Pred's Fantasy Football Forums

Go Back  Pred's Fantasy Football Forums > Feeding Frenzy - Fantasy Football League > Frenzy Rules & Bylaws
User Name
Password
Home Forums FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 12th, 2002, 10:17 AM   #1
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,172
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default New Rookie Salary Scale

Nittany Dodgers
Rookie
Member # 18



posted 04-05-2002 12:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK guys, I know this is a little late in the game, and I don't necessarily expect us to change this by Rookie draft time (although I would like it if we did), but I think we need to revisit the rookie salary scale. At the time we voted on it, it looked like a good idea to me based on th position the player was drafted. But, after looking at the real NFL draft, and who's going to be available, I see some flaws. I'm going to use this years draft as an example for the flaws.

This year, there are two legitimate Blue Chip QB prospects in Carr and Harrington. After that, there's a big drop off. None of the other guys will most likely start any time soon, unless they fall to the right team. Even then it would be a crap shoot (who prediticted that McMahan would be starting this year for the Lions?). So, as we have it now, Carr might be the first QB, and would cost 900. Harrington goes next for 800. Then, no matter how much later in the draft he goes, then next best QB (take your pick) costs 700. That doesn't seem right to me.

How about RBs. You've got Green and Duckett, and some other guys depending on where they go. Say Green goes first for 1200, the Duckett for 1100. Next best? Say for the sake of arguement its DeShaun Foster. He costs you 900 wether you draft him in the first or third round. That doesn't seem right. That makes him cost more to hold on to and see if he'll work out than Shaun Alexander will cost for the next 4 years.

How about WRs? There seems to be plenty of WRs this year. I could see five WRs going in the first round of our draft. That last one will cost 700, and chosen correctly, could contribute to a team this year. Thats the same price as the 3rd best QB, who most likely won't contribute before his rookie contract is over.

I think we need to rethink things. This is my proposal. I think we should have a sliding scale, based on position, and where in our draft they are selected. Qbs start at 900 and drop 25cbs every draft slot. Rbs at 1200, and drop 30, WRs 800 and drop 20, TEs at 350 and drop 10, all kickers are still 150.

This works like this. Carr goes #1 overall in our draft and costs 900. Someone else takes Harrington #2 and he costs 875. Both are good prospects and they shouldn't be that much different in cost. No one else wants to waste a pick on a QB until say the 1st pick in the 3rd round which will cost only 300 instead of the 700 we say for a guy who wont play most likely.

Say we had a draft loaded with RBs. The first five picks all go running backs. Isn't it more fair if all those guys go for pretty much the same price (1200, 1170, 1140, 1110, 1080) since they all went in the same round, instead of getting a great discount just because they are the 5th rb selected (1200, 1100, 900, 800, 700 now)? This balances things out for drafts loaded at one position but thin at others. It makes the 25th player selected paid like the 25th player, instead of just below a first round pick.

Let me know what you think. I've pasted my proposed scale below for your review.

Rnd-Pk QB RB WR TE K
1-1 900 1200 800 350 150
1-2 875 1170 780 340 150
1-3 850 1140 760 330 150
1-4 825 1110 740 320 150
1-5 800 1080 720 310 150
1-6 775 1050 700 300 150
1-7 750 1020 680 290 150
1-8 725 990 660 280 150
1-9 700 960 640 270 150
1-10 675 930 620 260 150
1-11 650 900 600 250 150
1-12 625 870 580 240 150
2-1 600 840 560 230 150
2-2 575 810 540 220 150
2-3 550 780 520 210 150
2-4 525 750 500 200 150
2-5 500 720 480 190 150
2-6 475 690 460 180 150
2-7 450 660 440 170 150
2-8 425 630 420 160 150
2-9 400 600 400 150 150
2-10 375 570 380 150 150
2-11 350 540 360 150 150
2-12 325 510 340 150 150
3-1 300 480 320 150 150
3-2 275 450 300 150 150
3-3 250 420 280 150 150
3-4 225 390 260 150 150
3-5 200 360 240 150 150
3-6 175 330 220 150 150
3-7 150 300 200 150 150
3-8 150 270 180 150 150
3-9 150 240 160 150 150
3-10 150 210 150 150 150
3-11 150 180 150 150 150
3-12 150 150 150 150 150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 54 | From: Maplewood, MN | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Royal Hawaiian Opihi
Veteran
Member # 4



