 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Salary changes/minimum roster requirements
Admin
In the baseball salary leagues, owners are charged the veteran's minimum against their salary cap for each hole in their roster. I am thinking of doing the same with football. The maximum veteran minimum wage is 845. Of course this means owners will fill their slots with rookies but at least those players will get the development points for being on the inactive squad.
I am also considering setting the minimum roster size to 48 (giving people only a 5 player leeway rather than 8 players) but I'm wondering if charging the veteran's minimum against their cap is enough of a solution. (It may be a better solution, as auto-claimed players may be more likely to make the minimums.)
Any thoughts?
Chris
Salary changes/minimum roster requirements
January 07, 2014 at 07:08PM View BBCode
Right now the minimum roster size is 45. The purpose of allowing a roster below the maximum of 53 is to give owners some flexibility when making trades and adjusting rosters. However, some owners continue to cut to the minimum to try to make extra room under the cap.In the baseball salary leagues, owners are charged the veteran's minimum against their salary cap for each hole in their roster. I am thinking of doing the same with football. The maximum veteran minimum wage is 845. Of course this means owners will fill their slots with rookies but at least those players will get the development points for being on the inactive squad.
I am also considering setting the minimum roster size to 48 (giving people only a 5 player leeway rather than 8 players) but I'm wondering if charging the veteran's minimum against their cap is enough of a solution. (It may be a better solution, as auto-claimed players may be more likely to make the minimums.)
Any thoughts?
Chris
Admin
Rookie: $310
1 year: $385
2 years: $460
3 years: $535
4-6 yrs: $620
7-9 yrs: $745
10+ yrs: $845
Or we can charge them 1/53rd of the cap which is $2415, although I would probably round it up to $2500.
Chris
January 07, 2014 at 07:11PM View BBCode
Here are the various wage minimums we can select from:Rookie: $310
1 year: $385
2 years: $460
3 years: $535
4-6 yrs: $620
7-9 yrs: $745
10+ yrs: $845
Or we can charge them 1/53rd of the cap which is $2415, although I would probably round it up to $2500.
Chris
Fulla
Under normal league circumstances, this new roster/salary will be good.
January 07, 2014 at 08:25PM View BBCode
In certain leagues where the owner participation is low (single season, beta leagues) the cap is always a problem for the active owners. Also in certain leagues there are a few teams that always have the top draft picks (due to tank or trades) and they are typically cap strapped.Under normal league circumstances, this new roster/salary will be good.
RichNYC1
But the waiver wire (or free agent pool....) right now is pretty much the same in every league. The only real reason to pay attention is when there is a shortage at a certain position. Otherwise you can always find an OK player when you need one but there are very few guys that you would sign because they offer something you can actually use or develop. I think if the CAP was more impactful it would free up better players allowing owners a better chance to build and fill weak areas with a guy that can compete.
Keeping games and seasons competitive by moving better talent more often is good for the owners interest level and thats a good thing for SD.
January 08, 2014 at 01:51AM View BBCode
I think its great to make the CAP tighter. It will make trading more important and force owners to make roster decisions on more serviceable players, just like in the pros. Right now the CAP has very little impact other than effecting guys who tank or make lopsided trades with newbies to build their "dynasty" with superstars. In those cases the CAP and injury system almost always negatively affect The tanker and I think thats great.But the waiver wire (or free agent pool....) right now is pretty much the same in every league. The only real reason to pay attention is when there is a shortage at a certain position. Otherwise you can always find an OK player when you need one but there are very few guys that you would sign because they offer something you can actually use or develop. I think if the CAP was more impactful it would free up better players allowing owners a better chance to build and fill weak areas with a guy that can compete.
