2019 Season Discussion

Moderator: TrueDawg

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:57 pm

Xulu Bak wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:41 am
Oh, I guess we left the guaranteed % out of the rule change for the year. Sorry, I missed that part travelling...

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to voice this earlier, but I think making guaranteed $ king, without also allowing owners to designate the % of guarantee is a huge mistake. I get that we probably did that for simplicity sake, but it doesn't make much sense from a "players' perspective" and I think it has a lot of potential for loophole/exploitation...

That said, if we're moving forward with guaranteed $ being king, and the capacity to assign years, then we need to have a serious discussion about how the FT/TT will be affected by it, because the old rules don't fit, and there is the potential for some pretty egregious loopholes without careful consideration. The old "starting point" framework doesn't work. Not by itself. There has to be a guaranteed $ component.
There wasn't really time to discuss all the nuances of allowing variable guarantee percentages. I think we'd have to get rid of the 20% cap savings and I don't really think its fair to just drop that on owners in a single offseason when we weren't really planning for that.

I'm open to discussing the tag calculations... I don't really see the loopholes and stuff you're talking about.

Admittedly, this rule change is a bit of an experiment. It might end up being terrible. We'll learn some things this offseason though, so hopefully we can improve it for next year. I'd like to discuss all this as the season goes on so we can come up with a good plan for changes next season. Either that or we go back to the old rule. We'll see.

Xulu Bak
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:08 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby Xulu Bak » Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:25 am

This loophole applies to both the FT/TT, but because of the compensation clause, is far more egregious when used with the FT. Given the rule change as I currently understand it...

Owner A uses the FT on player X. For simplicity sake, let's say the FT $ is 40K. 20% guaranteed would be 8K.
Owner A & B negotiate compensation and announce as much in the thread.
Owner B bids 5 years, 10K guaranteed. 20% of 10k is 2k, times 5 is 10k. 10K > 8K.
If no other owner is willing to risk minimum compensation to make a "reasonable bid," then owner B gets a premium player on an absurd contract.

Yes, that's an extreme example, so maybe the league could intervene in that case, but there's a grey area somewhere. Where that grey area begins and ends will be vary from owner to owner.

Assuming the FT "starting point" is one year, fully guaranteed, would eliminate that loophole (5 years x 20% = 100%), but be inconsistent with contract structure for all other contracts, and could be unfair to the controlling owner, especially if say, that player gets hurt during pre-season. That would also make bidding on FT players even rarer, since you'd either have to go well above the starting point, which is already very high, or guarantee a five year contract.

If we're assuming the FT/TT just continue to function as they did before, with a "starting point" but no assigned guaranteed money until the bidding ends, then that's completely inconsistent with all other bidding under this rule change.

OnABloodbuzz
Captain
Captain
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby OnABloodbuzz » Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:20 pm

Is one able to bid on their own player in tag/renegotiation threads?

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:22 pm

OnABloodbuzz wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:20 pm
Is one able to bid on their own player in tag/renegotiation threads?
Can you explain why in the world you'd want to? You have the right to match an offers they receive.

OnABloodbuzz
Captain
Captain
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby OnABloodbuzz » Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:59 pm

TrueDawg wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:22 pm
OnABloodbuzz wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:20 pm
Is one able to bid on their own player in tag/renegotiation threads?
Can you explain why in the world you'd want to? You have the right to match an offers they receive.
Because we've added the variable of years to the bidding process rather than deciding when/after matching. The salary might be good, but the years might not be what you're looking for.

Like my bid on Bell, the current owner might be happy to pay that for 3 or 4 years rather than 2 because they like the player or it increases trade opportunities down the road.

Xulu Bak
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:08 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby Xulu Bak » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:48 am

OnABloodbuzz wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:59 pm
TrueDawg wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:22 pm
OnABloodbuzz wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:20 pm
Is one able to bid on their own player in tag/renegotiation threads?
Can you explain why in the world you'd want to? You have the right to match an offers they receive.
Because we've added the variable of years to the bidding process rather than deciding when/after matching. The salary might be good, but the years might not be what you're looking for.

Like my bid on Bell, the current owner might be happy to pay that for 3 or 4 years rather than 2 because they like the player or it increases trade opportunities down the road.
If you can't bid on your own players, and a match is for exact contract terms, then savvy owners could just saddle anyone using a renegotiation/TT with 1-year contracts. I was in favor of adding years to the bidding process, but I'm already frustrated with how little specific details of implementation have been worked out or discussed. FT/TT/CR begin in two days, and there are still far more questions than answers about how the implemented rule changes affect those tools and their processes.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:43 pm

We can just scrap it....I'm already over it and don't have time or patience for all the crap that is apparently going to come along with it.

