Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Sep 2018, 12:55 pm

Should we have some kind of reward for winning the consolation bracket?
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Sep 2018, 12:57 pm

Nick mentioned a contract freeze option in another league.

Perhaps the option of freezing one contract?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3046
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Sep 2018, 11:42 am

I would like to propose the following amendment:

(a) The winner of the consolation play-offs gets to freeze the salaries of all his keepers for the succeeding season.

Purpose?

(a) Keep owners out of the play-offs engaged
(b) Encourage owners not to to dismantle their teams too much because if they do they will have no chance of winning the consolation play-offs.
(c) Maintain competitiveness of regular season schedule as teams will not weaken their teams too much
(d) Increase value of rentals as now owners will have a reason to keep the
(e) May give a team from the bottom half of the league the jolt they need to get into the play-offs.


Drawbacks?

(a) Perhaps reduced trading as teams hold on to players
(b) Some teams may feel they should give up early anyway as they have no chance
(c) Unfair advantage given to one team just because they win a play-off
(d) Possible tanking to get 7th spot. I think that is unlikely, though. Giving up being in the play-offs to POSSIBLY win the consolation play-offs seems pretty risky to me. Also, it would be understood that you should not tank to get into the consolation play-offs.

Finally, it would only be for one year. An experiment. Another amendment would have to be proposed the next year to make it permanent.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 06 Sep 2018, 11:51 am

Freeman, I was working on my post and when I got back to finish, saw that you posted in the interim. I am not responding to your amendment but I will later.

A few thoughts of mine on this:

I don't believe a reward should be overly significant. Rather, a tossing of a bone to those teams who tried until the end to get into the playoffs. Those teams would presumably be built for current success and would have the best chance of winning the consolation bracket.

I also do not want to create a situation where owners are incentivized to drop into the consolation bracket versus getting into the playoffs. Having an above average team (but not great) with a chance to win a championship should be worth more than winning a conso bracket.

Lastly, and probably of least importance, would be continued engagement with the league for the non-playoff teams for at least another week. Well, except for those 2 in the Toilet Bowl.

Anyway, the more I think on it, the more I like Nick's idea of freezing a contract. I am less favorably inclined to support a free buyout since the value of that could be wildly inconsistent.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 06 Sep 2018, 12:06 pm

Looks like I agree with your sentiments, however, I think extending all contracts is way to powerful. I would argue for 1 or 2, at most. Perhaps 2 for the winner and 1 for the runner up.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3046
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Sep 2018, 12:21 pm

Maybe 2 and 1 is more reasonable.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 72
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 07 Sep 2018, 11:25 am

Two and one seems perfect to me. It feels like "hey, that's a nice perk" rather than "let me tank to get into the consolation bracket because I feel like my team is still a year away and the full freeze would work perfectly for my up-and-coming team."

Could you trade for a contract and then freeze it, or would it only apply to players on your team at the end of the season? I like the idea of having to choose what contract to freeze because it creates a little bit of strategy and reduces the likelihood of someone changing their moves during the season with the ultimate goal of getting the consolation prize.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 07 Sep 2018, 2:07 pm

At this point, the amendment would be for 2/1 contract freezes for the consolation winner/runner up.

Nick brings up an important detail. When must you designate the affected contracts and would any players be excluded? Can you trade 'freeze' chits?

Freezing a contract also needs a clear definition. Something like...

1. An existing contract is moved forward one year... (I'm not exactly sure how to phrase this. We need Todd, the wordsmith).
2. A player not under contract may be retained at his EOY base value.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 19 Jan 2011, 1:12 pm

Post 10 Sep 2018, 12:41 pm

Some things to consider:

Will the consolation teams now have the ability to pick up players to help them succeed in winning the consolation bracket and that this would also affect the teams in the playoffs who are trying to win it all.

Will this actually bring some parity to the league or is it just going to give the teams that regularly finish in the playoffs or just outside of them something to win while keeping the lesser owners from ever having that chance of snagging the 5th or 6th seed?
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 10 Sep 2018, 1:06 pm

No, I don't believe the consolation teams should be able to pick up FA's.

I really don't know if it will lead to more parity or less. The change seems too marginal to move that needle one way or another.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 72
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 20 Sep 2018, 6:36 am

To Brad's question, if lesser owners can't compete for the playoffs OR the consolation prize, then what parity could we provide to help them?

To Mike's point, I think there are probably two levels:

1. Unrestricted market - the owner simply decides which contract to freeze at the same time he submits his keepers. A contract freeze is just pretending that the current year didn't happen. Anyone under contract who is frozen stays in the exact same spot in his contract as he started the previous year. Any player not under contract stays at the same base value.

2. Restricted - The owner can decide at keeper time, but the player frozen must have been on his team at the start of the previous season's playoffs. OR, the owner can trade for a contract, but must decide which to freeze at some point in advance of the regular keeper deadline, and then that player cannot be traded until the season starts.

I do not think the freeze should be a tradeable asset in and of itself, so I don't think there should be a scenario in which you can freeze a contract and then trade it in the same offseason.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 20 Sep 2018, 11:52 am

To Brad's question, if lesser owners can't compete for the playoffs OR the consolation prize, then what parity could we provide to help them?

I think the parity comes from owners setting themselves up for next year. The opportunity is there already. The help comes from the contract structure of the league.

As for the freeze options, I think I like 'unrestricted market' the most with the freeze occurring at the keeper deadline. A freeze could not, therefore, be traded with a player. Furthermore, it can't be traded as a standalone asset since the rules already stipulate what can be traded.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3216
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 20 Sep 2018, 12:04 pm

bradsour wrote: lesser owners from ever having that chance of snagging the 5th or 6th seed?


Not sure how anything that happens in this league prevents this from happening now.