Keeping games and seasons competitive by moving better talent more often is good for the owners interest level and thats a good thing for SD.
casperthegm
January 08, 2014 at 02:12PM View BBCode
Agree completely with what Rich said, especially that last part on how it will lead to more player movement, thus more overall owner interest.
shbo2
I love this idea but I feel the waiver order should be reset to the previous seasons draft order starting week 1. In the ESFL there is an owner who constantly mismanages his cap and is totally unrealistic when it comes to trades. As a result of this 2-3 quality players are constantly being waive by AFE to make cap room and getting picked up by the previous seasons playoff finalists. It ends up being a rich get richer type of thing instead of middle of the road teams being able to fill holes.
January 08, 2014 at 04:28PM View BBCode
Originally posted by RichNYC1
I think if the CAP was more impactful it would free up better players allowing owners a better chance to build and fill weak areas with a guy that can compete.
I love this idea but I feel the waiver order should be reset to the previous seasons draft order starting week 1. In the ESFL there is an owner who constantly mismanages his cap and is totally unrealistic when it comes to trades. As a result of this 2-3 quality players are constantly being waive by AFE to make cap room and getting picked up by the previous seasons playoff finalists. It ends up being a rich get richer type of thing instead of middle of the road teams being able to fill holes.
dirtdevil
Right now the minimum roster size is 45. The purpose of allowing a roster below the maximum of 53 is to give owners some flexibility when making trades and adjusting rosters. However, some owners continue to cut to the minimum to try to make extra room under the cap.
In the baseball salary leagues, owners are charged the veteran's minimum against their salary cap for each hole in their roster. I am thinking of doing the same with football. The maximum veteran minimum wage is 845. Of course this means owners will fill their slots with rookies but at least those players will get the development points for being on the inactive squad.
I am also considering setting the minimum roster size to 48 (giving people only a 5 player leeway rather than 8 players) but I'm wondering if charging the veteran's minimum against their cap is enough of a solution. (It may be a better solution, as auto-claimed players may be more likely to make the minimums.)
Any thoughts?
Chris [/quote]
[quote][i]Originally posted by Admin[/i]
Here are the various wage minimums we can select from:
Rookie: $310
1 year: $385
2 years: $460
3 years: $535
4-6 yrs: $620
7-9 yrs: $745
10+ yrs: $845
Or we can charge them 1/53rd of the cap which is $2415, although I would probably round it up to $2500.
Chris [/quote]
if you don't mind some outside input, i would suggest a combination of both ideas. if you change the roster minimum to 48 or 50, that would give people enough flexibility in setting rosters and making trades while removing some of the ability of teams to carry the minimum to get extra cap room, in the sense that they will have to carry more salary to do it.
if you then add a charge for the missing players up to 53, i think would eliminate the largest part of the incentive to use this strategy. for an actual number I'd suggest 620. that's the salary of a more or less average aged player. if someone has gone down to 50 because he's made a volume for talent trade i don't think we want to push him over the cap with the 'penalty' salary, especially if he's away for a day or two.
January 08, 2014 at 05:06PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Admin[/i]
Right now the minimum roster size is 45. The purpose of allowing a roster below the maximum of 53 is to give owners some flexibility when making trades and adjusting rosters. However, some owners continue to cut to the minimum to try to make extra room under the cap.
In the baseball salary leagues, owners are charged the veteran's minimum against their salary cap for each hole in their roster. I am thinking of doing the same with football. The maximum veteran minimum wage is 845. Of course this means owners will fill their slots with rookies but at least those players will get the development points for being on the inactive squad.
I am also considering setting the minimum roster size to 48 (giving people only a 5 player leeway rather than 8 players) but I'm wondering if charging the veteran's minimum against their cap is enough of a solution. (It may be a better solution, as auto-claimed players may be more likely to make the minimums.)
Any thoughts?
Chris [/quote]
[quote][i]Originally posted by Admin[/i]
Here are the various wage minimums we can select from:
Rookie: $310
1 year: $385
2 years: $460
3 years: $535
4-6 yrs: $620
7-9 yrs: $745
10+ yrs: $845
Or we can charge them 1/53rd of the cap which is $2415, although I would probably round it up to $2500.