I'm on vacation til Sunday so maybe it's best to just postpone the opening of the league year til I get home.

OnABloodbuzz
Captain
Captain
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby OnABloodbuzz » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:30 am

Easy solution is if you match you can add extra years on top of the final bid if you like, salary structure stays the same.

User avatar
ssmith313105
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby ssmith313105 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:57 am

Just make it so any bid on a tagged player must exceed the starting tag number and be a bonus contract.

To make it difficult to just tag a guy then trade him at a discount make all 1 year contracts for TT/FT players fully guaranteed. Maybe allow a 20% signing bonus just for the 1 year fully guaranteed contracts so the owner can save on the cap number but are on the hook for the full contract amount if they were to cut or trade the player.

Ban owners from bidding on their own threads. The owners should only reserve the right to match after the bidding has ended.

User avatar
jimscafs25
Starter
Starter
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:54 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby jimscafs25 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:09 am

I don't really see a problem. Looks like bidding has been going as it should. If theres a quirk that needs to be addressed, we can cross that bridge when we get there.

Multiple Scorgasms
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby Multiple Scorgasms » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:22 am

Ooh so the league is open now. I had been watching these bids with intrigue thinking the actual official bidding was way off. Guess I better wake up. This should be a fun experience.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:55 am

OnABloodbuzz wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:59 pm

Because we've added the variable of years to the bidding process rather than deciding when/after matching. The salary might be good, but the years might not be what you're looking for.

Like my bid on Bell, the current owner might be happy to pay that for 3 or 4 years rather than 2 because they like the player or it increases trade opportunities down the road.
What do variable years have to do with it? This is how it works in the NFL. And it doesn't really matter whether its "what you're looking for".

The transition tag basically makes the player a RFA. And that allows them to negotiate with other teams. And the tagging team has the right to match the offer the player signs. That's why we started seeing "poison pill" contracts that made it very difficult or impossible for the team to match.

The transition tag is not just another way for you to keep a good player. You're putting the player on the market. You're exposing him... with no compensation. If someone else wants him more than you, he'll make an offer you can't or don't want to match.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:08 am

Xulu Bak wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:25 am
This loophole applies to both the FT/TT, but because of the compensation clause, is far more egregious when used with the FT. Given the rule change as I currently understand it...

Owner A uses the FT on player X. For simplicity sake, let's say the FT $ is 40K. 20% guaranteed would be 8K.
Owner A & B negotiate compensation and announce as much in the thread.
Owner B bids 5 years, 10K guaranteed. 20% of 10k is 2k, times 5 is 10k. 10K > 8K.
If no other owner is willing to risk minimum compensation to make a "reasonable bid," then owner B gets a premium player on an absurd contract.

Yes, that's an extreme example, so maybe the league could intervene in that case, but there's a grey area somewhere. Where that grey area begins and ends will be vary from owner to owner.

Assuming the FT "starting point" is one year, fully guaranteed, would eliminate that loophole (5 years x 20% = 100%), but be inconsistent with contract structure for all other contracts, and could be unfair to the controlling owner, especially if say, that player gets hurt during pre-season. That would also make bidding on FT players even rarer, since you'd either have to go well above the starting point, which is already very high, or guarantee a five year contract.

If we're assuming the FT/TT just continue to function as they did before, with a "starting point" but no assigned guaranteed money until the bidding ends, then that's completely inconsistent with all other bidding under this rule change.
Yeah I don't think the "normal" bidding rules (simply offering more guaranteed money) should apply to FT/TT players.

What we should do is make FT/TT contracts fully guaranteed, like the NFL. Then you can't simply throw out some lowball 5 year contract offer to exceed the current 20% guarantee.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:14 am

But I also think the market will take care of transition tagged players. If you make some lowball offer, someone else is going to make a better one. There's no compensation involved... the player is basically a RFA.

Multiple Scorgasms
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: 2019 Season Discussion

Postby Multiple Scorgasms » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:04 pm

Is the deadline to bid on a TT/CR guy 48 hours from the start of the league year? (or 48 hours from the last bid if there's one I assume)


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests