 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Salary Cap?
KLKRTR
Salary Cap?
October 16, 2011 at 05:27AM View BBCode
Is it too low or not working as intended if you have players like [ur]http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=127506[/url] just sitting on the waiver wire? There's also an A Overall center. I just claimed a 95 overall kicker off the waiver wire, but I have to have him kick and punt for me because players are too expensive.
redcped
October 16, 2011 at 07:51AM View BBCode
Almost every team is over the cap. It doesn't help that SF is way under and waiving top players, though.
Toadfish
October 16, 2011 at 10:01AM View BBCode
if you want to do some salary dumps i will be happy to help. Trying to get a mixture of young and old in my team
Fulla
A bad team doesn't have to concern himself with a long painful rebuild as long as there are red letter players all over the WW. You would never see such players on the baseball wire.
October 16, 2011 at 01:08PM View BBCode
My Henchmen (40 players) & Cannons (31 players) have dumped a ton of talent on the wire in order to get under the cap.A bad team doesn't have to concern himself with a long painful rebuild as long as there are red letter players all over the WW. You would never see such players on the baseball wire.
KLKRTR
October 16, 2011 at 03:06PM View BBCode
Yeah...I feel like I could build a contender solely with players on the waiver wire.. I'm almost 4k over with 40 players..
redcped
All in all, it's a good equalizer, though. Realistic.
October 16, 2011 at 03:40PM View BBCode
This is my first season where I haven't had to dump starters. I'm still 2K over, though.All in all, it's a good equalizer, though. Realistic.
casperthegm
October 16, 2011 at 03:51PM View BBCode
Agreed. Painful decisions and tough cuts are realistic.
Admin
--Chris
October 16, 2011 at 04:34PM View BBCode
Of course individual premium leagues can adjust their caps, so if there's an inflation problem the league can get together and raise the cap, just like real life.--Chris
tworoosters
I am currently basically "at the cap" with a 52 man roster . I have 10 red letter offensive linemen and 17 of my 19 defensive players are red letter, which is just silly.
My specialty team guys are red letter overall, which isn't realistic.
The cap is fine, there's just too much talent.
October 16, 2011 at 04:37PM View BBCode
I don't think the salaries or the cap are the issue, the issue is that there are too many good players.I am currently basically "at the cap" with a 52 man roster . I have 10 red letter offensive linemen and 17 of my 19 defensive players are red letter, which is just silly.
My specialty team guys are red letter overall, which isn't realistic.
The cap is fine, there's just too much talent.
RichNYC1
Agreed, however BB doesnt have a Cap. Look at what the Cap has done in the NFL. There is unprecedented player movement and I think thats a good thing for SD too. The biggest difference, and I think the reason there are so many good players out there, is that we cant restructure contratcs like they can in the NFL. If we could none of those A- guys would be out there. Maybe down the road weŽll be able to rework contracts
October 16, 2011 at 04:37PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Fulla
A bad team doesn't have to concern himself with a long painful rebuild as long as there are red letter players all over the WW. You would never see such players on the baseball wire.
Agreed, however BB doesnt have a Cap. Look at what the Cap has done in the NFL. There is unprecedented player movement and I think thats a good thing for SD too. The biggest difference, and I think the reason there are so many good players out there, is that we cant restructure contratcs like they can in the NFL. If we could none of those A- guys would be out there. Maybe down the road weŽll be able to rework contracts
tworoosters
Somewhere down the line a form of free agency needs to be considered.
October 16, 2011 at 04:58PM View BBCode
It does seem silly that we have a salary cap without the ability of the teams, and the marketplace, to determine salaries.Somewhere down the line a form of free agency needs to be considered.
Admin
Gamma, I presume? Yes, Gamma is overloaded, that is why we are now running Beta Premium. If Gamma is to have a future it will probably need a cap increase.
--Chris
October 16, 2011 at 05:06PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
I don't think the salaries or the cap are the issue, the issue is that there are too many good players.
