WXV Rules Discussion 2018

[Ringo]

Do not mind this rule with a slight amendment - That the calculation on a reducing basis be applied to first round picks only.

Second slight adjustment is if they do not play each year they drop 10k a year till their value reaches $100k,

If they do play then their value increases,

[GoLions]

Do not mind this rule with a slight amendment - That the calculation on a reducing basis be applied to first round picks only.

Second slight adjustment is if they do not play each year they drop 10k a year till their value reaches $100k,

If they do play then their value increases,

Well it would be applied to the top 20 picks which is effectively the first round, so much of a muchness there.

[Holz]

Not a major fan of the rule but if it is put on the max cap must also rise by the value of the extra salaries.

[iZander]

Idk if this is a rule or not, but top draft picks should be worth more in the cap, similar to SC. E.g pick 1 worth 200k, then drop it by 5k per pick until you hit 100k.

Also, this would remain as their 'base cap' for their first 3 years.
i e. Pick 7 would be worth 170k, if they don't play at all for 3 years, they hold that 170k value. But if they play and score alright then obviously they rise like they normally would have.

I dont mind this but i think there is a bit of a flaw in it if it were to come in with no other changes to cap
Andy Mcgrath went on to average 70 in his first season which is almost as good as you can hope for a first year player, his cap this year was 193.
Any Mcgrath should have a starting cap of 195 in the above scenario after being picked at N2.
Are we saying despite a great first year that Mcgrath should go down? or even if you say that first round picks shouldnt be able to go down. Are we saying someone picked at >20 that averages 70 in his first season should be worth less in the cap?? Because i dont like that.

[Holz]

Idk if this is a rule or not, but top draft picks should be worth more in the cap, similar to SC. E.g pick 1 worth 200k, then drop it by 5k per pick until you hit 100k.

Also, this would remain as their 'base cap' for their first 3 years.
i e. Pick 7 would be worth 170k, if they don't play at all for 3 years, they hold that 170k value. But if they play and score alright then obviously they rise like they normally would have.

I dont mind this but i think there is a bit of a flaw in it if it were to come in with no other changes to cap
Andy Mcgrath went on to average 70 in his first season which is almost as good as you can hope for a first year player, his cap this year was 193.
Any Mcgrath should have a starting cap of 195 in the above scenario after being picked at N2.
Are we saying despite a great first year that Mcgrath should go down? or even if you say that first round picks shouldnt be able to go down. Are we saying someone picked at >20 that averages 70 in his first season should be worth less in the cap?? Because i dont like that.

Agree with all the points.

It will fix itself out in a years time.plus if you pick a kpp who will take time a higher cap then a mid.

Its only needed in fantasy as rookies go up in value and you can sell for the cap.

You cant pick 2 rookies wait a few weeks then sell them and pick up danger in this comp

[GoLions]

Idk if this is a rule or not, but top draft picks should be worth more in the cap, similar to SC. E.g pick 1 worth 200k, then drop it by 5k per pick until you hit 100k.

Also, this would remain as their 'base cap' for their first 3 years.
i e. Pick 7 would be worth 170k, if they don't play at all for 3 years, they hold that 170k value. But if they play and score alright then obviously they rise like they normally would have.

I dont mind this but i think there is a bit of a flaw in it if it were to come in with no other changes to cap
Andy Mcgrath went on to average 70 in his first season which is almost as good as you can hope for a first year player, his cap this year was 193.
Any Mcgrath should have a starting cap of 195 in the above scenario after being picked at N2.
Are we saying despite a great first year that Mcgrath should go down? or even if you say that first round picks shouldnt be able to go down. Are we saying someone picked at >20 that averages 70 in his first season should be worth less in the cap?? Because i dont like that.

Min and max cap would rise proportionately. Base cap of say 195k for McGrath would mean in first 3 years (or whatever number is used), he can't drop below that regardless of what happens.

The idea is a pick in the top 20 or so obviously holds a lot more value, and the players selected there are expected to perform substantially better, and imo this should be reflected in the cap.

[Purple 77]

Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.

Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.

If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.

[GoLions]

Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.

Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.

If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.

So would you rather they trade one of their picks for nathan brown to get over instead? Which is what has happened in the past. And personally I'm planning on trading pick 1 anyway (hmu fellas), but regardless of whether i have pick 1 or if ada does, i just think they should be worth a bit more than your later picks.

[Ringo]

Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.

Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.

If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.

So would you rather they trade one of their picks for nathan brown to get over instead? Which is what has happened in the past. And personally I'm planning on trading pick 1 anyway (hmu fellas), but regardless of whether i have pick 1 or if ada does, i just think they should be worth a bit more than your later picks.

I tend to agree with GL here - Some of Londons trades in recent years were to keep above cap but say we had Pick 4 which was worth 160 points instead of 100 could stay above the cap and not have to trade in a spud to stay above.

[Holz]

-15% is very lenient, plus you dont need to trade in spuds to pick up cap guys.

We all basically acknowledge that the rookie draft is pretty useless. The following guys where available for pretty much nothing. Josh green as an example was taken at pick 44 in the rookie.

If anything what this would do is stop contending teams from trading in early picks as they are the ones who need to worry about the cap.


