World 15 Discussion

[Torpedo10]

Officially putting my name out for any team that requires a new coach at any time during the coming year, PM me & I'll be on it like a fly on a warm turd 8)

Phas, I'm sure you'll get an opportunity. :)

[ossie85]

Salary cap idea..... for NEXT season.

- Everyone is given $10,000,000 to pay there squad, whatever way they like. A minimum of $50,000 per player, and the salary is set until next year or if someone bids on there player.

- The salary is kept SECRET (only the coach and me know)

- At the end of the season, before trade period, a Coach can 'bid' for a player on an opposing team. The bids are kept secret (sent to me) and are all assessed at the same time. You can only bid what you can afford (i.e. if you have $400,000 left in your salary cap, the only way you can bid more than that is if you delist players)

- If the bid is within 10% of the salary that player is being paid, the current coach of that player has the opportunity to match it - if he doesn't, he loses the player. If it is greater than 10%, the coach loses the player.

- Any team can only lose a maximum of 2 players through bidding. If a team has had 3 or more succesful bids for there players, the Coach can choose which 2 players they lose.

- Compensation for lost players to be determined by a system yet to be calculated.... Likely say if you lose Scott Pendlebury, you'll get a couple of first round picks :/ Give me time to work it out.


* Note, I tried to think of a good way to do 1 year, 2 year, 3 year contracts, but think that is a step too far.

I think this adds another dimension to coaching.... Thoughts?

[JBs-Hawks]

What if your paying Whitfield 200k and he breaks out so maca offers 400k surely you can attempt to match it even though it's over 10%?

[ossie85]

What if your paying Whitfield 200k and he breaks out so maca offers 400k surely you can attempt to match it even though it's over 10%?

That'd be your fault for not paying him enough to begin with....

But I'm thinking of getting everyone to set salaries of players after the last round of the season in 2013, in which case you should know who the break out is, and who isn't...

Since its secret, you have no idea whether someone is paying a player what you'd expect. For instance Moscow could be paying $2m for Nic Nat, and only $100,000 for Martin. You might bid $600,000 for Martin and get him and have to pay it, and big $1.5m for Nic Nat and not get him.... So it's all about tactics.

[JBs-Hawks]

Still think you should be able to match it if you can afford it. If st Kilda wanted they could have matched essendon offer but chose not to

[MajorLazer]

I'm not sure if I'm for this idea, but I definitely think you should be able to match any offer and I think there should be a list of maybe 3 players that you nominate to be above bidding. You would still need to pay them, but no one can bid on them.

[ossie85]

I'm not sure if I'm for this idea, but I definitely think you should be able to match any offer and I think there should be a list of maybe 3 players that you nominate to be above bidding. You would still need to pay them, but no one can bid on them.

Ok, I can bend on the being able to match the offer. So yeah, fair enough, you have the chance to match the offer.

But not sure how 'above bidding' would work ML, how would you determine what they are worth?

[AFEV]

I really like it and I think that it's a good way to help ensure the evenness of the competition. I do think there should be some kind of cap on bidding though, or it would be too easy to spam the bids and get players for next to nothing.

10% seems way too low as well. Say R&B gives Pendles 800k p/ season. Now that is a massive chunk of his cap, but a club still only has to come along and offer an extra 80k (or 81?) in order to guarantee that R&B loses him. I know that you wouldn't know he was paying him 800k but I think the % should be much higher. Would prefer to have the opportunity to just match any offer though.

[MajorLazer]

I'm not sure if I'm for this idea, but I definitely think you should be able to match any offer and I think there should be a list of maybe 3 players that you nominate to be above bidding. You would still need to pay them, but no one can bid on them.

Ok, I can bend on the being able to match the offer. So yeah, fair enough, you have the chance to match the offer.

But not sure how 'above bidding' would work ML, how would you determine what they are worth?

Maybe there would be a minimum that you would have to pay for a player to be 'above bidding'. eg 700k or so.

