• Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.

WBL Rule Change Thread

Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
In the past it's been each year is greater or equal to arb estimate. I don't mind that part because it protects against the random 10/$10m deal. AAV is fine though.
 
Mr. Radpants

Mr. Radpants

Trog Five Standing By
You guys are ridiculous. He has 3+ years of service and low greed. Wooly's contract looks legal and what, a couple months earlier than he could have done it under the old rules?

People chimed in in the rule change thread the first time around, even @doh supported changing it to one year of service.
 
NML

NML

Well-Known Member
I have a few proposals and I'm open to changing the wording around, but here they are roughly

1) every future year of a contract must be equal to or greater than the initial year. Players simply do not sign front loaded or fluctuating contracts. There's only a handful of front loaded contracts I can think of, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I'm also open to a max fluctuation rate - maybe 10% of AAV?

2) no pre-arb extensions. I think after three seasons, the arb estimates are slightly better, and if you have to go through arbitration at least once, that should help with estimates too.

Also would be okay with reinstating the doh rule since it served pretty well for a long time.

3) a max IFA amount. Don't really care what it is, but I think that'll help.


Go ahead and bash away
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
I really don't see a problem with wooly's contact. If it wasn't wooly I imagine it doesn't get brought up. This is part of the reason I disagree that commishes should not make executive decisions. Mob rule is not really a good thing. When a disliked manager does something questionable or has something not go their way, the league is pretty irrational. NML you have even been subject to this. I also think the contract is an outlier and we won't see many.

No pre-arb contracts will kill immersion for many. It also hurts small budget teams.

I think IFA can probably be better handled. What is your proposal there? Probably a better place to spend time.
 
NML

NML

Well-Known Member
I disagree about the contract. But I'll concede that point if everyone else thinks that way (which was certainly not the case last night, but that may have just been heated).

I 100% think we should edit fluctuating contracts. It's just not realistic, and because of our current IFA rules, people with huge budgets who load up on their non-IFA years have an even bigger advantage.

However it becomes less of an issue if there's a change to IFA. A flat max with no tax would be my proposal. Is $5 million enough?
 
NML

NML

Well-Known Member
I also think the pre-arb contracts favor the high budget teams, not small, since their risk is non-existent.

What's Wooly care if he has to pay someone $7.5m and they die? That's one IFA player. His risk is if he was to repeat his 10 WAR season, he'd be a $20m a year player.

But if 10% of a small teams budget is wasted, that's a huge knock. At least if their player becomes great and they can't afford him, they can ship him out for more assets.
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
There are consequences though to capping IFA-- players movement in FA would go down and FAs prices would skyrocket.

If you want to decrease the amount teams can pay, I say increase the tax to 200%.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
NML said:
I also think the pre-arb contracts favor the high budget teams, not small, since their risk is non-existent.

What's Wooly care if he has to pay someone $7.5m and they die? That's one IFA player. His risk is if he was to repeat his 10 WAR season, he'd be a $20m a year player.

But if 10% of a small teams budget is wasted, that's a huge knock. At least if their player becomes great and they can't afford him, they can ship him out for more assets.
Click to expand...
Sure, but they also get that player for a lower rate and get to keep him longer than they may otherwise. Sure the risk is there, but I don't think it hurts low budget teams. I think it hurts them more to not allow them to sign friendly deals.
 
Karl Hungus

Karl Hungus

Here to fix the cable
Orlando said:
I really don't see a problem with wooly's contact. If it wasn't wooly I imagine it doesn't get brought up. This is part of the reason I disagree that commishes should not make executive decisions. Mob rule is not really a good thing. When a disliked manager does something questionable or has something not go their way, the league is pretty irrational. NML you have even been subject to this. I also think the contract is an outlier and we won't see many.

No pre-arb contracts will kill immersion for many. It also hurts small budget teams.

I think IFA can probably be better handled. What is your proposal there? Probably a better place to spend time.
Click to expand...


That's kind of his own fault, though.
 
NML

NML

Well-Known Member
Since we can't do a higher tax rate, let's set a hard IFA cap

I say $10m after some thought. Almost everyone has $10m available - or could get there with cuts elsewhere - so it's a mostly level playing field.
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Some of the financial logic in these ideas are totally bizarre to me if the idea is "help poor, punish rich"...
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Yeah but the idea of a cap doesn't really help the 'lower budget' teams if the idea is even things out. In fact, it means way more available budget for rich teams to buy picks, take on cum dumps, sign FAs, hold onto players, go into devo, buy Indy guys, etc.

If you want to start evening things out, you need rich teams to have more "dead" money which is why I proposed a lux tax or increasing the IFA tax.
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
People who whine about budgets just need to git gud. The only thing limiting a team's rise in the rankings from the welfare state it's in is the owner's dumbass money management. Barring that, it's just waiting for the build to come to fruition.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
Ok, so here are what some of my core guys are asking in opening offers. Do people think these are fair deals?

Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 3.13.48 PM.png Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 3.14.54 PM.png Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 3.17.09 PM.png
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
OU11 said:
People who whine about budgets just need to git gud. The only thing limiting a team's rise in the rankings from the welfare state it's in is the owner's dumbass money management. Barring that, it's just waiting for the build to come to fruition.
Click to expand...
Nah let's have the league bail everyone out. Socialism rulez.
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
After you negotiate, Linge at 9/50 (or less) probably...

And people complain about competitive balance want no pre-arb contract rules? This stuff makes no sense.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
Linge, like Bucky has had one good year.

If you are a small budget team wouldn't you want to be able to sign a player like Linge for cheap. I don't understand your POV @doh. Just because something is good for large market teams doesn't mean it's bad for small market teams and vice versa.

He wouldn't take 9/$50m btw. Also low greed and happy.
 
Last edited:
NML

NML

Well-Known Member
If the only negative of a hard IFA cap for the small market teams is that the big markets are going to spend more money retaining and spending in FA, that's a good trade off to me to me.

I'm the one who always argues for the level playing field, but I've been a top half budget team for a while now
 
Yankee151

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
Seems fine.

The bucky deal looks worse if you dont take account his BABIP and the fact that he's a 95 rated LF and played there all year instead of CF
 
NML

NML

Well-Known Member
Why are players wanting to sign 10 year pre arb contracts anyways? Can someone show me that IRL?
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
NML said:
If the only negative of a hard IFA cap for the small market teams is that the big markets are going to spend more money retaining and spending in FA, that's a good trade off to me to me.

I'm the one who always argues for the level playing field, but I've been a top half budget team for a while now
Click to expand...

The only negative of a hard IFA cap is it makes building a team harder with a budget in the lower spectrum. I'll add the caveat that you have to build it right, and not have a large payroll but yeah, it definitely helps big teams more than the small teams when I think about how it plays out. I guess if the small team gets its $10m bid in first they could win, but I'm not sure how the IFAs calculate which bid they like more out of multiple offers that are the same amount
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top