![[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: *"some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint (/showthread.php?tid=24615)
*"some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint - AdamS - 08-03-2020
As some may have seen, @speculadora recently wrote up a piece about his view on several issues he has with out current contract system. You can find it here if you are so inclined. It's a wonderfully thought provoking piece form someone who has been intimately involved in making the exact sort of decisions he wishes to see no longer be options, as he points out. There is no one more zealous than the reformed sinner after all.
Two of these measures I fully agree with. The contract scaling being brought into balance with a simple half million added to the minimum of every bracket after the second is particularly good. Taking away the DSFL pay after the player's second season is also a great idea, though I am aware that the situation of developing Quarterbacks would play into it. Beyond that this measure would have to contend with the growing mindset that DSFL ought to be normalized as a 2-3 year stint. More dauntingly, it would also have to deal with those who artificially created that mindset to try to pretend into existence a DSFL that is a long term world instead of the short term program that it is. Beyond them you'd hear a clattering from those among the DSFL GMs who say things like "I'm sorry we're looking for a long term solution at that position" because they don't understand the most kindergarten level tenants of their job. It would be a rough hill to climb without some degree of compromising of the ideal, I think. I'd love to see it tried without interference from the parties that dislike or have forgotten that the D stands for developmental and that it refers to players.
Now this is the point wherein we diverge. Speculadora has suggested two additional measures that I simply cannot support. The first is reducing the normal DSFL salary of recreated form $5 Million to $4 Million because.....we should. We haven't blatantly stripped recreates of anything in a while so perhaps it's simply that. As it stands, recreates already lose out on actual TPE and a small bit of money via the rookie tasks. Beyond that, a series of rules through the league's history has removed any semblance of TPE based advantage a recreate could have gotten, restricted when a recreate can utilize the money advantage that is always argued as being the heart of all these rules. And woe to you, recreate who isn't rich to start with. We as a league have spent nearly 3 years making sure you know that we do not give a solitary flying fuck about you. We stand in a world where it is entirely and intentionally set up so that a new player is simply and undeniably capable of earning more TPE in a career than a recreate is. Why lower a recreate's DSFL pay after all that? At some point, you have to put down the stick, wipe the blood from your hands, and bury the horse.
The second proposition I take issue with is the standardizing of rookie contracts. Doing so would be an absolute Godawful move. Rookies as it is have hardly any leverage whatsoever. It is extremely difficult for any rookie to really come in and speak for themselves in terms of signing to the team that already singlehandedly chose them and spent two weeks deciding their fate before said rookie even gets to find out what team holds their rights. A team who can literally punish them for not signing a contract by restricting the TPE they are allowed to earn as per league rules. This measure would remove one of two rights a rookie has left and the second one is simply retiring. Actually, nevermind. The team would still have the right to play the retired player that season so even that one is a bit questionable. Regardless, character suicide should not be the only choice a player has if they are in a position they dislike being in. Rookie players really have no one to speak on their behalf either. From the moment they're publicly drafted the amount of people they can actually talk to about their options basically disappears. In theory they have agents (it's own quagmire) but even that slim tether would be cut by this idea. Player rights should not be essentially decapitated by the practices of GMs who view loopholes the way rabbits in heat view each other.
I firmly believe that if the league were to adopt the first two policies suggested and outlined, we would actually see growth in player rights, parity, free agency, and budget balancing. I also firmly believe that the league benefits in this same vein by taking measures now to stop the ensuing onslaught of shady contracts meant to get around the presumed future expansion draft. I have proposed my own suggestion on this regard to HO and I know a few others have as well. Nipping this nonsense in the bud now will benefit the league greatly and avoid a future of sham free agents signing right back with their teams after specifically constructing contracts to protect the team from the expansion draft.
Player rights
Fair play
Develop players
-AdamS
RE: "some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint - Memento Mori - 08-03-2020
I generally think that most of what you and Spec wrote is reasonable, but I have to draw attention to something.
