|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 0:28:52 GMT
In order to encourage GMs to keep stars on their teams, I'm proposing that we have a camp for players who have spent a significant period of time on the one team.
Franchise Guy ($600)
Only for guys who are a consistent starter (must have started every game he played in for the season prior) at the team, and have been on that team for 8+ years. +6 spread across either offensive skills, defensive skills or a 3/3 split on both.
------------------------------------------
Thoughts?
|
|
shorty
Administrator 
Administrator
Posts: 15,223 
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 17, 2014 0:36:29 GMT
I like it. I don't know if Bundy will be happy to see another camp give points to 28 and older player tho, but more camping options is always good for GMs lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 0:44:26 GMT
this is really going to encourage inflation
there's alot of offensive stats you can use for this, there's about 4 or 5 you can use for defense.
It's also not easy to keep players for 8 years in a sim league, Bron's already been moved once, Dwight's been moved 3 times, shouldn't really use camps to discourage superstar trades.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 0:45:19 GMT
I like it. I don't know if Bundy will be happy to see another camp give points to 28 and older player tho, but more camping options is always good for GMs lol. There are very, very few players who have been on their roster for 8+ years. I am one of the most conservative (trade-wise) GMs, and have a roster that's not changed a whole heap - and I don't have a single player who's been there for that long. |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 0:45:24 GMT
there's also a reason why it's difficult to get even a +6 in one category in this league. Inflation can be started out very easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by Posting&Toasting on May 17, 2014 0:46:12 GMT
^ what he said. trades are friends.
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 17, 2014 0:48:43 GMT
I like it. I don't know if Bundy will be happy to see another camp give points to 28 and older player tho, but more camping options is always good for GMs lol. There are very, very few players who have been on their roster for 8+ years. I am one of the most conservative (trade-wise) GMs, and have a roster that's not changed a whole heap - and I don't have a single player who's been there for that long. Yup. This would only affect a handful, but since this applies to such a small minority, I don't like the chances. We could use this as a bargaining chip tho at the very least if you're okay with that. Realistically I just can't see Bundy and his "tough negotiating" to be tolerant of this. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 0:55:30 GMT
this is really going to encourage inflationthere's alot of offensive stats you can use for this, there's about 4 or 5 you can use for defense. It's also not easy to keep players for 8 years in a sim league, Bron's already been moved once, Dwight's been moved 3 times, shouldn't really use camps to discourage superstar trades. So... which is it? You have 2 contradictions there. 1/ really-going-to-cause-inflation vs it's-not-easy-to-keep-players... and 2/ Players-move-a-lot vs discouraging-superstar-trades. Teams aren't particularly patient here, this is only going to affect probably less than 3 players a season - if that... and it's highly unlikely to impact trading much at all. 8 years is simply very, very difficult to achieve. A starter who's been on a roster for 8+ years? It's really rare that teams hold a key guy for more than a few seasons, and if we're attempting to play an NBA sim (something you allude to often) then shouldn't we be trying to encourage teams to keep their key guys? This is going to impact the league in a very minor way... yet you're going all chicken little on it. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 0:57:22 GMT
^ what he said. trades are friends. "Trades are friends"? Any GM who's patient with his roster is not automatically *doing it wrong*. I think we should be encouraging teams to try to keep their superstars. Do you have suggestions on how to achieve that? |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 17, 2014 0:59:13 GMT
If a player is worth keeping for 8+ season, then that's a very unusual and lucky team and player. That means the team is probably competing and that the player is special enough that after 8+ season they are still worth keeping around. The question is: do we want to give more rating boosts to that special player?
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 1:02:28 GMT
I should say that while it's not easy to keep players for 8 years, there's no need to encourage teams keeping players for 8 years and there's no reason why teams that are loyal to their players should be rewarded. Should we encourage teams to turn down good trade offers just so they can turn their superstar into a HOF?