I am currently basically "at the cap" with a 52 man roster . I have 10 red letter offensive linemen and 17 of my 19 defensive players are red letter, which is just silly.
My specialty team guys are red letter overall, which isn't realistic.
The cap is fine, there's just too much talent.
Gamma, I presume? Yes, Gamma is overloaded, that is why we are now running Beta Premium. If Gamma is to have a future it will probably need a cap increase.
--Chris
Admin
There is a slight marketplace effect, in that players on the waiver wire drop their salary demands by 10% every week they are on the wire. So a player who is waived because he is too expensive will at some point not be too expensive.
--Chris
October 16, 2011 at 05:08PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
It does seem silly that we have a salary cap without the ability of the teams, and the marketplace, to determine salaries.
Somewhere down the line a form of free agency needs to be considered.
There is a slight marketplace effect, in that players on the waiver wire drop their salary demands by 10% every week they are on the wire. So a player who is waived because he is too expensive will at some point not be too expensive.
--Chris
KLKRTR
Drafted players would have an initial (rookie) contract that would be non-negotiable, and last for several years (1-5, depending on the draft round). Then they too would hit the free agency pool. I think that a loyalty discount would probably be needed too.
Pros (that I can see):
? Allows for a much stronger market influence on salaries (if no one is willing to pay that FB 4k/yr, but someone offers 2k, and no one else will even offer that, then that player might take it if he deems it's not too low).
? First-come, first-serve is over on the waiver wire. That's only bad for the owners that are always on, which isn't what this game is about (even if I'm one of those that's always on).
? A saavy number-crusher can manipulate some numbers to adjust to get under the salary cap easier.
? Still utilizes the current system with attitude and overall rating compared with other players at the same position.
? Could easily be implemented only in the offseason, when everyone is looking for players, so as to avoid owners taking advantage. The current system could stay in the regular season/playoffs.
? Hurts teams that tank to build up a team through the draft because their 1st rounder will be a free agent soon.
? Shallow positions would be worth more, while deeper positions would be worth less. This would give each league its own unique market.
Cons (that I can see):
? It would take work to implement.
? I'm sure someone could find a way to abuse the system, though I can't think how.
? It could hurt the "franchise player" idea a bit, but with us dumping in the waiver wire, no matter how good, I'm not sure.
Now this is quite obviously a very quickly-thought-up idea, and that's all it is--an idea. Chris used the current system for a reason, and I like it, but I'm trying to generate conversation about what we could do to improve upon the system. I do think that we need to have a better way to control the market as owners, without voting to raise the salary cap every few seasons.
October 16, 2011 at 09:35PM View BBCode
Free Agency bidding would be nice too...a player could have a minimum salary (based off of same effects as we have for the salary right now), and an owner could offer that player a contract. Others owners could top that offer and give the player a higher salary. This contract would be a set number for a few seasons (2 or 3?). The salary would then be re-calculated, giving the current owner a chance to pay that salary (calculated just like they are currently). If the current owner does not choose to pay that salary, the player hits free agency again, just like initially.Drafted players would have an initial (rookie) contract that would be non-negotiable, and last for several years (1-5, depending on the draft round). Then they too would hit the free agency pool. I think that a loyalty discount would probably be needed too.
Pros (that I can see):
? Allows for a much stronger market influence on salaries (if no one is willing to pay that FB 4k/yr, but someone offers 2k, and no one else will even offer that, then that player might take it if he deems it's not too low).
? First-come, first-serve is over on the waiver wire. That's only bad for the owners that are always on, which isn't what this game is about (even if I'm one of those that's always on).
? A saavy number-crusher can manipulate some numbers to adjust to get under the salary cap easier.
? Still utilizes the current system with attitude and overall rating compared with other players at the same position.
? Could easily be implemented only in the offseason, when everyone is looking for players, so as to avoid owners taking advantage. The current system could stay in the regular season/playoffs.
? Hurts teams that tank to build up a team through the draft because their 1st rounder will be a free agent soon.
? Shallow positions would be worth more, while deeper positions would be worth less. This would give each league its own unique market.
