|
|
Post by Dawgs GM (Hud) on Jan 6, 2013 22:20:22 GMT -5
So, why did the draft rules change so dramatically?
You were asking several "with previous experience", so what was the general conversation. I'd like to consider myself "experienced", and was left out of these stellar conversations.
One of the main reasons I signed up here was the uniqueness of the draft, the way it was set up. Now that has changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Cowboys (Colton) on Jan 6, 2013 23:07:10 GMT -5
What was the dramatic change? From what I see, the only somewhat dramatic difference is that it removed the weighted multipliers for length of contract. With the new draft, owners can determine length of contract after winning a player, and seeing their play in the preseason and hearing news through training camp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2013 9:00:22 GMT -5
Yeah, those are HUGE changes and I feel that the league should have had a chance to voice their opinions instead of talking to these 'experienced' members of the league. I've played in multiple auction leagues, I wasn't consulted
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Cowboys (Colton) on Jan 7, 2013 9:55:19 GMT -5
Again, I'm not really sure what these big changes where. If you guys were more explicit, then perhaps the commish could address your concerns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2013 12:32:07 GMT -5
Well it started where the years a player was signed for actually contributed to the points score. So signing 4yrs was worth 1.45x more than signing for 1yr
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Cowboys (Colton) on Jan 7, 2013 12:59:44 GMT -5
Right, I mentioned that one. So now, instead of insta-raising desired guys to 4 years, owners can instead choose length of contract based on their players price, offseason news, and preseason performance. This allows teams to take chances on an upside guy by overpaying and choosing his length if the player does work. With the other method, it's highly likely that any desirable player would automatically get a 4 year contract, solely for the sake of the increased multiplier. As for logistics, removing this allows for MFL to host the draft, with proxy drafting, and significantly speed up the auction and put less work on the owner's and commissioner's shoulders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dawgs GM (Hud) on Jan 7, 2013 18:34:12 GMT -5
These dynasty leagues are set to imitate an actual NFL organization.
At what point during negotiations does the player agree on an average salary and have the team come in later and decide how long their going to pay them.
There are so many problems with this setup.
One Quick Example - Andrew Luck - goes for $17,000,000 ... Owner decides to sign him for 2 years and cash in on RFA, so he can sign Luck to another 4 year deal.
That's called working the system. Or a loophole.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathanoake on Jan 7, 2013 18:42:14 GMT -5
Just throwing this out there so pardon me if I'm late to the discussion, but when I joined here I liked the DYNASTY and AUCTION components. These are two of my favorite things in fantasy sports. I was surprised about the contract length even being a part of the format. From my experience that is only part of a salary cap league, such as the one that many of you are in with Crestmont.
Why do we need the contract length component? Dynasty typically means forever , and auction means bidding and supply and demand. These two don't need to be related to actual NFL contracts with salaries and terms. Besides that....the whole CBA has screwed up the salary cap format a bit with guys drafted pre rookie salary cap a couple years ago.
What if we just let supply and demand run its course and do a typical auction draft. If you win the player....you win the player?
|
|
|
|
Post by NY Giants GM (Yu) on Jan 7, 2013 18:45:46 GMT -5
If that scenario is how our proposed new setup will look, then it can't possibly go well. I would like to understand this more if I don't already. Deciding the contract of the player after I win the player sounds good in theory but is there a specific reason why this can't be done simultaneously? What was the reason for the "adjustment"? Waiting until after you see them play in pre-season to decide how long to sign them is stretching things. It's an investment and it's all part of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Cowboys (Colton) on Jan 7, 2013 19:58:36 GMT -5
There's no strong reason, from my understanding, for not deciding contract length simultaneously. But in a league this size, and depth, it would be prudent to allow teams to evaluate their players in the preseason, considering how early the draft is taking place. Either way works, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by NY Giants GM (Yu) on Jan 7, 2013 23:07:58 GMT -5
So under this new idea is there a specific deadline proposed where all contracts need to be finalized?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crestmount (Colts) on Jan 8, 2013 1:24:28 GMT -5
OK, the system chosen for the inaugural auction draft was chosen because of its simplicity and automated nature when compared to the original idea (which will still be used for FA bidding).
As for addressing some concerns expressed here, while the idea of paying Luck $17m and then signing him to a 2yr RFA contract, is theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely. To prevent such a scenario from occurring all RFA contracts would be voted on by the TAB
On reflection I feel that I will change the time by which contract lengths must be posted--these must be published BEFORE the pre-season. GM's can specify contract length at any time from when that player is won until the kick-off of the first pre-season game for the 2013 season.
|
|
|
|
Post by NY Giants GM (Yu) on Jan 8, 2013 11:24:59 GMT -5
Hey, it's all good whatever we decide. I just want to get comfortable with what we're doing going forward. Good stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 11:27:15 GMT -5
RFA contracts voted on by TAB?
That isnt a smart idea. Teams will get RFA contracts not given and then TAB teams who do get RFA contracts will be flamed because of it. A certain years limit needs to set or if player is under X experience and contract is under X for Xyrs
|
|
|
|
Post by Dawgs GM (Hud) on Jan 8, 2013 15:01:41 GMT -5
My suggestion ...
To level the playing field & promote active free agency in years to come ...
Each team is allowed to sign a certain number of players to a 4 year deal, 3 year deal, 2 year deal, and 1 year deals.
Maybe 9 of each max.
You don't have to max out your deals for each length of contract, but you cannot exceed the set limit.
This will promote the idea of having plenty of players to be available in the following years when free agency hits.
If not, you're going to have very little free agency in the next 3 years. Most players are going to be signed to 4 year deals. And those that do hit free agency are going to be ancient.
Anybody that locks up a nice player and only signs them to a 3 year deal when they have the option of 4, because they think they've only got 2 1/2 good years left in the tank is an idiot.
I vote for a tiered contract length system.
Thoughts?
|
|