It's going to make it difficult for teams wanting to take that next step and are looking for these type of players on the trade market. They either have to find it somehow in the draft or get lucky in FA. Like I keep saying, moves should be encouraged not discouraged, this is what the camp does and creates a bigger division between those trying to compete and those that get lucky enough to have a Kyrie Irving/Anthony Davis/Andrew Wiggins. Which is unnecessary
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 1:03:18 GMT
If a player is worth keeping for 8+ season, then that's a very unusual and lucky team and player. That means the team is probably competing and that the player is special enough that after 8+ season they are still worth keeping around. The question is: do we want to give more rating boosts to that special player? pretty much nailed it |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 1:04:50 GMT
I should say that while it's not easy to keep players for 8 years, there's no need to encourage teams keeping players for 8 years and there's no reason why teams that are loyal to their players should be rewarded. Should we encourage teams to turn down good trade offers just so they can turn their superstar into a HOF? It's going to make it difficult for teams wanting to take that next step and are looking for these type of players on the trade market. They either have to find it somehow in the draft or get lucky in FA. Like I keep saying, moves should be encouraged not discouraged, this is what the camp does and creates a bigger division between those trying to compete and those that get lucky enough to have a Kyrie Irving/Anthony Davis/Andrew Wiggins. Which is unnecessary Like *I* keep saying, what the fuck is wrong with being patient? --------------- Meh. Screw it... no-one's interested: it's off the board. |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 1:07:33 GMT
what's wrong with wanting to make alot of trades?
There's plenty of styles to structure a team, some are fine sitting on their hands, others are not
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 1:10:21 GMT
what's wrong with wanting to make alot of trades? There's plenty of styles to structure a team, some are fine sitting on their hands, others are not As I said (you must have missed it), people aren't interested: off the board. |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 1:15:32 GMT
was just addressing something you seem to keep bringing up thought now was as good of time as any even if you called off the idea
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 1:26:54 GMT
was just addressing something you seem to keep bringing up thought now was as good of time as any even if you called off the idea Cool, I'll discuss. It seems to me a bit contradictory - you're often alluding to "being-like-the-NBA", yet you seem to prefer a fantasy-league approach to trades. It seems... a bit inconsistent. I would like to come up with some system to encourage teams to KEEP their players, you'd rather encourage trading. I think trading at times gets out of control - you want to encourage more trades, and I'm not sure we need it. VERY few GMs adopt the 'patient' approach. I'd also like to address the veto procedure at some point... I like Bundy's suggestion about new GMs not being able to make trades immediately - but I also think we need to explore the other side of that equation: it's often the very GMs who should be *helping the new guy* who perpetrate the grossly unbalanced trades. This is wrong, and we have to *encourage* it to not happen. |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 1:59:24 GMT
was just addressing something you seem to keep bringing up thought now was as good of time as any even if you called off the idea Cool, I'll discuss. It seems to me a bit contradictory - you're often alluding to "being-like-the-NBA", yet you seem to prefer a fantasy-league approach to trades. It seems... a bit inconsistent. I would like to come up with some system to encourage teams to KEEP their players, you'd rather encourage trading. I think trading at times gets out of control - you want to encourage more trades, and I'm not sure we need it. VERY few GMs adopt the 'patient' approach. I'd also like to address the veto procedure at some point... I like Bundy's suggestion about new GMs not being able to make trades immediately - but I also think we need to explore the other side of that equation: it's often the very GMs who should be *helping the new guy* who perpetrate the grossly unbalanced trades. This is wrong, and we have to *encourage* it to not happen. I don't think this league should be exactly like the NBA, if I did, I would be pulling out bigger things in the NBA's CBA then what the salary cap, luxury tax and other things. I think though that the NBA is a good model to have and I have seen leagues do just fine following those structures just so long as they keep it single like shorty mentioned. BTW, if I wanted it to be just like the NBA, I would be wanting to completely abolish the hard cap, because of course the NBA doesn't have it and I hope it never does. Leagues need movement constantly, what you call patience gets dull and boring, there's leagues like that, teams who are content with what they have and they don't last long. It's fine if you want to sit on your hands, but atleast in my experience it's not something that should be encouraged. The thing I think makes the league enjoyable and that keeps people around is the movement, making trades, signing players etc creates discussion and controversy and making moves makes every sim and season interesting atleast for myself and I'm sure there's others that shares that interest, I think if this league stopped making moves then people would lose interest and that's why I'm against anything like this (which your calling off anyways) that discourages movement and I'm in favor of things like raising the salary cap, hard cap etc that could help increase trade activity. It's fine that your patient, you run your team different from me, I obviously run my team differently then others in this SL. I just think trying to decrease movement is typically a bad idea unless it's needed because someone is having an unfair advantage and it needs to be adjusted. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 2:03:53 GMT