[Ringo]

Sound in principal Oss - Maybe as an enhancement similar to AFL we are required to list say up to 10 restricted players who if bid is more than the 10% we have the opportunity to match bid if we are able.  Will still allow tactics but make us think about a restricted list as well.

Do not think we need to be able to match all offers but should have the option to match some with the players we nominate as restricted.  Suggested up to 10 but this would be negotiable amongst coaches.

[MajorLazer]

Sound in principal Oss - Maybe as an enhancement similar to AFL we are required to list say up to 10 restricted players who if bid is more than the 10% we have the opportunity to match bid if we are able.  Will still allow tactics but make us think about a restricted list as well.

Do not think we need to be able to match all offers but should have the option to match some with the players we nominate as restricted.  Suggested up to 10 but this would be negotiable amongst coaches.

Similar to what I am trying to get at, but I still feel we should have the option to match the offers and that the elite players should be rarely moving, if at all.

[ossie85]

I really like it and I think that it's a good way to help ensure the evenness of the competition. I do think there should be some kind of cap on bidding though, or it would be too easy to spam the bids and get players for next to nothing.

10% seems way too low as well. Say R&B gives Pendles 800k p/ season. Now that is a massive chunk of his cap, but a club still only has to come along and offer an extra 80k (or 81?) in order to guarantee that R&B loses him. I know that you wouldn't know he was paying him 800k but I think the % should be much higher. Would prefer to have the opportunity to just match any offer though.

Yeah, I'm happy to remove the % all together and say if you can match it, you can match it.

BUT You'll have to spend at least 95% of your cap, otherwise people will pay everyone $50k and just match any offers as they come.



EDIT - Ringo came in with a good idea, which addresses ML's concerns also - nominate players (again secret) who you can choose to match offers, the rest 10%. Sounds good compromise...

[AFEV]

I really like it and I think that it's a good way to help ensure the evenness of the competition. I do think there should be some kind of cap on bidding though, or it would be too easy to spam the bids and get players for next to nothing.

10% seems way too low as well. Say R&B gives Pendles 800k p/ season. Now that is a massive chunk of his cap, but a club still only has to come along and offer an extra 80k (or 81?) in order to guarantee that R&B loses him. I know that you wouldn't know he was paying him 800k but I think the % should be much higher. Would prefer to have the opportunity to just match any offer though.

Yeah, I'm happy to remove the % all together and say if you can match it, you can match it.

BUT You'll have to spend at least 95% of your cap, otherwise people will pay everyone $50k and just match any offers as they come.



EDIT - Ringo came in with a good idea, which addresses ML's concerns also - nominate players (again secret) who you can choose to match offers, the rest 10%. Sounds good compromise...

Problem with having 10 where you can just outbid back is that I could name Scott Pendlebury on say 300k and if nobody bids I save a heap of cash, if they do I can just up it to 800k (assuming I left 5% of my cap).

[MajorLazer]

Is there a way it could be loosely based on average to avoid that kind of thing?

Obviously not based completely off averages as then it will disadvantage the 'better' teams with higher scorers, but just something that can be used as a guide.

[CrowsFan]

Honestly I'm not a fan of an actual salary cap to be honest, especially if the contracts are just one year long before someone can bid for your player. You said ossie it's the owners own fault that they're not paying a player enough if they have a break out, but let's use an example from my team.

Matthew Wright was a 22 year old who had been picked up from the 2010 rookie draft. Didn't play in 2010, and then played in 2011 averaging 68, so not all that fantasy relevant. This year however he had a breakout and upped his average by 20 points to 88. No one would have expected that and now his value is a lot more than it was one season ago. And since I wouldn't have been paying him much anyone could just come in and take him.

I think the only way it could work would be that at the end of each season we tell you what we are willing to pay them for the following season and then people can try and pay more. But even then it is pretty silly because in the AFL players wont just go to another club because they can earn some more money. They might stay at a club because they think they will get premiership success.