![[DEV] ISFL Forums](http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/images/emerald/logo.png "[DEV] ISFL Forums"){kind=logo}
+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Community (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Media (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+---- Thread: *Why being nice is ruining league parity (/showthread.php?tid=17676)
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - CDub2 - 01-12-2020
So it's been a while since I've written anything, but money is good so here it goes. Also, I don't intend to make anyone feel bad writing this. I'm just trying to observe some things I've seen since I joined the league in S4.
In some circles, I've been pretty vocal about how position change rules are killing strategy, drafting, and the free agent market. For the most part, position changes have calmed down a bit, but it still irks me when a DL changes to a QB. Imagine the drafting or the free agent drama that would be involved if two or three teams really needed a certain position. It would be fun. But people are too nice and will change positions willy nilly.
Which brings me to my bone to pick. People are too nice during contract negotiations. Recently we've seen some free agents command some big money. And I love it. Logan Uchicha grabbing 10 million dollars a year is awesome. It makes teams think about their future cap. It makes some interesting trades go down. It's fun.
Speaking of off season fun, what is everyone's fascination with taking minimum deals? What advantage does that give to anyone besides ruining league parity? There's all these really good players taking minimum contracts so they can go to (or stay on) a really good team. Now not to knock the Orange County Otters, they are the dynasty every other team wishes they could be, but do you think they have this many championships if their players were actually paid fairly? They have Defensive Player of the Year Lanzer Grievous (an over 1000 TPE LB) making 4 million dollars for the next couple of seasons. Most teams are paying their inactive OL bots more. But nobody thinks twice about it.
I shouldn't be super upset about it. I spent an entire Cameron Taylor career making close to minimum. But as I neared CT's retirement, all I could think of was the lack of championship rings and the lack of money. Off seasons were boring because my contract was almost pre-destined. So minimum contracts and OCO aren't necessarily the ultimate evil.
The contract that kind of prompted this media piece is Bex's contract. I really really disliked that contract for a couple reasons.
1) Minimum in their prime on their second team. If you're going to hit the free agent market, cool. Get paid for what you're worth. Bex is HO and a great LR presence. She should get paid for it. I get it, NOLA is cool and fun. But it's not helping the rest of the league when top S18 players (wink wink Ironside) are taking minimums so they can construct a super team.
2) My main bone to pick is opting out of a 5 million dollar contract to re-sign with the same team for a 3 million dollar minimum in her prime. No explanation needed.
There's been suspensions and fines recently for trying to circumvent cap and contract rules. Opting out of a rookie deal to sign an extension is a recent one (I think it was Thudd Kassel?). The NOLA Bex situation feels almost as dirty. There is no reason a player with an option would opt out for less money on the same team.
Again I don't mean to pick on anyone. This is just a recent example of how lax people have been on their contracts. I've seen it for 15 seasons now. Let's get greedy people. It will make the league more competitive.
Don't hate me Bex.
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - HENDRIX 2.0 - 01-12-2020
Agreed 100% with this. ItsJustBarry and I tried fighting the good fight way back in ~S5 in regards to the minimum deals.
As for position changes, now that the league is very active, I'm an advocate of realistic ones such as LB <-> S, CB <-> S, RB <-> WR, etc.
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - CalvinP - 01-12-2020
I agree with this post
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - iseedoug - 01-12-2020
(01-12-2020, 04:43 PM)HENDRIX 2.0 Wrote:Agreed 100% with this. ItsJustBarry and I tried fighting the good fight way back in ~S5 in regards to the minimum deals.
As for position changes, now that the league is very active, I'm an advocate of realistic ones such as LB <-> S, CB <-> S, RB <-> WR, etc.
100% agree. I absolutely hate seeing a CB turn to a DL. Nonsense.
Edit: although I do not care so much about the taking min $ thing. Just the position switching.
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - RainDelay - 01-12-2020
I support this.
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - Raven - 01-12-2020
While at one side I do like this, the other side is I don't really care for a big contract.
Sure Corvo is a 3x back to back to back QBotY award winner and an MVP award winner, but I`m not hurting for money myself. I do my tweets and my occasional podcast + a job and my contract is just a bit of side money. So at the end of the day I`d rather leave money open for my team to attract more quality players or be able to sign players who want more money.
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - Modern_Duke - 01-12-2020
Yeah its kind of a weird dynamic where better players don't need as high salaries as worse players, since active users get more money from jobs/media/twitter/etc.
I haven't thought about it too hard so I'm not formally proposing anything, but it could make sense to classify 'Salary $' vs. 'Job/Media/Twitter $' separately. And have it where, I don't know, weekly training can only be bought with Salary $ and equipment can only be bought with Job/Media/Twitter $, as a way to incentivize players to maximize their contracts
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - Opera_Phantom - 01-12-2020
Maybe create a rule that states that if a player decides to test free agency, he can still sign for his previous team, but if that occurs he needs to make at least 50% more than he did before.
Just a suggestion.
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - Raven - 01-12-2020
(01-13-2020, 12:09 AM)Modern_Duke Wrote:Yeah its kind of a weird dynamic where better players don't need as high salaries as worse players, since active users get more money from jobs/media/twitter/etc.
I haven't thought about it too hard so I'm not formally proposing anything, but it could make sense to classify 'Salary $' vs. 'Job/Media/Twitter $' separately. And have it where, I don't know, weekly training can only be bought with Salary $ and equipment can only be bought with Job/Media/Twitter $, as a way to incentivize players to maximize their contracts
It's an idea, but I feel that semi active users, maybe those who dont have time for a job or don't really write a ton of media, will get alienated from being able to purchase equipment.
Maybe we should look at revamping the min contract amounts per TPE ranges. Like maybe even a extra mil over every range, or more of a steep change the higher the tpe.
Maybe change it so that a player who is on their final year, cant sign a new contract till after the trade deadline. To prevent early signings to get ahead of being moved to a higher tpe range.
There's a ton of options to look at if we feel this is something that has to be looked at.
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - SwagSloth - 01-12-2020
Taking off my GM hat for a minute...
Even as a regular player, I always took minimum deals because, at the end of the day, if I'm on a team, I want them to be competitive. If I'm taking more than minimum, that's less money they can use to lure in FAs that do care about money and/or put it back into the OL. I can make money in other ways. For me, it's all about being competitive and taking anything over minimum is a sub-optimal choice from my viewpoint. It has nothing to do with being "nice"; it's an advantage for my team. And that's exactly the intent.
As a GM, I actually view it differently. I try to offer my guys more than minimum and/or at least discuss larger deals. I've never been one to pay FAs $10 mil, but my overall philosophy is I'd rather pay all of my actives a little extra and spread the money around. If someone wants to take minimum, I'm fine with signing them to a minimum deal as I share the same philosophy with my own player, but that's their choice; it's not something I push on anyone else.
Ultimately, the real issue is that players can make money outside of contracts. If not for that, I'm sure high earners would chase the largest deals possible. However, that kind of change would be very difficult to implement at this point. Maybe impossible.
EDIT: Just to be clear, this is something that gets discussed A LOT behind the scenes. FAs are often more likely to sign for smaller deals (if not min) to be part of a winning team while less competitive teams have thrown out ridiculously massive offers just to get scoffed at. This isn't like the NFL where someone will sign with the Bucs pver the Pats just for a few extra million dollars. And unfortunately, any attempt to enforce the appeal of a larger deal (such as a 50% increase to resign with your old team once FA starts) removes player choice, which usually hurts user retention.