Lindsay Thomas   $227,000   Buenos Aires Armadillos
Ty Vickery   $217,000   Mexico City Suns
Josh Green   $212,000   Buenos Aires Armadillos
Mitch W Brown   $198,000   Buenos Aires Armadillos
Sam Rowe   $195,000   Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
Patrick Ambrose   $195,000   Tokyo Samurai
Nathan Brown   $185,000   Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
Josh Wagner   $181,000   Buenos Aires Armadillos
Kaiden Brand   $179,000   Seoul Magpies
Jake Neade   $173,000   Buenos Aires Armadillos
Jackson Merrett   $169,000   Tokyo Samurai
Fletcher Roberts   $156,000   Cairo Sands
Claye Beams   $154,000   London Royals
Adam Kennedy   $152,000   Tokyo Samurai

[GoLions]

-15% is very lenient, plus you dont need to trade in spuds to pick up cap guys.

We all basically acknowledge that the rookie draft is pretty useless. The following guys where available for pretty much nothing. Josh green as an example was taken at pick 44 in the rookie.

If anything what this would do is stop contending teams from trading in early picks as they are the ones who need to worry about the cap.


Lindsay Thomas   $227,000   Buenos Aires Armadillos
Ty Vickery   $217,000   Mexico City Suns
Josh Green   $212,000   Buenos Aires Armadillos
Mitch W Brown   $198,000   Buenos Aires Armadillos
Sam Rowe   $195,000   Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
Patrick Ambrose   $195,000   Tokyo Samurai
Nathan Brown   $185,000   Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
Josh Wagner   $181,000   Buenos Aires Armadillos
Kaiden Brand   $179,000   Seoul Magpies
Jake Neade   $173,000   Buenos Aires Armadillos
Jackson Merrett   $169,000   Tokyo Samurai
Fletcher Roberts   $156,000   Cairo Sands
Claye Beams   $154,000   London Royals
Adam Kennedy   $152,000   Tokyo Samurai

Can you explain the point of this post because i dunno what you're saying here haha

[Holz]

Can you explain the point of this post because i dunno what you're saying here haha

what is the purpose of making the high end rookies more expensive?

1. effect as Purp outlined is that the weaker teams who have the higher picks can help with going over the cap. I addressed as did purp that the -15% was pretty lenient. I then added that its very very easy to add cap, you dont need to trade good picks for spuds. You can just pick them up in the rookie.

2. Secondly raising the cap on high priced rookies could do the reberse thing the cap is trying to do  which is make the weaker teams more competitive and strong teams less dominant. Say im Dublin and i want to go to the draft early then if the cap on these guys raises then that would make me less likely to go after early picks. Which is a bad thing for equality.

[GoLions]

Can you explain the point of this post because i dunno what you're saying here haha

what is the purpose of making the high end rookies more expensive?

1. effect as Purp outlined is that the weaker teams who have the higher picks can help with going over the cap. I addressed as did purp that the -15% was pretty lenient. I then added that its very very easy to add cap, you dont need to trade good picks for spuds. You can just pick them up in the rookie.

2. Secondly raising the cap on high priced rookies could do the reberse thing the cap is trying to do  which is make the weaker teams more competitive and strong teams less dominant. Say im Dublin and i want to go to the draft early then if the cap on these guys raises then that would make me less likely to go after early picks. Which is a bad thing for equality.

The point of my suggestion had nothing to do with helping teams get above cap. Purps brought that up and i mentioned lower teams can trade in (or draft as you suggested) spuds anyway.

If you wanted to go early in the draft then you wouldn't care if the pick you get is worth an extra 5-100k when you'd be trading someone worth like 500k anyway. And your comment also works the other way where a lower team might not be able to trade for high picks because they would be below cap. But again, i don't care for the rule being introduced for this reason. I just think higher picks should be worth more.

[Holz]

Can you explain the point of this post because i dunno what you're saying here haha

what is the purpose of making the high end rookies more expensive?

1. effect as Purp outlined is that the weaker teams who have the higher picks can help with going over the cap. I addressed as did purp that the -15% was pretty lenient. I then added that its very very easy to add cap, you dont need to trade good picks for spuds. You can just pick them up in the rookie.

2. Secondly raising the cap on high priced rookies could do the reberse thing the cap is trying to do  which is make the weaker teams more competitive and strong teams less dominant. Say im Dublin and i want to go to the draft early then if the cap on these guys raises then that would make me less likely to go after early picks. Which is a bad thing for equality.

The point of my suggestion had nothing to do with helping teams get above cap. Purps brought that up and i mentioned lower teams can trade in (or draft as you suggested) spuds anyway.

If you wanted to go early in the draft then you wouldn't care if the pick you get is worth an extra 5-100k when you'd be trading someone worth like 500k anyway. And your comment also works the other way where a lower team might not be able to trade for high picks because they would be below cap. But again, i don't care for the rule being introduced for this reason. I just think higher picks should be worth more.

Your not wrong that higher picks probably should be worth more.

I still after 2-3 years dont have a clear understanding of why we have a cap. So that makes it difficult to work out any rules relating to the cap.

[Levi434]

Jaeger O'Meara was 100k cap last year.


               HOLZ