posted 04-05-2002 01:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I don't think we're too far along to make changes... and to be honest, when I first proposed this new idea to Mike, we talked about doing something along these lines... the salary would be commensurate with the position, round and where they were selected in OUR draft. At the time, it was a bit too much for my feeble brain to create... so Mike took the bull by the horns, so to speak, and came up with what we voted on.

I totally think that your REVISED scale is very fair and appropriate, given the realities of the cap.

As a first-year owner in this league, I still can't comprehend how many of the players on active rosters in this league have such LOW salaries (ie. All these guys have the minimum 110 salary this year: Travis Henry, Kevin Dyson, Kevan Barlow, Correll Buckhalter, Peter Warrick, Jerry Rice, Plaxico Burress, Shannon Sharpe, Quincy Morgan, Drew Brees, Michael Vick)... granted, I don't know if they were waived, then picked up at a reduced salary, or if the rest of the league let them go from the start at the minimum. I just know that in the leagues I play in, most of those guys would have generated a lot more interest (even unproven) than their current salaries indicate was given by this league last year. And last year you didn't even have the developmental league.

Bottom line... it seems to be more fair to level this year's draft picks to come even remotely close to the steals that so many of last year's stars seemed to be signed at.

Not bitter... it wasn't my league last year... just trying to make things fair for us newbies!

I like the ideas and second their suggestion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 88 | From: Aiea, Hawaii | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
Rookie
Member # 7



posted 04-05-2002 02:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your idea sounds good to me. I would be in favor of implementing it this year. I dont think we're so far along that we couldnt change the rules if most teams agree. Besides, I'm always looking for more steals

--------------------
2001 Feeding Frenzy regular season scoring champ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 37 | From: San Jose, CA | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Parkwood Predators
Administrator
Member # 1



posted 04-05-2002 04:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very well thought out Brian. We haven't begun the rookie draft, so I see no reason why we shoudn't consider your thoughts.

I might suggest we revise the scale a bit, but still along the lines you suggested. My idea would be to reduce the reduction a different amount each round, for example, QB's drop 25/pick in the 1st, 20 per pick in the 2nd, and 15/pick in the 3rd, RB's 30/25/20, WR's 20/15/10, TE's 7/5/3, and K's 3/2/1.

For example:


code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QB RB WR TE K1.1 900 1200 800 350 2001.2 875 1170 780 343 1971.3 850 1140 760 336 1941.4 825 1110 740 329 1911.5 800 1080 720 322 1881.6 775 1050 700 315 1851.7 750 1020 680 308 1821.8 725 990 660 301 1791.9 700 960 640 294 1761.10 675 930 620 287 1731.11 650 900 600 280 1701.12 630 870 580 273 1672.0 610 845 565 268 1652.1 590 820 550 263 1632.2 570 795 535 258 1612.3 550 770 520 253 1592.4 530 745 505 248 1572.5 510 720 490 243 1552.6 490 695 475 238 1532.7 470 670 460 233 1512.8 450 645 445 228 1492.9 430 620 430 223 1472.10 410 595 415 218 1452.11 390 570 400 213 1432.12 370 545 385 208 1413.0 355 525 375 205 1403.1 340 505 365 202 1393.2 325 485 355 199 1383.3 310 465 345 196 1373.4 295 445 335 193 1363.5 280 425 325 190 1353.6 265 405 315 187 1343.7 250 385 305 184 1333.8 235 365 295 181 1323.9 220 345 285 178 1313.10 205 325 275 175 1303.11 190 305 265 172 1293.12 175 285 255 169 128

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you guys think? We'd need to approve something quickly IMO, but it can be done.