1. I don't think this league should be exactly like the NBA, if I did, I would be pulling out bigger things in the NBA's CBA then what the salary cap, luxury tax and other things. I think though that the NBA is a good model to have and I have seen leagues do just fine following those structures just so long as they keep it single like shorty mentioned. BTW, if I wanted it to be just like the NBA, I would be wanting to completely abolish the hard cap, because of course the NBA doesn't have it and I hope it never does. 2. Leagues need movement constantly, what you call patience gets dull and boring, there's leagues like that, teams who are content with what they have and they don't last long. It's fine if you want to sit on your hands, but atleast in my experience it's not something that should be encouraged. 3. The thing I think makes the league enjoyable and that keeps people around is the movement, making trades, signing players etc creates discussion and controversy and making moves makes every sim and season interesting atleast for myself and I'm sure there's others that shares that interest, I think if this league stopped making moves then people would lose interest and that's why I'm against anything like this (which your calling off anyways) that discourages movement and I'm in favor of things like raising the salary cap, hard cap etc that could help increase trade activity. 1. On somethings you do... on others you don't. That's fair. 2. Opinion, not fact. My opinion is that you need a mix of teams that like to trade, and others that go the distance with what they've got and trade sparingly. 3. No-one said *STOP TRADES ENTIRELY*... and you representing it as such is untrue, unfair and unreasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 2:15:44 GMT
1. I don't think this league should be exactly like the NBA, if I did, I would be pulling out bigger things in the NBA's CBA then what the salary cap, luxury tax and other things. I think though that the NBA is a good model to have and I have seen leagues do just fine following those structures just so long as they keep it single like shorty mentioned. BTW, if I wanted it to be just like the NBA, I would be wanting to completely abolish the hard cap, because of course the NBA doesn't have it and I hope it never does. 2. Leagues need movement constantly, what you call patience gets dull and boring, there's leagues like that, teams who are content with what they have and they don't last long. It's fine if you want to sit on your hands, but atleast in my experience it's not something that should be encouraged. 3. The thing I think makes the league enjoyable and that keeps people around is the movement, making trades, signing players etc creates discussion and controversy and making moves makes every sim and season interesting atleast for myself and I'm sure there's others that shares that interest, I think if this league stopped making moves then people would lose interest and that's why I'm against anything like this (which your calling off anyways) that discourages movement and I'm in favor of things like raising the salary cap, hard cap etc that could help increase trade activity. 1. On somethings you do... on others you don't. That's fair. 2. Opinion, not fact. My opinion is that you need a mix of teams that like to trade, and others that go the distance with what they've got and trade sparingly. 3. No-one said *STOP TRADES ENTIRELY*... and you representing it as such is untrue, unfair and unreasonable. k, you asked my opinion on making deals often. If your of the opinion of having a mix, why do you feel that way? Why are you opposed to encouraging trades (not stopping them completely) and instead encouraging loyalty? Can't just keep the spotlight on me btw, 3 was an extreme example, it's what eventually happens if you don't encourage it, atleast in my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 3:01:11 GMT
1. On somethings you do... on others you don't. That's fair. 2. Opinion, not fact. My opinion is that you need a mix of teams that like to trade, and others that go the distance with what they've got and trade sparingly. 3. No-one said *STOP TRADES ENTIRELY*... and you representing it as such is untrue, unfair and unreasonable. If your of the opinion of having a mix, why do you feel that way? Why are you opposed to encouraging trades (not stopping them completely) and instead encouraging loyalty? Can't just keep the spotlight on me btw, 3 was an extreme example, it's what eventually happens if you don't encourage it, atleast in my experience. That kinda came across as you painting it as fact ("what you call patience gets dull and boring..."). I categorically did NOT say I was "opposed to encouraging trades". They should be *PART* of the fabric of improving a team... but so should sustaining players that should be developed. At the moment I believe it's far too far one way - that's my opinion, and I've been clear about stating such. Your extreme example also came across as insinuating that was my stance. No-one's arguing that, the only reason someone'd state that (extreme or not) is using it as prejudicial. To be frank, you're continually doing that, painting me as completely anti-trade: "opposed to encouraging trades"... "if this league stopped making moves"... "sit on your hands"... your choice of verbiage is quite disparaging. You can dismiss it as simply painting extreme examples, but I wish you'd stop it. Don't insinuate I'm trying to do something I'm not. |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 17, 2014 3:20:24 GMT
malice - No one is insinuating anything here, let's try and stay more on topic and at the main issues at hand about the salaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 3:23:31 GMT
malice - No one is insinuating anything here, let's try and stay more on topic and at the main issues at hand about the salaries. I'm not angry: I don't need policing. But clearly, I was being painted as saying something I wasn't. |
|
itnas123
Administrator
Charlotte Bobcats
Posts: 25,496
Staff Member
|
Post by itnas123 on May 17, 2014 3:24:13 GMT
noticed it said 8 years on one team to do this so then 4=Rookie contract and then 4=Resignings so then you can franchise camp.....O.K. We might want to put a clause saying if you franchise camp you cannot do the other camp called he still got it. Offense should be +3 to some offense and +3 physical attribute and for defense is should be defense+ 3 and +3 physical. If you want both +2 +2 +2 all...... Maybe ?
