|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jun 30, 2010 19:49:10 GMT -5
Hey guys, I locked the previous On-Deck circle and moved it to the 'bullpen section' in case we want to go back and read it, but in order not to get too confused with 4-5 page threads, I am starting this new one with new topics to discuss.
The following has been determined by the previous thread: - Scouting has been Disabled - Coaching has been Disabled - Injury setting will be set to 'low' as it seems to give most realistic results - Draft Picks will not be tradeable
Current topics I'd like to discuss are: - Thoughts on career-ending injuries? - Anyone familiar with StatLab? Worth doing? Does it work on OOTP11? I've seen we can do draft from opening day to keep it going live - What do you think about Cash Max? I've seen anywhere from $5-10 million to $40-50 million - Last chance to recommend a roster set (please provide link to rosters) - anyone know a way to keep using real players for the draft? - thoughts on team option years, What do you think of the following rule I found in another league. Kind of like the idea to prevent from offering unrealistically high offers you know you won't pick up. - What do you think of the idea of allowing relocation, stadium upgrades etc by setting up a rewards point system?
A team option year can't be more than 10% over the highest year on the contract. (Ex: If you offer Player A a three year/fourth option of 8 mil, 10 mil, 10 mil, his option year would be able to be 11.mil.) however if you decide to decline a team or mutual option it will be subject to a 15% cash buyout. There is no penalty for a player declining a player option.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jun 30, 2010 20:02:06 GMT -5
These are my opinions right now:
1- StatLab looks great but may be overwhelming to learn, maybe I should play around with it for a season before implementing it into the game.
2- Cash Max, I'd like to get more opinions on and does it really matter since teams set budgets, etc.
3- Roster sets, I am playing around with now
4- I think we should let game generate draft classes as it would allow me to focus on every aspect of the league as opposed to spending too much time creating players (which I never done and not sure how to translate stats to ratings)
5- I like the idea about team option years and buyouts as it keeps teams from offering bogus contract offers
6- I like the idea of point systems to allow relocation, upgrades, bumps in fan interest etc.
7- As far as career ending injuries, the Nationals said:
I say under 30, sit them out for 18 months and then if they make a comeback, good for them! Over 30, could be the same thing but I bet those ratings will drop a whole lot more.
If someone gets a career ending injury, you better make sure that if you "compromise" with a shorter injury time, that they are affected in a big way. There are regular injuries in OOTP that range from 1 day to 14+ months, so something career ending needs to be at least 16 months in my view.
I agree with this 100%, I think players under 30 always attempt comebacks, so I am thinking making their injuries 18 months in length. Players over 30, I think random ones should be allowed to attempt comebacks no sooner than the 18 month time frame.
|
|
|
Post by yankeesgm on Jun 30, 2010 21:29:25 GMT -5
1. Statslab is really useful, especially tracking exports but from what I've seen it is complicated so I'd be happy not to have right at the start - let Derek play around with setting it up and implement when he's confident about working it.
2. No strong feelings about this as I don't normally play modern-day MLB set-up. My suggestion would be to pick a fairly middling sum, say $10-20 mill and see how it goes over a few years. If no-ones got any money for FA's or if everyone's got $150 mill after three or five years then we can adjust accordingly.
3. As stated before - no preference
4. As from next season everybody will be fictional anyway so let the game generate draft classes. Perhaps in five seasons when the leagues running smoothly introduce a program of introducing future real draftees into draft classes - eg when we're in say 2015, you could add the top picks of the real 2010 draft into the next draft class and then add the 2011 draft picks into the next draft after the real draft (we'll probably be about 2030 or something by then!)
5. I really like that idea about the option years
6. I always have liked points for participation schemes, gives the league more depth but I'm not keen on willy-nilly relocations - It should be only allowed to teams with fan interest below a certain point or if average attendances are below a certain percentage of capacity. More common would be new stadiums (these would be expensive, perhaps you could 'bank' some spare money for two or three years to finance building) and stadium improvements, both of which would lead to rises in revenue and fan interest.
7. Agree with Nationals completely,would go so far to say that career ending injuries would be at least 2 years before a possible comeback - how about charging teams a sum of money for each of the two years to pay for players treatment and rehab?
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jun 30, 2010 21:54:59 GMT -5
I think when dealing with possible relocation it would have to have a team with a low fan interest and few other qualifications. Maybe a bad owner who wont spend so make it like he sold team, etc...
Not going to happen in 2010-11 season, it would be 2-3 seasons down the line before its even allowed to happen so we have time to think about it more, Just want to be able to put point system in place early enough. I think it would be cool too if a team moves, it will be a 2 season wait while "stadium is being built, etc" and current fan interest should drop significantly as they are upset your leaving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2010 22:43:38 GMT -5
1. No opinion other than don't take on more responsibility than you can handle. 2. $5m is not enough. I'd say $10-$20m. 3. No opinion. 4. Fake players are fine for draft. 5. I like your idea about option years. It's more realistic to have a buyout provision. 6. Possibility of relocation would be an interesting twist, not that I'd ever want to leave Oakland .... 7. I like the Nationals idea. A 22 y.o. getting a career ender just isn't realistic. They'll always give it a second try.