Cons (that I can see):
? It would take work to implement.
? I'm sure someone could find a way to abuse the system, though I can't think how.
? It could hurt the "franchise player" idea a bit, but with us dumping in the waiver wire, no matter how good, I'm not sure.
Now this is quite obviously a very quickly-thought-up idea, and that's all it is--an idea. Chris used the current system for a reason, and I like it, but I'm trying to generate conversation about what we could do to improve upon the system. I do think that we need to have a better way to control the market as owners, without voting to raise the salary cap every few seasons.
Admin
The purpose behind the cap is to prevent all of the talent from collecting onto one team and limit the extreme teardown/rebuild cycles we see in baseball all the time. And as frustrating as the cap can be it's certainly accomplishing these goals. But we can't use Gamma as a proper test because the talent pool is screwed up; because of that I don't want to make any changes based on Gamma.
I've had a thought today of a very simple free-agent style system which would work like this:
(Note: the Roster Players and Waiver Players systems are separate and could be implemented individually or together.)
Roster players:
- All players would be assumed to be under contract.
- You could reduce a player's salary up to a certain percentage (based on Attitude), but at that point the player is a free agent, and another team could offer him more (up to the full salary).
- You would get an opportunity to match or beat the offer; if you did not, the other team would claim the player from your roster. Of course, if that offer was below the full salary, you could make an offer for him back.
- Once the player was back up to full salary he is under contract again
Pros:
- Relatively simple to code and understand
- Since all players start at full salary, you could opt out of the system by just not reducing any of your players' salaries
Cons:
- Bears little resemblance to reality
- Takes a couple of days to work through the offer/counteroffer process
Waiver Players:
- When claiming a player from waivers, you could make an offer at a lower salary, but you would not get the player right away; instead, a claim would be put in at that salary, but other teams could counteroffer, and any team making a full salary offer would win him immediately.
--Chris
October 17, 2011 at 03:44AM View BBCode
I used the current system mostly because it was simple. I played in a salary league in baseball and was quickly bored with the minutia of dealing with contracts and signings.The purpose behind the cap is to prevent all of the talent from collecting onto one team and limit the extreme teardown/rebuild cycles we see in baseball all the time. And as frustrating as the cap can be it's certainly accomplishing these goals. But we can't use Gamma as a proper test because the talent pool is screwed up; because of that I don't want to make any changes based on Gamma.
I've had a thought today of a very simple free-agent style system which would work like this:
(Note: the Roster Players and Waiver Players systems are separate and could be implemented individually or together.)
Roster players:
- All players would be assumed to be under contract.
- You could reduce a player's salary up to a certain percentage (based on Attitude), but at that point the player is a free agent, and another team could offer him more (up to the full salary).
- You would get an opportunity to match or beat the offer; if you did not, the other team would claim the player from your roster. Of course, if that offer was below the full salary, you could make an offer for him back.
- Once the player was back up to full salary he is under contract again
Pros:
- Relatively simple to code and understand
- Since all players start at full salary, you could opt out of the system by just not reducing any of your players' salaries
Cons:
- Bears little resemblance to reality
- Takes a couple of days to work through the offer/counteroffer process
Waiver Players:
- When claiming a player from waivers, you could make an offer at a lower salary, but you would not get the player right away; instead, a claim would be put in at that salary, but other teams could counteroffer, and any team making a full salary offer would win him immediately.
--Chris
KLKRTR
I do see one problem with the roster players system though: unbalanced "trades" could happen like this, so I'd like to see this during the offseason ONLY, again, when all owners are looking for players and a player can easily slip away unnoticed.
I think this would actually add a very fun and work-able aspect to the game.
October 17, 2011 at 04:56AM View BBCode
The waiver system you suggest sounds pretty similar to what I said, but simpler. I like it.I do see one problem with the roster players system though: unbalanced "trades" could happen like this, so I'd like to see this during the offseason ONLY, again, when all owners are looking for players and a player can easily slip away unnoticed.
I think this would actually add a very fun and work-able aspect to the game.
Pages: 1