(08-03-2020, 04:49 AM)AdamS Wrote: Now this is the point wherein we diverge. Speculadora has suggested two additional measures that I simply cannot support. The first is reducing the normal DSFL salary of recreated form $5 Million to $4 Million because.....we should. We haven't blatantly stripped recreates of anything in a while so perhaps it's simply that. As it stands, recreates already lose out on actual TPE and a small bit of money via the rookie tasks. Beyond that, a series of rules through the league's history has removed any semblance of TPE based advantage a recreate could have gotten, restricted when a recreate can utilize the money advantage that is always argued as being the heart of all these rules. And woe to you, recreate who isn't rich to start with. We as a league have spent nearly 3 years making sure you know that we do not give a solitary flying fuck about you. We stand in a world where it is entirely and intentionally set up so that a new player is simply and undeniably capable of earning more TPE in a career than a recreate is. Why lower a recreate's DSFL pay after all that? At some point, you have to put down the stick, wipe the blood from your hands, and bury the horse.
This paragraph is ridiculously over-the-top, but the sentiment is something I've seen from several older users and recreates recently. Recreates are not hard done by. A max earning new player who created at the trade deadline will out-earn a max earning recreate who created at the trade deadline, yes. But how common are max earning new players created at the trade deadline?
In the S24 class there was between zero and two depending on how you interpret it, as neither Kyamprac or Maglubiyet are strictly max earners given that they've been passed by recreates.
In the S23 class there's two - Amidships and gbfn - and then a few others who created around the same time but didn't strictly max earn. This group (Sylphreni, DarknessRising, Naosu) are still among the top of their class in TPE, but the gap is generally wider than that of the 12 TPE rookie task because the recreates haven't max earned either.
In the S22 class there are zero. Had he not gone inactive, BadLck could have the highest TPE in the class. But he did, so he doesn't.
But what about new creates who create during the offseason? Do they have an advantage over recreates? The answer is no. The TPE that you'd earn from creating at the trade deadline is much more than the 12 you earn from the rookie task. If you created at the S23 trade deadline, you would have the opportunity to earn up to 33 TPE from tasks that closed before the r/NFL recruitment post went up on the 20th July (5th-11th AC, training, PT4, Trivia 4, 12th-18th AC, training, PT5, Trivia 5, Week 16 Predictions).
If you recreate in the offseason rather than at the trade deadline, you can't take advantage of these TPE opportunities. But if you recreate in the offseason, you have two players in the league for the upcoming season. To recreate in the offseason is to sacrifice this extra TPE for the ability to have two players in the upcoming season. If you care more about your next player's max TPE than you do about your current player playing one more season, recreate at the trade deadline. You can't have your cake and eat it.
With regards to TPE, the following is true if you take advantage of all TPE opportunities: Trade deadline new creates > Trade deadline recreates > Offseason new creates > Offseason recreates. The only group with an advantage that can be described as unfair are the max earning trade deadline new creates, of which there are almost none.
Let's talk about money advantages then. The line, "And woe to you, recreate who isn't rich to start with." sticks out. New creates can earn $3m from the rookie task. New creates only have a money advantage over recreates who have less than $3m in the bank. Thankfully for recreates, you get paid a full season's salary if you join a DSFL team as a post-trade deadline waiver recreate. Right now, this is $5m. Spec's suggestion is to reduce it to $4m. This is still more than is earned for doing the rookie task. Once again, the only advantage is held by trade deadline new creates, and again, there are almost none of those.
Finally, I'll address the "We as a league have spent nearly 3 years making sure you know that we do not give a solitary flying fuck about you" line. Every single online game has a delicate balance to strike with regards to wanting to retain current players as well as attract new ones. If you give older players too big an advantage, it reduces retention rate of new players. If you give new players too big an advantage, then older users will feel wronged and lose interest. Recreates have a TPE and money advantage over new creates, except in the rare circumstances that a max earning new create creates at the trade deadline. There were 284 players in the S22 draft, 93 players in the S23 draft and 75 players in the S24 draft. Of these 452 players (I know the number of new players is less but I am not going to count all 300+ of them), somewhere between two and seven actually had a relevant advantage over recreates.