|
|
|
Post by torontogm on Jul 1, 2010 7:40:21 GMT -5
Just curious...are we planning on starting pre-holiday or post-holiday at this point? Just thinking that it might be best to either load a file and start like, today, or wait until Tues-Wed of next week to allow anyone with holiday plans to not get hosed with the start of the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2010 8:10:45 GMT -5
I have stated a few times I would love to go with all in one but if not that, cubbys is fine as well. The relocation sounds like a good twist within certain parameters. Cash max I have no idea on, so I would say go in the middle of the numbers you had above. Career ending injuries with giving younger guys a second shot sounds good to me but a ratings decrese or talent decrease should come with the second opportunity. I like the option years plan, it keeps ridiculous contracts away and makes them more realistic. Sorry this is all packed together, I'm doing this on my cellphone from work.
|
|
|
Post by diamondbacksgm on Jul 1, 2010 8:17:21 GMT -5
1. As to CEI, I don't think we'll have much of a problem with that seeing how injuries are set to low.
2. I love the option year rule set out in the first post.
3. I'll need more info on a rewards points system for relocation, upgrading, etc before I make a final decision, but it doesn't really sound like something I would like.
|
|
|
Post by giantsgiant on Jul 1, 2010 11:48:33 GMT -5
Thanks for all the work Commish and allowing the input.
1) No opinion
2) StatLab is something my other leagues use and it seems great, but let's get the league running smooth first if you are not comfortable with it
3) I like the higher range to help pick up the cost of contracts in a trade
4) No thoughts
5) Game generated players for draft are fine
6) I like option years with some sort of max increase in pay jumps
7) I like the idea of relocation and upgrades.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2010 12:50:49 GMT -5
1-3: No opinion. 4: I'm absolutely fine using fake players. 5: I'm also a fine of the option years provision you've laid out. 6: No opinion. 7: I like yankeesgm's idea of CEI players sitting out 2 years with a possible tax against the team that allows them to play again.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jul 1, 2010 13:14:49 GMT -5
We will not start until Post-Holiday.. I think since I did not get many other options/responses other than 'it doesn't matter' I am thinking of using the basic 'all in one' set. I will make final decision tonight, Just going to allow more time for others to chime in.
I am thinking Tuesday will be first sim as it will be a Tues-Thurs-Sun schedule.
It will also allow people time to enjoy holidays with family, go over rosters, post their trading blocks and we can finalize some last minute rules, settings or anything else that pops up.
all these issues on "on deck circle 2" will be determined by tonight. Time to move on to other topics, etc. Anyone who wants change we can discuss it for later down the road after the decisions are final later tonight.
|
|
|
Post by redsgm on Jul 1, 2010 15:05:51 GMT -5
CEI: I think what has been discussed has been appropriate. 18-24 months with a cash "tax" to cover medical expenses is a good idea. One thing I might suggest though to go along with that, most big contracts tend to have insurance built into them. With the game unable to do such a thing, perhaps anyone with a CEI who is forced to sit out for the period should have their salary changed say, cut in half for the first season, and then placed at 1 million dollars for the second season. With CEI's in place, players tend to retire and forfeit (at least in game) their salary, so this would seem to act as some sort of a compromise/representation of the insurance policies team take.
- StatsLab is always helpful, I've never set it up so I can't say how difficult it might be. An added bonus if used, I'd say far from required to make a great league.
- Cash Max: $30 Million Enough to be able to aid in trades of teams in need of money, not too much to create inflation.
Real Players in draft: Similar to StatsLab, a nice bonus, something maybe to consider for the future, if anything just changing the names of players in future drafts?
-Team option years: Sometime of penalty seems reasonable, also a limit on the amount that can be offered in the option year is definitely needed.
-Points System: I'm okay with them, just need to make sure that they are used for off the field matters, relocation, stadiums renovations, and not on the field performance bonuses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2010 15:43:33 GMT -5
These are my opinions right now:
1- StatLab is a nice feature, but it's not vital or anything, maybe play around with it and implement after season 1?
2- As others said $20-30m is a 'fair' number. Also I think Im right that in ootp11 draftee signing bonuses come out of available cash (right?)
3- Don't mind
4- ootp11 produces more fictional realistic draft classes than X ever did - so I'd keep it fictional
5- Don't mind. I do think there should be rules preventing crazily backloaded or front loaded contracts, or stupid 10-12 year contracts
6- Like the idea if you've the time to manage it
7- Agree with Nats and everyone who has commented on this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2010 16:34:25 GMT -5
- I tend to think CEI's should be CEIs. At any rate there should be a provision for salary relief.
- Stats lab is nice, especially when I can't remember whether I exported or not. But don't make yourself crazy.
- 30-40 million cash max
- My other league is fictional, so I don't have an opinion on roster sets
- I think fictional draftees are fine. I don't have a problem if we want to change some names.
- I think the option rule sounds good, but also we need to set limits on incentives.
- Personally, I don't think rewards systems with points are all that positive. However, I agree with the owner above who said it should never affect player stats.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Jul 2, 2010 19:12:50 GMT -5
The more I think about the idea of a lottery for draft picks, the more I don't like it. I think it penalizes teams that are rebuilding. When teams tank, players get pissed and sometimes perform poorly which can cause ratings to go down, so I don't understand why they would want to do that. A lot of times, especially, teams ranked 10-15 are pretty competitive, but due to injury, strong division, it just didn't work out in a year. Then you have a teams that could need 2-3 years to rebuild (which I find fun, without tanking) and if they get screwed out of some of the better specs it really puts a damper on that process. Sure, you have the occasional wow, look I went from 11th to 2nd! Woohoo! But it is that better for the league, I don't think so. I think if a team is tanking we should just call them out in the forums and make fun of them and talk about how there players are angry and ratings could suffer, ect. The lottery takes a lot away from rebuilding teams I think. Baseball is a lot harder than basketball to fill rosters, so I don't think it's a good comparison.
|
|