03-06-2014, 10:50 PM
Removing winterball would only further teams stockpiling cash, so I don't think that's an option. Here's something I've came up with:
Winterball Rules:
- Cost is 10M
- Teams can acquire one more winterball slot than they're allotted (20M for extra slot)
Players can be sent based on:
- Never received a positive winterball previously
- 79 overall or lower and 80+ peak
- Any overall if drafted in previous year
1 Slot = .585+ W%
2 Slots = .500-.584 W%
3 Slots = .499- W%
Results will be input on March 1st and are produced by randomizer.org based on the following outcomes:
1-4: 250 day injury
5-10: 50 day injury
11-45: No change
46-140: +1 predicted
141-175: +1 predicted, +1 peak
176-185: +2 predicted, +1 peak
186-195: +2 predicted, +2 peak
196-200: +3 predicted, +2 peak
----------
1) Teams can pick up one additional slot. The extra slot will cost double, so it would help get cash out of the league as well as not making WB trading a get-rich-quick scheme.
2) If a player gets an injury or no change roll, they can go back through next year (as long as they still fit the rating requirements). Again, this gets cash out of the league.
3) While 80+ peak encourages better players to be sent, it will also decrease the chances other players in the file receiving a random drop.
4) As suggested before, allowing recent draftees to be WB'd only expands the pool of eligible players.
4) The new WB allotments limits the overall total of players that can be WB'd.
Winterball Rules:
- Cost is 10M
- Teams can acquire one more winterball slot than they're allotted (20M for extra slot)
Players can be sent based on:
- Never received a positive winterball previously
- 79 overall or lower and 80+ peak
- Any overall if drafted in previous year
1 Slot = .585+ W%
2 Slots = .500-.584 W%
3 Slots = .499- W%
Results will be input on March 1st and are produced by randomizer.org based on the following outcomes:
1-4: 250 day injury
5-10: 50 day injury
11-45: No change
46-140: +1 predicted
141-175: +1 predicted, +1 peak
176-185: +2 predicted, +1 peak
186-195: +2 predicted, +2 peak
196-200: +3 predicted, +2 peak
----------
1) Teams can pick up one additional slot. The extra slot will cost double, so it would help get cash out of the league as well as not making WB trading a get-rich-quick scheme.
2) If a player gets an injury or no change roll, they can go back through next year (as long as they still fit the rating requirements). Again, this gets cash out of the league.
3) While 80+ peak encourages better players to be sent, it will also decrease the chances other players in the file receiving a random drop.
4) As suggested before, allowing recent draftees to be WB'd only expands the pool of eligible players.
4) The new WB allotments limits the overall total of players that can be WB'd.
Cleveland Record: 5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4
ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1
NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0