+- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: League Suggestions (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Comp Picks (/showthread.php?tid=16406)
RE: Comp Picks - AndyP - 11-12-2012
The fact is most FA's are middling players. They aren't stars. Our system is built to pattern off of star players and we're chasing a ghost. I don't care of Widdup and Wittman don't make FA. I care much more that we have some options and that teams are compensated appropriately. Matty's idea is going to crush the middle tier players. The current system is rewarding garbage players who are signed.
My only point in posting this was to open a dialogue about the fact that Rich Thompson is landing people a first round draft pick. The once in a blue moon cases like Widdup or Macies are not worth that cost. This league, as a whole, sees FA for what it is in every mogul league in existence - a chance to snatch up roleplayers. I don't have a problem granting a 2/3 pick (generally a low 80s peak) for people funneling solid role players. But it's time to stop chasing the ghost of excellent free agent classes - it will never happen unless we want to implement some horseshit idea like forced releases. So let's focus on what matters - appropriately compensating teams for the types of players they are sending to FA. And that, is not a first round pick.
RE: Comp Picks - Peter - 11-13-2012
We've typically only had like 3-4 comp players per year, this year we had 7ish. So maybe this year is more of a white crow than anything else, it certainly hasnt become a trend. Will, it who knows but you're trying to change something for what happened in one year as opposed to all the recent years where there was only a couple of comp guys signed.
RE: Comp Picks - mattynokes - 11-13-2012
(11-12-2012, 07:45 PM)AndyP Wrote: The fact is most FA's are middling players. They aren't stars. Our system is built to pattern off of star players and we're chasing a ghost. I don't care of Widdup and Wittman don't make FA. I care much more that we have some options and that teams are compensated appropriately. Matty's idea is going to crush the middle tier players. The current system is rewarding garbage players who are signed.
My only point in posting this was to open a dialogue about the fact that Rich Thompson is landing people a first round draft pick. The once in a blue moon cases like Widdup or Macies are not worth that cost. This league, as a whole, sees FA for what it is in every mogul league in existence - a chance to snatch up roleplayers. I don't have a problem granting a 2/3 pick (generally a low 80s peak) for people funneling solid role players. But it's time to stop chasing the ghost of excellent free agent classes - it will never happen unless we want to implement some horseshit idea like forced releases. So let's focus on what matters - appropriately compensating teams for the types of players they are sending to FA. And that, is not a first round pick.
Fine. We can look for a different solution then. I do not like moving the compensation rounds one bit. The mid 80s types are most certainly more abundant in FA, but the high 80s to low 90s are what really draws in interest during the off-season. So, there has to be a better solution than just moving the compensation round back.
My take, we go back to two sandwich rounds as follows.
1. Keep using JHC's formula. Any player (who is FA eligible) and rated 88+ may also be offered fallback for compensation.
2. Fallback still determined by calculating salaries.
3. Comp round A (1st/2nd) or Comp round B (2nd/3rd) would determined by the signing offer.
As for what the break between Round A and Round B would be is to be determined. I can go back and look through our compensation signings to figure out what may be an appropriate mark. But, something like $10M annually or $40M total for A and then anything under that for B. Or if could be done by a rating cutoff. 86+ for A, 85 and under for B.
RE: Comp Picks - Rhendricks - 11-13-2012
(11-13-2012, 04:04 PM)mattynokes Wrote:(11-12-2012, 07:45 PM)AndyP Wrote: The fact is most FA's are middling players. They aren't stars. Our system is built to pattern off of star players and we're chasing a ghost. I don't care of Widdup and Wittman don't make FA. I care much more that we have some options and that teams are compensated appropriately. Matty's idea is going to crush the middle tier players. The current system is rewarding garbage players who are signed.
My only point in posting this was to open a dialogue about the fact that Rich Thompson is landing people a first round draft pick. The once in a blue moon cases like Widdup or Macies are not worth that cost. This league, as a whole, sees FA for what it is in every mogul league in existence - a chance to snatch up roleplayers. I don't have a problem granting a 2/3 pick (generally a low 80s peak) for people funneling solid role players. But it's time to stop chasing the ghost of excellent free agent classes - it will never happen unless we want to implement some horseshit idea like forced releases. So let's focus on what matters - appropriately compensating teams for the types of players they are sending to FA. And that, is not a first round pick.
Fine. We can look for a different solution then. I do not like moving the compensation rounds one bit. The mid 80s types are most certainly more abundant in FA, but the high 80s to low 90s are what really draws in interest during the off-season. So, there has to be a better solution than just moving the compensation round back.
