I like this article but also disagree in a few areas.
I actually completely agree with this. It bothered me a bit when Swag's Andrew Reese kept switching back and forth between a DT and QB. I don't want less positions switches overall (and I haven't been active in the last over a period of a couple months to see how prevalent switches are now), but I would be all about limiting position switches to realistic options. And that would just be something that users would have to take into account when they create their players. The only exception I would make is for first time creates. Let them switch to whatever to keep up their interest. But I would impose the harsher restrictions on recreates who should be able to plan better.
Yeah I mostly agree with this too. HO sets cap limits based on what they roughly believe to be achievable, so their actually is a limit on the amount of money that can be dished out. But I don't think we've come too close to it considering how much cap room the OL bots afford us. Which leads me to my next point...
I get what you're saying, but OCO has actually historically paid their players really well. You can't complain about a team giving its players contracts that are too small and then also say they don't pay enough for their OL bots. OL bots are bought after contracts are finalized because whatever left over money there is goes to the bots. So that's why OCO has had such bad OL bots--because they pay their players well. Better to get upset about teams that don't pay their players well and consistently have maxed out OL (unless they get a lot of cap in trades, like my BAL team did).
I get it. That's why I'm going to be playing with my next player a little different. Other than my rookie contract with L'Alto I always had min. But this next one will be a bit more costly.
I don't really know Bex well and I don't remember her contract, but --no offense--I don't think those are great reasons. Taking minimum contracts and exercising options to restructure contracts happen all the time in real life. And generally its to benefit the team. So it makes sense that team players would go for it. In fact, that's often how GMs do their contracts, so they're always getting paid minimum.
I think we just need a balance between team players and players who are more interested in money and ring chasing. There's room for both in my opinion.
(01-12-2020, 04:02 PM)CDub2 Wrote: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.
I actually completely agree with this. It bothered me a bit when Swag's Andrew Reese kept switching back and forth between a DT and QB. I don't want less positions switches overall (and I haven't been active in the last over a period of a couple months to see how prevalent switches are now), but I would be all about limiting position switches to realistic options. And that would just be something that users would have to take into account when they create their players. The only exception I would make is for first time creates. Let them switch to whatever to keep up their interest. But I would impose the harsher restrictions on recreates who should be able to plan better.
(01-12-2020, 04:02 PM)CDub2 Wrote: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.
Yeah I mostly agree with this too. HO sets cap limits based on what they roughly believe to be achievable, so their actually is a limit on the amount of money that can be dished out. But I don't think we've come too close to it considering how much cap room the OL bots afford us. Which leads me to my next point...
(01-12-2020, 04:02 PM)CDub2 Wrote: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 get what you're saying, but OCO has actually historically paid their players really well. You can't complain about a team giving its players contracts that are too small and then also say they don't pay enough for their OL bots. OL bots are bought after contracts are finalized because whatever left over money there is goes to the bots. So that's why OCO has had such bad OL bots--because they pay their players well. Better to get upset about teams that don't pay their players well and consistently have maxed out OL (unless they get a lot of cap in trades, like my BAL team did).
(01-12-2020, 04:02 PM)CDub2 Wrote: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.
I get it. That's why I'm going to be playing with my next player a little different. Other than my rookie contract with L'Alto I always had min. But this next one will be a bit more costly.
(01-12-2020, 04:02 PM)CDub2 Wrote: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 is no reason a player with an option would opt out for less money on the same team.
I don't really know Bex well and I don't remember her contract, but --no offense--I don't think those are great reasons. Taking minimum contracts and exercising options to restructure contracts happen all the time in real life. And generally its to benefit the team. So it makes sense that team players would go for it. In fact, that's often how GMs do their contracts, so they're always getting paid minimum.
I think we just need a balance between team players and players who are more interested in money and ring chasing. There's room for both in my opinion.