RE: "some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint - AdamS - 08-03-2020
Your argument relies almost entirely on comparing brand new players who create in the offseason to recreates who create several weeks prior to that at trade deadline.
Under these circumstances..I concede that people who create several weeks earlier do have an advantage in both tpe opportunities and the ability to get paid from the prior season when compared to players who create weeks later than them who did not actually exist during the time period in which the recreate was gaining the advantages you're assigning them.
RE: "some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint - Memento Mori - 08-03-2020
(08-03-2020, 06:46 AM)AdamS Wrote: Your argument relies almost entirely on comparing brand new players who create in the offseason to recreates who create several weeks prior to that at trade deadline.Yes it does. The reason why I made that comparison is quite clear. All recreates have the opportunity to create at the trade deadline. Almost no newer players do (unless they choose to wait ~5 IRL weeks in order to do so).
Under these circumstances..I concede that people who create several weeks earlier do have an advantage in both tpe opportunities and the ability to get paid from the prior season when compared to players who create weeks later than them who did not actually exist during the time period in which the recreate was gaining the advantages you're assigning them.
RE: "some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint - speculadora - 08-03-2020
Just to clarify a couple of things. I'm actually suggesting recreates don't get the DSFL deposit whatsoever. Or, at the very most, a minimal one. This is not about trying to curb any kind of advantages to being a recreate, but to incentivize larger contracts. Equipment here is more luxury than necessity, but weekly training is largely the opposite. We make it really, really easy between the $5m pay in DSFL, $4m send down cap, and Twitter payout for most players to never even have to think about find any other source of money as long as they don't buy equipment. Like a recreate with $10m in their bank probably wouldn't need to earn more than the odd media every few seasons to afford this. Maybe there are some larger problems at work there, though, and this could be treating a symptom rather than the cause.
As for rookie contracts, I did note (I thought) that if we re-do the minimum contract tiers and scale them, that any sort of standardization becomes mostly unnecessary. That being said, I tried to counter balance that by proposing 1) that the player's standard contract hit is held against the team's pro cap until they sign, which would hopefully force the issue for teams a little more, and 2) that any player who holds out in this scenario can continue to do all trainings, PTs, etc. You're right in that those probably still don't give players enough leverage in a player's league. I'd honestly even like something as simple as just enforcing a minimum total contract value by round. Like, "a first rounder must be paid at least $9m over the life of their rookie deal". A team could make that a one-year, $9m deal, a two-year deal that maybe goes 3/6, whatever. This would probably keep more leverage in the players' hands while still ensuring some baseline structure. You would of course either need to ban options (so teams don't backload and have a playeropt out) or make buyouts a thing and allow mutual options or something. I don't know. Really just spitballing here.
RE: "some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint - AdamS - 08-03-2020
Also @Memento Mori you seem to believe that if someone recreates at trade deadline that they will receive dsfl pay for those few weeks (after already receiving their contractual pay for the season in their old player). I am reasonably certain that this isn't true. I don't believe we have ever allows people to double dip this way. If by some chance this has been missed it should immediately be rectified.
RE: "some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint - Memento Mori - 08-03-2020
@AdamS Recreates were paid DSFL waiver contracts here, here, here, all were processed by the head banker.
RE: "some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint - AdamS - 08-03-2020
Yes I have also done my own inquiring now and found this to be true.
What an abject and incredible failure we have on our hands. I can only imagine it's because like myself, no one ever really thought about it or simply presumed that something so obvious was already dealt with.
RE: "some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint - Billybolo53 - 08-03-2020
(08-03-2020, 02:11 PM)Memento Mori Wrote: @AdamS Recreates were paid DSFL waiver contracts here, here, here, all were processed by the head banker.
Damn it's not even pro-rated.
RE: "some thoughts on contracts" a Counterpoint - AdamS - 08-03-2020
Yeah that is just nuts. This requires immediate attention imo