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 3:24:44 GMT
k, you asked my opinion on making deals often. If your of the opinion of having a mix, why do you feel that way? Why are you opposed to encouraging trades (not stopping them completely) and instead encouraging loyalty? Can't just keep the spotlight on me btw, 3 was an extreme example, it's what eventually happens if you don't encourage it, atleast in my experience. That kinda came across as you painting it as fact ("what you call patience gets dull and boring..."). I categorically did NOT say I was "opposed to encouraging trades". They should be *PART* of the fabric of improving a team... but so should sustaining players that should be developed. At the moment I believe it's far too far one way - that's my opinion, and I've been clear about stating such. Your extreme example also came across as insinuating that was my stance. No-one's arguing that, the only reason someone'd state that (extreme or not) is using it as prejudicial. To be frank, you're continually doing that, painting me as completely anti-trade: "opposed to encouraging trades"... "if this league stopped making moves"... "sit on your hands"... your choice of verbiage is quite disparaging. You can dismiss it as simply painting extreme examples, but I wish you'd stop it. Don't insinuate I'm trying to do something I'm not. ok that was productive let's just keep it this way, why should loyalty be encouraged? Again, no need for the spotlight to be on me, balls in your park now |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 3:25:08 GMT
noticed it said 8 years on one team to do this so then 4=Rookie contract and then 4=Resignings so then you can franchise camp.....O.K. We might want to put a clause saying if you franchise camp you cannot do the other camp called he still got it. Offense should be +3 to some offense and +3 physical attribute and for defense is should be defense+ 3 and +3 physical. If you want both +2 +2 +2 all...... Maybe ? Nah dude... not enough people are interested - it's not worth pursuing. All good. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 3:30:27 GMT
ok that was productive let's just keep it this way, why should loyalty be encouraged? Again, no need for the spotlight to be on me, balls in your park now Sheesh dude, so... you making it seem like I want to stop trades is inherently productive, yet I can't point out that's not what I said? I DID say we should move away from this, that it was moot... you wanted to continue. You don't want focus on you, then don't assert I'm saying things I'm not. Please? I have no problem with debate, nor any particular problem with you: but let's leave the ad hominem stuff out of it. ----------------------------------------------- There's never been any incentive at all to keep players, yet the reverse is true of trading (trade frenzy). That's not balanced. You shouldn't be forced to do either - and if there are bonuses for doing one, then there should be for the other way as well. Perhaps (just for interest's sake) I'll have a look next week at how many players have already been on a franchise for 8 plus years in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 3:36:29 GMT
Done here... I honestly don't think anything good can come from further 'discussion' here (I sense myself becoming a bit unreasonable on this topic...).
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 17, 2014 3:40:51 GMT
A +2 RC for a trade is nothing that'll swing the balance between keeping a player or trading him. You wouldn't trade your star player just because there's a trade frenzy would you? And let's keep that example in context here. The league had just moved over from HASL for about a week or two and activity was pretty crap. A trade frenzy encourages people to come back and start looking around for moves so if anthing it was an Activity stimulus.
The way I see it, I'm more aligned with SRG's thought process; this is a game and people like to make moves to try and build their teams. When more people are being active and trading, it makes the entire league a little more interesting.
In regards to "incentives" for keeping players, If a player is worth keeping around for a very long time (and with increasing salary) then that's the payoff. Is there really any more need to add to it? If Kevin Durant on the Sonics becomes a HOF stud for the next 10 years for the Sonics and they make the WCF every season and the Finals every other season, do you really want to create additional rewards to the Sonics and KD just because they have stayed together? Sonics will keep KD because he's a valuable player and they are having success. If they don't have success, then he'll be traded. A trade frenzy won't make the Sonics trade a HOF bound KD either so that shouldn't have mattered.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 3:49:34 GMT
forget it, I was trying to find out why you have the opinions you have, but everytime I try to see your reasoning for something you take it as an attack which I'm not intending on doing. I'm only asking in this thread because we're butting heads alot in other thing and I'm trying to see it from your point of view, if you don't want to give it that's fine, but there's no need to think I'm trying to attack or discredit you, because it isn't what I'm trying to do.
Your taking what I'm saying too seriously and making it bigger then it has to me, so I will just drop it and continue on trying to get deals done and discussing my opinion on the HC/cap etc.
|
|