--------------------
2001 Feeding Frenzy
East Division Champions
Best Regular Season Record (12-2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 216 | From: Hamburg, NY | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Royal Hawaiian Opihi
Veteran
Member # 4



posted 04-05-2002 05:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Works for me...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 88 | From: Aiea, Hawaii | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Nittany Dodgers
Rookie
Member # 18



posted 04-06-2002 11:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike, I'd really be happy with either scale, and I'm not going to make a big fuss about it, but I have a couple arguements for my original scale. First would be the point originally brought up by my esteemed colleague from the Hawaiian islands. Look at how many players are on peoples rosters at or near the league minimum. I would think that a third round draft choice should be close to that point. I'm anxious to see how the UFA period works, but I'm thinking that a few guys are going to go at that level (at least I hope so, I need some serious relief). Late round draft choices are gambles in the fact that they are projects and probably need time to develop. I'm thinking most of these gus are going to be on developmental squads to see if they pan out. Plus, our rookies can only be assigned three year contracts, so even if someone snagged a Thurman Thomas in the third (he was drafted in the 5th or 6th round of NFL I believe-IDIOTS), we would only get the benifit for three years tops. Plus, anyone drafted in the third was already passed on by every team in the league twice, so their salary should be right near the bottom. Just my opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 54 | From: Maplewood, MN | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Parkwood Predators
Administrator
Member # 1



posted 04-06-2002 12:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian,

Let me clear some things up for the new teams this year. Many of the bargains that some teams have (like Alexander at the min, or Priest Holmes at 462) were a result of the method we used to fill our rosters last year.

We started this league in August I believe, and didn't feel we had the time for an auction draft, so instead, we used FBG's VBD app and had it preassign salaries based on FBG's projections.

One inherent problem in FBG's app IMO is that it over values eary picks and undervalues late picks.

Now some teams were smart enough and willing to take gambles on guys like Alexander, and Henry, etc, on the flip side, since we held a traditional draft, many of these guys were drafted earlier than their stud counterparts due to their perceived value. Not all bargains panned out, and some got lucky (Alexander was not highly regarded coming into last year, he was still considerered a project).

Priest Holmes low contract again was a result of people not valueing him high last year. Low risk high reward kind of guy in this format. Guys with high contracts like McCaffrey (who was at 1500 something before he go hurt) slid to the 15th round. As did overpriced players like Gonzalez. We knew the system had weaknesses initially, but figured things would level out over a couple seasons with true auctions going on, and they have.

Now, seeing as we didn't have a dev squad, teams had to burn a valuable roster spot on development players, even if they were cheap. With a dev squad, I feel the rookie contracts should be a bit higher.

Considering the rookie salary scale changes we've implemented, are discussing, and the revised scale both you and I have proposed, I think it might be wise of us to reconsider the max contract years limit on rookies. I say we still keep the dev squad cap at 8 years, but allow teams to divide it up however they wish with a max of 5 years just like other players. So a team could divide up their dev squad years 5-2-1, 5-3-0, 4-2-2, 4-3-1, 4-4-0, 3-3-2, etc.

As for our scale differences, mine is a bit steeper towards the late rounds, but not a ton. A RB drafted at 3.6 in my scale would be 405, and a WR 315, under your scale we're talking 330 and 220 respectively for the same pick. Considering teams have 2000 cb's on their dev squad cap neither of these are high figures, however I think the scale I've proposed is a bit more reflective of their true value (disregarding the inequities of the past).

BTW, Thurman Thomas was drafted in the 2nd round by the Bills...!

--------------------
2001 Feeding Frenzy
East Division Champions
Best Regular Season Record (12-2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 216 | From: Hamburg, NY | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
Rookie
Member # 14



posted 04-06-2002 03:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really like this new scale a whole lot better.

