up. Can you re-sign for a salary based on his current value as a backup, or is there a way to set his price based on a projected value?
In his final year you could increase his salary offer. The system will automatically renegotate his salary and enter that as your default offer (which is effectively what it does now) and you have right of first refusal so you can match any offer another team makes. For simplicity, though, I don't think I'd add length of contract as a negotiating point, i'd let that be system calculated.
-Are salaries fixed for the term of the contract or do they escelate by year?
The "short answer" is that they are fixed.
The long answer? Well, that depends on your point of view.
From the point of view of the player, his contract escalates by 7% each year. From the point of view of the owner, the contract doesn't change.
Take, for example, [url=http://football.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=2265750]Billy Shelton[/url]. His salary is 3421. 3421 what? 3421 "salary units". In Shelton's world, which is in the year 2000, he put 1.762 million dollars in the bank that year, and next year he will put about 1.885 million in the bank, but his salary will still be 3421 "salary units". Salary units are based on 2009 dollars, so in sim year 2009, Shelton will bank 3.421 million (assuming the unlikely scenario he is still earning 3421 salary units).
-How will abandoned teams' contracts be dealt with?
Nobody has to ever deal with a single salary or contract. They will automatically have the auto-negotiated values applied. What can happen, though, is that other teams can make higher offers for players in their last year and poach players from those teams.
Chris
Admin
Chris
June 12, 2014 at 08:28PM View BBCode
Okay, I recalculated the salaries in Beta Premium and Zeta. Zeta started looking a lot better but Beta Premium pushed most everyone over the cap. So there is something about the salary formula that isn't accounting for league size and works for 16 team leagues but creates salaries too low in 32 team leagues. It's not the top salaries, it's the distribution.Chris
EdSales87
June 12, 2014 at 10:50PM View BBCode
Whatever comes up, I hope Attitude still plays an effect in keeping salaries down.
Admin
Chris
June 13, 2014 at 03:32AM View BBCode
Attitude will still be a part of the salary component.Chris
RichNYC1
Luv this idea
June 13, 2014 at 01:29PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Note that the cap can be dropped individually by league. No leagues have yet requested a cap adjustment.
Early in the game's history, we had the opposite problem; every team was squeezed by the cap, so we put limits on incoming draftee salaries and how much any player's salary could go up in the offseason. In addition, we don't have long-term contracts, so player salaries can fall the moment that a player starts to decline.
I don't want to get into the whole "salary league" contract negotiation stuff... I tried playing in a baseball salary league once and dealing with all that was like pulling teeth. But I do acknowledge that not having a "market value" for players keeps salaries down. Maybe there is a middle ground?
In the NFL, there are restricted free agents and unrestricted free agents. Basically, anyone with four or more years and an expired contract can sign with anyone; less service and an expired contract and they can entertain offers but the existing club has right of first refusal.
So maybe the middle ground is to treat players like restricted free agents:
- Each player has a contract length. This is set automatically, so there is no time-consuming contract negotiation phase. The auto contract length would be set based on player age, draft position, salary, etc. and would range from 1 to 5 years.
- In the final year of a player's contract, he appears on a Free Agent list and other teams can make a bid for them. The team that already has the player can match that bid up until draft time. We would have to have a limit on how far over the cap an owner could go with total bids, like 10%; this prevents owners from making bids on everyone just to drive up player prices. Conversely, an owner can offer to lower a salary of a player he owns, but there is a chance another team will snap up the player, or the player may just choose to retire.
- Players would simply go with the highest bid, with ties going to the existing team or the earliest bid.
Would this overly complicate the game, or cause problems by allowing owners to drive up other owners' payrolls or snatch key players away from them? Obviously this is something that a league would have the ability to turn off.
Chris
Luv this idea
Admin
Now that I think about this, draftees are going to have to have escalating contracts, or come in at full value; right now they are drafted at about 70% of their total value and go up to total value in a couple of years.
Chris
June 13, 2014 at 07:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Originally posted by blakjakshalak
-Are salaries fixed for the term of the contract or do they escelate by year?
The "short answer" is that they are fixed.
Now that I think about this, draftees are going to have to have escalating contracts, or come in at full value; right now they are drafted at about 70% of their total value and go up to total value in a couple of years.
Chris
Hodor
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vESj1.gif[/IMG]
June 14, 2014 at 02:51AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Note that the cap can be dropped individually by league. No leagues have yet requested a cap adjustment.
Early in the game's history, we had the opposite problem; every team was squeezed by the cap, so we put limits on incoming draftee salaries and how much any player's salary could go up in the offseason. In addition, we don't have long-term contracts, so player salaries can fall the moment that a player starts to decline.
I don't want to get into the whole "salary league" contract negotiation stuff... I tried playing in a baseball salary league once and dealing with all that was like pulling teeth. But I do acknowledge that not having a "market value" for players keeps salaries down. Maybe there is a middle ground?
In the NFL, there are restricted free agents and unrestricted free agents. Basically, anyone with four or more years and an expired contract can sign with anyone; less service and an expired contract and they can entertain offers but the existing club has right of first refusal.
So maybe the middle ground is to treat players like restricted free agents:
- Each player has a contract length. This is set automatically, so there is no time-consuming contract negotiation phase. The auto contract length would be set based on player age, draft position, salary, etc. and would range from 1 to 5 years.
- In the final year of a player's contract, he appears on a Free Agent list and other teams can make a bid for them. The team that already has the player can match that bid up until draft time. We would have to have a limit on how far over the cap an owner could go with total bids, like 10%; this prevents owners from making bids on everyone just to drive up player prices. Conversely, an owner can offer to lower a salary of a player he owns, but there is a chance another team will snap up the player, or the player may just choose to retire.
- Players would simply go with the highest bid, with ties going to the existing team or the earliest bid.
Would this overly complicate the game, or cause problems by allowing owners to drive up other owners' payrolls or snatch key players away from them? Obviously this is something that a league would have the ability to turn off.
Chris
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vESj1.gif[/IMG]
Admin
Chris
June 14, 2014 at 04:38AM View BBCode
Hodor, would you like us to set you up with a beta team so you can check things out?Chris
Pages: 1 2