Chris [/quote]
if you don't mind some outside input, i would suggest a combination of both ideas. if you change the roster minimum to 48 or 50, that would give people enough flexibility in setting rosters and making trades while removing some of the ability of teams to carry the minimum to get extra cap room, in the sense that they will have to carry more salary to do it.
if you then add a charge for the missing players up to 53, i think would eliminate the largest part of the incentive to use this strategy. for an actual number I'd suggest 620. that's the salary of a more or less average aged player. if someone has gone down to 50 because he's made a volume for talent trade i don't think we want to push him over the cap with the 'penalty' salary, especially if he's away for a day or two.
dirtdevil
as someone who always gains from this, i also think it's a good idea. if we're going to force people to lose good players when they mismanage the cap (which we should), then logically it would be better for the league if they went to the weaker teams. of course those teams are also often the most likely to not notice the opportunity, but there's not much that can be done about that.
January 08, 2014 at 05:08PM View BBCode
Originally posted by shbo2
Originally posted by RichNYC1
I think if the CAP was more impactful it would free up better players allowing owners a better chance to build and fill weak areas with a guy that can compete.
I love this idea but I feel the waiver order should be reset to the previous seasons draft order starting week 1. In the ESFL there is an owner who constantly mismanages his cap and is totally unrealistic when it comes to trades. As a result of this 2-3 quality players are constantly being waive by AFE to make cap room and getting picked up by the previous seasons playoff finalists. It ends up being a rich get richer type of thing instead of middle of the road teams being able to fill holes.
as someone who always gains from this, i also think it's a good idea. if we're going to force people to lose good players when they mismanage the cap (which we should), then logically it would be better for the league if they went to the weaker teams. of course those teams are also often the most likely to not notice the opportunity, but there's not much that can be done about that.
KLKRTR
I agree on adjusting the waiver wire priority at the beginning of the season. While I enjoy picking up guys then, it's really not how it should be.
And I agree that we shouldn't charge the 10+ veteran minimum, but we should charge somewhere around what dirtdevil was recommending (~600).
January 09, 2014 at 01:35AM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by shbo2
Originally posted by RichNYC1
I think if the CAP was more impactful it would free up better players allowing owners a better chance to build and fill weak areas with a guy that can compete.
I love this idea but I feel the waiver order should be reset to the previous seasons draft order starting week 1. In the ESFL there is an owner who constantly mismanages his cap and is totally unrealistic when it comes to trades. As a result of this 2-3 quality players are constantly being waive by AFE to make cap room and getting picked up by the previous seasons playoff finalists. It ends up being a rich get richer type of thing instead of middle of the road teams being able to fill holes.
as someone who always gains from this, i also think it's a good idea. if we're going to force people to lose good players when they mismanage the cap (which we should), then logically it would be better for the league if they went to the weaker teams. of course those teams are also often the most likely to not notice the opportunity, but there's not much that can be done about that.
I agree on adjusting the waiver wire priority at the beginning of the season. While I enjoy picking up guys then, it's really not how it should be.
And I agree that we shouldn't charge the 10+ veteran minimum, but we should charge somewhere around what dirtdevil was recommending (~600).
RichNYC1
Ive noticed that in some leagues but in not in others. If I remember correctly the WW order should reset every year giving the worst teams the first selections and thats how it should be.
I also like dirtdevil´s idea, we could use a combination of the two ideas, make the minimum 50 and add a charge for the missing players. The tough part is what the charge should be. Obviously if its 620 guys would just need to pick up players with a 310 salaries to stay under and that would eliminate somebody losing a really good player because they missed a day or two.
This might be a little bit of a touchy subject because no one wants too much talent, but it might be a good idea to raise all salaries and make the lower end players better.
Ive always felt the 32 team leagues are deeper and have better overall talent than the 16 team leagues and they are still very competive. I think we could raise lower and middle end of the talent pool in both the 16 and 32 team leagues along with the salary levels and increase the impact of the CAP.