The change I would like the most is to completely throw away the max contract years of rookies and make it five years no matter what.

My understanding is no matter where you plan to place your rookies you can only spend 8 contract years on them total... I think that does not make much sense.

My reasoning here is. We basically have two squads the developmental and our regular squads. So if someone decides to give all three of their rookies 3 year contracts. It would be one over the DEV squad limit but they could always activate the guy onto their regular squad roster and stash them there if they choose.

This wouldn't bring up problems with the dev squad as we would still have 8 years to use on 3 players. Maybe I'm basically restating everything else you guys said before but I just thought I'd throw it out.

So to sum everything up. I'm all for the new scale proposed and would like to see the limit on rookie contracts thrown away.

--------------------
-------------------------------
Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
1st EVER FF-FFL Champion
Best Believe That!
-------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 29 | From: Bay Area | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Parkwood Predators
Administrator
Member # 1



posted 04-06-2002 03:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually Frank, the 3 year max limit on rookie players was only if they were placed on the dev squad. If placed directly on active squad the 5 year rule applied.

Regardless, I agree that with the new scales as proposed we should just go with the 8 year max on the dev squad and let teams divy up the years as they choose with a max of 5 year as they would on the active squad.

BTW, WHICH scale do you prefer? The one proposed by Brian or the one I proposed.

--------------------
2001 Feeding Frenzy
East Division Champions
Best Regular Season Record (12-2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 216 | From: Hamburg, NY | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
Rookie
Member # 14



posted 04-06-2002 06:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two scales are very similiar and with minimal change in the slaries. I wouldn't have any qualms if either of the two scales were placed

BUT

If I had to choose than I'd say Brian's for the only reason that the numbers are a bit lower.

--------------------
-------------------------------
Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
1st EVER FF-FFL Champion
Best Believe That!
-------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 29 | From: Bay Area | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Royal Hawaiian Opihi
Veteran
Member # 4



posted 04-07-2002 10:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower is better for me, too!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 88 | From: Aiea, Hawaii | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Philadelphia Freedom
Veteran
Member # 6



posted 04-08-2002 09:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new scale seems to make sense. I would be agreeable to using for this year and future years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 80 | From: Philadelphia | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Nittany Dodgers
Rookie
Member # 18



posted 04-08-2002 10:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike, my appologies for my misstatement regarding Thurman Thomas' draft position. My recolection of that even was that they had the camera crew at Thurmans home when the draft was going on so they could get his reaction when he was drafted. By the time he was drafted, they switched to the camera on him and he was sleeping. That memeory made me think he was drafted much later than he was, but then I remembered just how long the NFL draft takes. I'm usually asleep by the 40th pick as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 54 | From: Maplewood, MN | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Nittany Dodgers
Rookie
Member # 18



posted 04-08-2002 04:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to stir the pot a little bit more, here's my ideas on the developmental squad and salary years cap:

I think we should expand the number of years available to the developmental squad. I might be in the minority here, but my vision of the developmental squad (DS) is that it is for rookies you draft that you think could turn into something, but aren't going to contribute right away. Some players, like RBs (Green, Duckett?) could contibute right away and won't even get placed on the DS, so they don't really matter in this reasoning. The guys that to matter are the guys that take longer to contribute, like QBs and WRs primarily. As we have it with an 8 year cap, if you draft a QB, a RB, and a WR, maybe your RB will go active right away. So now you have a QB and a WR for your DS. With the three year max, the best you can do is give 3 year contracts to each player. Is the QB going to contribute within 3 years? With the exception of the class of '99, most of the time I'd say no. Most guys ride the pines for a year or two, then have a rotten rookie year, then start to contribute (obviously Culpepper, McNabb started performing before that, but I'd say Couch is still maturing). You wouldn't know in that case if they are going to be a player or not, and by the time you know, you get at best one year out of them. Whats the point in that? Why have a DS is we don't even get to reap the rewards of who we draft? WRs sometimes take even more time. Even guys who start right away don't start producing for a few years (again, of course there are exceptions like Moss, but most of the time...). If I had drafted Peter Warrick for a developmental squad, I'd still want to have him there, cause i think he can be a player but until they get a QB, he's not worth much, but I would still like a chance to hold him without having to burn a roster spot.

