This is interesting as well. You are right, this proposal doesn't go far enough. That is why I have two proposals - this and the free agent draft order. I think together they would make a difference.
My question with this proposal...this takes place after the draft? Who would be available and worth being taken?
This very quick write up was in regards to the rookie draft. So think of it like a compensatory draft pick in the NFL at the end of each or specific rounds of that draft. One of the reasons why I like this concept is that it in many ways replicates the compensatory picks in the NFL, but with much less record keeping.
You don't want 10's with high salaries being traded for next to nothing then maybe the tender rule needs to be looked at not what you can trade. A team that is out of it should benefit to get future value for a player that has no value to them because that is technically what should make the worse team better next year by gaining some kind of asset for a player they can't protect. A 10 rated with a near max salary actually has a much lower value than an 8 with a $3-4M salary around the trade deadline because it limits the moves that contending team can make so there is no bidding war because most teams prefer to add 3-4 pieces over the one superstar.
You want to make their value more and the trades better either increase the in season cap to make these players more valuable or change the tender or franchise rule to not have to be a player with 3 years on a team. Maybe one player is eligible no matter what their contract is per year to that rule. When you voted the tender rule to having 3 years of service on one team to be tender eligible when most contracts aren't longer than that it created a higher rate of players that get traded that can't be protected which really isn't a good rule based on a number of reasons but the obvious one is I go all in this year and trade for a high rated player and then next year I don't have the money in the draft to compete and that high rated player is in his last year of course I would take anything I can get. If that player could be franchised then I would keep him even if my team is bad this year.
Basically with a lot of the rule changes to be honest this has become like fantasy football where no one can protect players for too many years but then we want to complain about the flip side which is there will be fire sale on expiring contracts and though the rules are unique to a lot of other leagues it doesn't work both ways.
This rule is basically accusing people of tanking on purpose vs. the way I see it as trading an expiring player for some future asset because 100% of a good player without a contract is still worth zero and a #4 pick at least has a shot or trade value. I don't recall playing anyone who noticeable coached to lose on purpose so I think it is unfair to phrase it in that certain way. Rebuilding is a part of all sports and the contract rules in this league probably is what leads to the disparity in the win-loss records because the salaries aren't based on performance for all players in that year like a regular cap DK Sports league but what they were when you drafted or signed them leaving plenty of bargains to go along with a lot of over priced players and when one team aligns well either way they have a distant advantage.
Sorry to be long but the best way I see it is to change the franchise or add an extra $10M to in season and that will make things more interesting because the high priced expiring contract will work better for contending teams and therefore demand a higher return.
Cliff has a good point. With the system we have, it makes perfect sense to trade away valuable players who have expiring contracts and can't be protected via the Tender or Franchise rules. Better to get something of value rather than nothing going into the future. I disagree, however, with his suggestions to fix the problem we're discussing.
I think we need to define that problem more clearly because we seem to have two separate but related issues going on. Firstly, there is the issue of playoff likely teams being able to stock their in-season roster with ringers for very little cost. Secondly, we also have a more general structural issue being raised in the margins of this discussion- that is, how to increase parity and competiveness in the league as a whole (the proposal to expand the league to 28 teams is an example).
The first (more narrowly defined) issue has a few proposed solutions: 1. Incentivize winning through compensatory draft picks and/or salary cap bonuses. 2. Rework the Draft Order through a revised lottery or an inversion of the current order where the best non-playoff team is given the highest draft pick, etc. 3. Simply eliminate in-season trading.
To those I'd like to add
4. Reduce the in-season salary cap from $93m to $88m so that there is a lot less trading room. In the future we could adjust that number up or down.
The advantages of 3 and 4 are that they just tweak the current system and don't require rewriting the rulebook with complicated formulas and procedures.
As to the more general issue of parity, I'd like to make further comments but I'm tired so they'll have to wait.
I disagree with any incentive to win proposals. If my team is racked with real life injuries, I have to suffer thru a bad year and then be further punished with less cap space? And if a team gets a star player in a steal, that team then gets more cap space by winning more games? Doesn't seem right to me....
the game has salaries built in based on performance.... rank the teams from #1 to #24 based on their opening day roster salary in the game.... at the end of the season, compare their actual finish with their pre-season rank.... award top 4[or however many] improved over prediction some incentive[probably an extra draft pick after 1st round of rookie draft or extra pick during FA draft].... obviously favorites wouldn't gain anything since their incentive is making the playoffs; tankers gain nothing because they reduce their finish; this provides the incentive for the 4-12 teams to go 6-10, or the 6-10 teams to go 8-8.... it gives the tweener teams the incentive to try and win....
Interesting but complicated idea, Jerry. If there is a consensus that in-season trading is an issue, let's restrict rule change proposals to dealing with that. I think the two ideas of eliminating all in-season trading or reducing (or eliminating) the in-season salary cap solves that problem simply with the least amount of effort.
Lots of well reasoned and thoughtful responses here. Cant say I have anything better. would like to see some reward for making playoffs but as some have noted, don't see how any incentive plan would not reward already strong teams.
Just my opinion. I think moving the trade deadline up to week 4 eliminates unloading of players. Moving highest cap for season to $88 vs $93 eliminates trading for to many high priced players. Maybe instead of top 4 being put in a lottery make it the top 8. This would definitely eliminate tanking for draft spot. Maybe do the free agent order the same way. Just my 2 cents.