My take, we go back to two sandwich rounds as follows.
1. Keep using JHC's formula. Any player (who is FA eligible) and rated 88+ may also be offered fallback for compensation.
2. Fallback still determined by calculating salaries.
3. Comp round A (1st/2nd) or Comp round B (2nd/3rd) would determined by the signing offer.
As for what the break between Round A and Round B would be is to be determined. I can go back and look through our compensation signings to figure out what may be an appropriate mark. But, something like $10M annually or $40M total for A and then anything under that for B. Or if could be done by a rating cutoff. 86+ for A, 85 and under for B.
The type A/B is what I had suggested to Andy earlier but it was shot down because it didn't work before. However, if the system were to change, I feel that this would be the fairest way. It gives the higher comp to those players that deserve it while not rewarding the lesser FAs as much. I like the total salary to determine more than a rating cutoff, personally.
RE: Comp Picks - AndyP - 11-13-2012
First, implementing a Type A and Type B system is doing exactly what I asked - dropping comp by a round. So let's not pretend, it's silly to suggest that's off the table and then propose a system that is exactly that.
If we were going to go back to Type A and B I'd propose this:
1. Qualification for Type A and B remains the same for the formula
2. Any Type A player who is not 85+ in overall rating is automatically downgraded to a Type B
3. Type A players must receive a qualifying offer of 10M to be eligible for comp
4. Type B players are subject to the number when "recalculate salaries" is hit
5. A round is between 1-2 and B round is between 2-3
RE: Comp Picks - mattynokes - 11-14-2012
I don't want to go back to a true Type A/B system. The reason for going to one compensation round was because with the A/B system we were seeing Type B's getting much better offers than some Type A's.
And I still like allowing for high rated players who did no qualify according to the formula be eligible for compensation. An injury in the past 2 seasons and the player will have a tough time qualifying. I think the formula is right in that aspect. But if a player has proven to be healthy and suddenly goes down for a month in year five, then comes back strong in year six - he's probably still worthy of getting compensation.
I'd simply say compensation is compensation and we continue to ignore they Type A/B differences when looking at the formula. Any player who is under 85 gets slotted as Comp Round B while 85+ gets slotted as Comp Round A. Any player that did not qualify on the formula, but is rated 85+ is eligible for compensation in Comp Round B.
1. JHC's formula will be used
2. Players 85-99 will be eligible for Comp Round 1 (between 1st/2nd). Players 0-84 will be eligible for Comp Round 2 (between 2nd/3rd).
3. Additionally any player that failed to qualify, but is rated 85+ will be eligible for Comp Round 2 (between 2nd/3rd).
4. Comp Round 1 players will have a fallback of $10M.
5. Comp Round 2 players will have a fallback of their "Re-calculated Salary".
I think this is the most fair way to go about it. We'll still promote the mid to low 80s and we'd likely even be promoting more high 80s to low 90s to become FAs if they don't necessarily have to qualify in order to receive some type of compensation.
RE: Comp Picks - AndyP - 11-14-2012
I fail to see the distinction. We call it Type A and B to distinguish the comp value, so not sure what the first and third paragraphs are saying. Quite frankly, I'd rather base the system around rating then the contract handed out. So we just have to accept that some Type B's are going to get paid more than A's. This system is basically reverting back to the old one but now with qualifiers to prevent bad 77ish type players from landing Type A comp. Works for me.
3 is fine with me as well.
RE: Comp Picks - mattynokes - 11-14-2012
Matt Geist is a perfect example. Under JHC's formula he would've been Type B, but he received the highest total offer and his rating would be above the qualifying mark to receive compensation in the round between the 1st and 2nd.
As far as a rating system, the issue I see would be an example like this:
SP Rated 92 Age 36
SP Rated 88 Age 29
Under a rating system, the older SP would receive higher compensation. In a year or two the older SP is likely to be rated the same or lower than than younger SP through regression. In terms of future overall value the younger SP is better. The older one would definitely be better in the short-term, but I think compensation should be rewarding the ones who have the better overall future value. That's where I feel the total offer does it's job. It allows the bidding GMs to say who they feel is more compensation worthy.
RE: Comp Picks - AndyP - 11-14-2012
None of that is included in your plan. According to what you have said we have two seperate comp systems at work at the same time. Which is it?
RE: Comp Picks - 'PR' - 11-15-2012
I don't see a problem with current the system, but if the league so chooses then that's just the way the cookie crumbles.