Maybe a system where the cap years is based on their position. RBs max at 3 (since they develop quick), QBs at 4, WRs at five, TEs at 4, Ks hmm, zero? OK, 3 years. Then have a year cap at 11 so you can at least have one QB and one WR on your DS without maxing it out. That evens things out for how long each position matures, and doesn't make you decide before their first year if they are going to develop or not in order for you to get any value out of drafting them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 54 | From: Maplewood, MN | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
Rookie
Member # 14



posted 04-08-2002 10:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dodgers I think you maybe worrying a bit too muvh above the contraxt years for rookies.

Mike proposed that with the new rookie scale that we get rid of the maximum number of contract years for players on the DS. The max year total will still be 8 but you could divide it any way you want.

So maybe you over looke dthat. If not then my bad.

--------------------
-------------------------------
Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
1st EVER FF-FFL Champion
Best Believe That!
-------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 29 | From: Bay Area | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Parkwood Predators
Administrator
Member # 1



posted 04-09-2002 11:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I see Dodgers point. First and foremost, due to the revised salary scale that Brian has proposed, and most seem in agreement with, I personally no longer feel there is a necessity to limit contract lenth for dev squad players any differently than active squad players. I think the max should be the same at 5 years.

Keep in mind, to activate a dev squad guy you have to stay not only the active salary cap of 10000, but also under the 32 contract years cap. So teams could in effect hinder themselves by giving rookies deals that are too long.

As for what the max years should be, I agree with Brian that 8 may be too short, maybe 10 would be a nice compromise. That would allow the average team to throw on 1 guy for say 4 years and 2 for 3 years, or maybe 1 guy for 5 years, 1 for 3 and 1 for 2, etc.

8 years may be too limiting to get any true development. Also, using Dodgers scale, a RB drafted at say 1.8 and signed to a 5 year deal would cost 960 for year 1, 1056 for year 2, 1162 for year 3, 1278 for year 4, and 1406 for year 5. A WR drafted at that same position would cost 660, 726, 799, 879, 967 respectively. A mid 2nd round RB selected at 2.6 would cost 690, 759, 835, 919, 1011, with a WR at that same pick costing 460, 506, 557, 613, 674. These numbers seem pretty reasonable to me.

Now where it gets tricky are the 3rd rounders where a stud could come from nowhere (thus my proposed scale which was a bit higher in the 2nd and 3rd rounds due to this), however I'm willing to bet that the majority of years are given to the 1st and 2nd round guys with the 3rd round deep sleepers getting only 2 years or so.

I think setting the max years at 5/player and 10 years overall on the dev squad at Dodgers pay scale would be a decent compromise... how about everybody else?

--------------------
2001 Feeding Frenzy
East Division Champions
Best Regular Season Record (12-2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 216 | From: Hamburg, NY | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
Rookie
Member # 14



posted 04-10-2002 02:20 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that sounds great to me.

--------------------
-------------------------------
Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
1st EVER FF-FFL Champion
Best Believe That!
-------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 29 | From: Bay Area | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Royal Hawaiian Opihi
Veteran
Member # 4



posted 04-10-2002 04:02 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the idea of actually being able to develop players on our developmental squad. This seems very reasonable. I like the revised scale and revised contract year limits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 88 | From: Aiea, Hawaii | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Parkwood Predators
Administrator
Member # 1



posted 04-10-2002 08:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since where still talking dev squad, I have a two other sugguestions top throw out there.