I play in a 16 team league and Ive only seen teams have real CAP problems twice in 19 seasons. I was just looking at the 32 Marcus Allen league, no one is even near the CAP and I think its fair to say that the vast majority of teams in all leagues are tens of thousands of dollars under the CAP. I think we should look at major changes while we´re on this subject because I think making the CAP harder to manage will make for a better and more realistic game. Teams should be within a few thousand $ of the limit, thats how it is in the pros.
January 09, 2014 at 02:15AM View BBCode
Originally posted by shbo2
Originally posted by RichNYC1
I think if the CAP was more impactful it would free up better players allowing owners a better chance to build and fill weak areas with a guy that can compete.
I love this idea but I feel the waiver order should be reset to the previous seasons draft order starting week 1. In the ESFL there is an owner who constantly mismanages his cap and is totally unrealistic when it comes to trades. As a result of this 2-3 quality players are constantly being waive by AFE to make cap room and getting picked up by the previous seasons playoff finalists. It ends up being a rich get richer type of thing instead of middle of the road teams being able to fill holes.
Ive noticed that in some leagues but in not in others. If I remember correctly the WW order should reset every year giving the worst teams the first selections and thats how it should be.
I also like dirtdevil´s idea, we could use a combination of the two ideas, make the minimum 50 and add a charge for the missing players. The tough part is what the charge should be. Obviously if its 620 guys would just need to pick up players with a 310 salaries to stay under and that would eliminate somebody losing a really good player because they missed a day or two.
This might be a little bit of a touchy subject because no one wants too much talent, but it might be a good idea to raise all salaries and make the lower end players better.
Ive always felt the 32 team leagues are deeper and have better overall talent than the 16 team leagues and they are still very competive. I think we could raise lower and middle end of the talent pool in both the 16 and 32 team leagues along with the salary levels and increase the impact of the CAP.
I play in a 16 team league and Ive only seen teams have real CAP problems twice in 19 seasons. I was just looking at the 32 Marcus Allen league, no one is even near the CAP and I think its fair to say that the vast majority of teams in all leagues are tens of thousands of dollars under the CAP. I think we should look at major changes while we´re on this subject because I think making the CAP harder to manage will make for a better and more realistic game. Teams should be within a few thousand $ of the limit, thats how it is in the pros.
dirtdevil
January 09, 2014 at 02:29AM View BBCode
i'd be in favour of cap reduction but we do need to keep in mind that it will also probably increase the number of times people get autowaived for cap reasons, so I personally would only like to see it if it accompanies some of these other changes.
casperthegm
January 09, 2014 at 01:04PM View BBCode
I am a big fan of cap reduction. You see teams have to make strategic decisions based on the cap in the nfl all the time. Almost any time you are talking about adding a strategic element to the game it's going to make it better, as long as it doesn't get to the point of bogging things down or over-complicating matters.
RichNYC1
January 09, 2014 at 10:53PM View BBCode
I hadnt thought of reducing the CAP but I totally agree with anything that makes the CAP more impactful.
Admin
Chris
January 10, 2014 at 03:17PM View BBCode
Waiver priority is supposed to be reset to the reverse of last season's standings after the draft, is that not happening?Chris
RichNYC1
January 10, 2014 at 04:44PM View BBCode
It working in TDFL for sure. I noticed a while back in Zeta that I had the first option for at least a season or two because I was waiting for the right guy. Then at the start of this season I was last, as I should have been.
dirtdevil
no. the top waiver priority after the draft goes to the sim bowl champ, then the sim bowl loser and so on in reverse draft order.
January 10, 2014 at 06:27PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Waiver priority is supposed to be reset to the reverse of last season's standings after the draft, is that not happening?
Chris
no. the top waiver priority after the draft goes to the sim bowl champ, then the sim bowl loser and so on in reverse draft order.
Admin
Chris
January 11, 2014 at 06:34AM View BBCode
I'll check it out, it's not supposed to work that way.Chris
Pages: 1