Cap considerations

[The Immortal Ramirez]

I have only seen one abstain (keepers), though I didn't see a vote by randilover. Mutts and Dodgers both voted for 17,500, but stated they really didn't care. Swords and Insects also both stated they didn't care since we all use the same cap either way.
Mike, I understand your position. I think it would be helpful for the Frenzy folk playing here to use information (that is similar) moreso than those of us who don't. I know I have access (and have looked) at the Frenzy page for where people salaries are set at (roughly). But, what we don't have is the history - who bid on whom (who's a homer for certain teams), how much is this player overvalued in Frenzy, etc.
I think that 20,000 definitely has us on a more level playing field. No one has any advance background. We all bid to where the market allows (right or wrong). That's the name of the game.

I am asking Randilover and Keepers to vote. If there is no majority. I will update the poll and see if there are any changes in opinions.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

I think that 20,000 definitely has us on a more level playing field. No one has any advance background. We all bid to where the market allows (right or wrong). That's the name of the game.

I am asking Randilover and Keepers to vote. If there is no majority. I will update the poll and see if there are any changes in opinions.

Sorry to do it, but I drew the tie. :bag The above made sense to me. Level playing fields are good.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Poll reset.
Once again, we're going to vote on this. If we're in a tie again we'll have to figure something out.
Thanks for the patience.

[Liquid Swords]

won't let me vote...says i've already voted in this poll even though a view results shows no votes

....but then again you probably already know this

same here...cant vote

[Valencia]

Ditto :Banghead

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Skippy the One Eyed Beagle

same here...cant vote

Me either...:retard

[Preds]

Rami,

on the re-vote you should start a new thread.

I noticed ths earlier when you cleared out the other poll. The poll reads this as already voted, and if I were to pull it up in the Admin panel I could see exactly who.

You can edit the options, or change 1 vote to another (that has already been cast), but you can't zero it out completely.

[Preds]

Another reason not to change from the current Frenzy scale of ~583 per player (17,500) is that if we do go with 20,000, it means we'll have to rework all the formulas and numbers for the rookie draft that we already have established for IOP's, as well as the entire bonus structure, and of course the RFA tenders and compensation we have in place already will have to be adjusted as well, That's a lot of work IMO (work we did over the first 3 years in the Frenzy to get it right (or close to right).

As for the comments on an even playing field, yes, the Frenzy guys will have a decent understanding of the player valuations, but at the same time, our bidding and rosters in the Frenzy for the past 4 years as well as the current season are an open book. As Skip so abtly noted, SAC'D teams will be able to jump right over to the Frenzy boards to see who's selling for what, and who's overpaying / underpaying a guy. What some of our ceilings are, who we like in the draft, etc. The playing field will be leveled in may ways as a result...

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Another reason not to change from the current Frenzy scale of ~583 per player (17,500) is that if we do go with 20,000, it means we'll have to rework all the formulas and numbers for the rookie draft that we already have established for IOP's, as well as the entire bonus structure, and of course the RFA tenders and compensation we have in place already will have to be adjusted as well, That's a lot of work IMO (work we did over the first 3 years in the Frenzy to get it right (or close to right).

I still disagree that a 17,500 won't affect the top player prices, and I stronly disagree that the 12 defensive players added will average 583 per player. Of course I could be wrong, but if say the IDPs only average 350-400 per player (or less) the current bonuses and rookie salary levels will need adjusting anyways. I would think we would want to look at all of that after at least the intial season, if not after the first couple to make sure everything is in sync.

Originally Posted by Preds

Another reason not to change from the current Frenzy scale of ~583 per player (17,500) is that if we do go with 20,000, it means we'll have to rework all the formulas and numbers for the rookie draft that we already have established for IOP's, as well as the entire bonus structure, and of course the RFA tenders and compensation we have in place already will have to be adjusted as well, That's a lot of work IMO (work we did over the first 3 years in the Frenzy to get it right (or close to right).

I pointed this out in another thread but the rookie draft values and bonuses need to be redone reguardless of the cap. We are adding 2 rounds to the draft and more importantly a lot of talent to the pool. We will need to flatten out the curve or there will be a bunch of players going for the min value at the end of the draft that shouldn;t be.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Sorry, guys. Didn't know I couldn't clear the poll. I will set up new thread.

Mike, so is your main concern the time and energy for setting up the new numbers? I tend to agree with Skippy that we would need to adapt it anyway since we are adding two new rounds of picks (otherwise we will have about 3 1/2 rounds of everybody getting $1 mil [whatever the cb amount is] base salary for rookie draft). And, if we do not have the rookie draft this year, as you have requested, that gives us a full year to work out the bugs and take the time to get it close to where you like it.

[Preds]

Alright, I'll concede and join the dark side, giving a majority to the pretty round number of 20,000!

Brian, make sure we have it in the rules that the RFA Tendersand Rookie Draft numbers will be adjusted after 1 season's worth of data, and possibly a 2nd time a year later if it's needed. It looks like we're gonna be pretty busy in January and February getting things ready for the RFA period and rookie draft next year, but it should be fun figuring out.

[Preds]

No revote is necessary, I'll change mine to give a majority of 20,000.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

too late...already created the other poll.

wondering how that changed when I came back to this thread...

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Preds, besides, we usually pick our noses in Jan/Feb waiting for something to happen anyway!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

too late...already created the other poll.

wondering how that changed when I came back to this thread...

I'll delete the other poll. No biggie. This issue is set

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

Preds, besides, we usually pick our noses in Jan/Feb waiting for something to happen anyway!

Tasty

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Alright, I'll concede and join the dark side, giving a majority to the pretty round number of 20,000!

Brian, make sure we have it in the rules that the RFA Tendersand Rookie Draft numbers will be adjusted after 1 season's worth of data, and possibly a 2nd time a year later if it's needed. It looks like we're gonna be pretty busy in January and February getting things ready for the RFA period and rookie draft next year, but it should be fun figuring out.

I don't think it will be too much work. We'll have good precedents from the Frenzy, and we can do a simple compare to salary levels in SACD. Add a little tweaking, and presto.