First We all agreed on a 3 player Dev Squad, which is fine for this year IMO, but I'd propose we increase the Dev Squad to 4 players in 2003 and 5 in 2004 and beyonf to allow room for subsequent years draft picks while allowing a guy or 2 to step up to the active squad. I would also suggest the contract years be 12 in 2003 year and 14 in 2004 and beyond to accomodate the extra players.

This league is evolving more and more into a true Dynasty league every day !

Second, How about allowing Dev Squad players to sub in for Active Squad players from the same position (i.e. RB for RB) that are placed on IR (which is for a min of 4 weeks I believe) and require them be placed back on the Dev Squad once the IR player returns to active duty?

The tricky part here could be the cap and contract years, which might be difficult to get under, hence we could consider allowing a variance for IR situations.

Seems like it would make sense to use our own guys rather than hit the waiver wire when a guy gets hurt, however the cap/contract issues may make this to difficult to implement.

Anyone have some input on either of these ideas?

--------------------
2001 Feeding Frenzy
East Division Champions
Best Regular Season Record (12-2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 216 | From: Hamburg, NY | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Philadelphia Freedom
Veteran
Member # 6



posted 04-10-2002 09:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fun never stops. It sounds like this all makes a lot of sense though it could be tricky to maintain. I would agree to the suggestions that I have seen posted so far, since it seems like it truly allows for a real developmental period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 80 | From: Philadelphia | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Nittany Dodgers
Rookie
Member # 18



posted 04-10-2002 09:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike, I concur with most of your points. I can go with the 5 year max, and ten years total. I also like the expansion up to five. How about the max years for the next two years then? From 10 years to 13 in 2003, to 17 in 2004? If we go with a 10 year cap, thats 3.3 years per player, so I'd ad three then four years to the cap for the additional players.

The one idea I am against would be the subbing of players from your DS for IR players. I think we have pretty good sized rosters already. I think the DS is there for us to hold guys, but the trick for us is to decide when we think they are ready to go active. Just my .02.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 54 | From: Maplewood, MN | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Parkwood Predators
Administrator
Member # 1



posted 04-10-2002 10:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be against going any higher than 12/14 years for 2003/2004 on the dev squad.

In fact, in retrospect I think that may be too many. I forgot to factor in that teams would regain 1 year per player as each contract year runs out, not to mention years gained when a guy gets moved up to active roster.

Heck, we only allow 32 years for 16 players on the active roster and thats 16 guys. Here we're talking development squad guys getting 12-14 years for only 4-5 players.

Also, we'd need to raise the dev squad cap in 2003/2004 to accomadate the additional players. I'd suggest 2750 cb's in 2003, and 3500 cb's in 2004.

AS for the IR idea, yea it could be tricky, although if we required the players to be at the same position, and to have a salary lower than the player placed on IR it might work. However, in the end it could be a nightmare to track. As Jim (Hawaii) would say, I was just thinking out loud!

--------------------
2001 Feeding Frenzy
East Division Champions
Best Regular Season Record (12-2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 216 | From: Hamburg, NY | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged

Nittany Dodgers
Rookie
Member # 18



posted 04-10-2002 11:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right. I also didn't think about gaining the year for every player that has been on the DS for a year. Good call.

I'd also concur with your 3750cb cap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 54 | From: Maplewood, MN | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rookie Draft Rules & Salary Scale Preds Frenzy Rookie Draft 14 April 26th, 2006 03:51 AM
1 New Rookie Salary Scale Nittany Dodgers Frenzy Rules & Bylaws 9 March 4th, 2004 09:33 AM
Proposed Rookie Salary Scale - Historical Analysis Spreadsheet Preds Frenzy Rules & Bylaws 0 March 2nd, 2004 12:37 PM
Off-Season Rules Discussion - Annual Rookie Salary Debate Preds Frenzy Rules & Bylaws 61 March 2nd, 2004 11:59 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2000-2022 - Preds Fantasy Football Forums