FanGM

Well I just voted to keep it the same. At the end of the day everybody should be able to run their team anyway they want to. I personally want to win as many games as possible every year and it would take a lot for me to decide to tank a season and just gather up draft picks. Other people don't mind going winless or only having a couple wins to try and have a lot of picks in the future more power to them. They still have to get the picks right in the draft or they will stay in the bottom of the league , this is risky if you ask me. Then again this is coming from somebody who just hates change and is really ready to start the season and defend their DFFL championship.

I enjoy a good trade as much as anybody, but I don't think somebody should be signed or claimed just to "flip" for a draft pick. For example, team A reads that the Seahawks are going to start player B at Center this week and player B is currently a free agent, so they sign him and immediately put him on the trade block, and then he starts and does ok and then Team B gives a 4th round pick for him the next week. Maybe a whole year before you can trade is too much - maybe 4 games or something like that.

I also think that some type of incentives should be put into place for the league. Like if you make the playoffs or have a 4 game improvement - you get an extra free agent bid during the first two weeks of free agency. And conversely if you lose 4 more games than the previous year - then you lose a free agency bid during the first two weeks of free agency. Other incentives could also be set up.

As someone who is fascinated by economics, I love incentifizing things!

stevebarrett24 wrote:Well I just voted to keep it the same. At the end of the day everybody should be able to run their team anyway they want to. I personally want to win as many games as possible every year and it would take a lot for me to decide to tank a season and just gather up draft picks. Other people don't mind going winless or only having a couple wins to try and have a lot of picks in the future more power to them. They still have to get the picks right in the draft or they will stay in the bottom of the league , this is risky if you ask me. Then again this is coming from somebody who just hates change and is really ready to start the season and defend their DFFL championship.

I 100% agree with this. Teams still have to get the draft picks right. If you have 9/32 1st round picks and miss on 6 of them then ha ha joke is on you. Also, this league is predicated on how "you" would run a team. Probably a good thing some of us aren't real GM's based on the high trade rates but who are we to judge since it is how that person wants to build their team. I voted to keep it as it is.

robroach wrote: I also think that some type of incentives should be put into place for the league. Like if you make the playoffs or have a 4 game improvement - you get an extra free agent bid during the first two weeks of free agency. And conversely if you lose 4 more games than the previous year - then you lose a free agency bid during the first two weeks of free agency. Other incentives could also be set up.

The problem with this idea is that it helps the winners stay winners and the losers stay losers.

I see a lot of talk about allowing teams to trade without any limitation because it "makes the game more interesting." I agree in spirit as negotiating a good deal is about as fun as it gets in this game. But, time and again we see just a few teams in the top of the draft because they've gone on a fire sale to accumulate as many 1st round picks as possible. That leads to less opportunity for the other teams to move around on draft day, or otherwise enjoy the draft.

Why not try to explore the possibility of finding a way to "restrict" trade in a way that still allows the flexibility to trade but also protects the integrity and fun of both the draft and free agency as well? These proposed ideas are about finding a way to better balance the three tools.

I think there should be measures to prevent teams from tanking year end and year out, but I don't think limiting trading is necessarily the solution. As I've mentioned in the past, I'd prefer a target on winning as a measure (minnimum of 12 wins over any 3 yr period). This would be only averaging 4 wins a season. If a GM can't muster up an average of 4 wins a season, then it's time to let someone else try their hand and that GM can go back into the waiting pool. This would solve a lot of the tanking without putting a lot of limits on trading, etc.

soonertf wrote:I think there should be measures to prevent teams from tanking year end and year out, but I don't think limiting trading is necessarily the solution. As I've mentioned in the past, I'd prefer a target on winning as a measure (minnimum of 12 wins over any 3 yr period). This would be only averaging 4 wins a season. If a GM can't muster up an average of 4 wins a season, then it's time to let someone else try their hand and that GM can go back into the waiting pool. This would solve a lot of the tanking without putting a lot of limits on trading, etc.

I like this idea, but want to play devil's advocate a little bit.

What if a new GM takes over a really bad situation, i.e. all top draft picks traded away, very little talent on roster, salary cap hell? What if despite their best efforts, they just aren't able to average those 4 wins? Does that mean that GM is incompetent, or does that mean the new GM is paying for the mismanagement of the previous regime?

Similarly, what if a team has a really bad rash of injuries a year or two in a row? Loses their top players at each position, or multiple players from one position group? This past season I lost my entire WR corps and it absolutely killed me in sims. You can't predict injuries, though I know some people would say you can plan for them by having good backups. Like I said earlier though, I lost me entire WR corps and it's nearly impossible to overcome a goose-egg from an entire position group.

Having said all this, I would be in favor of a proposal like this if there was one. It could/would/should limit long-term tanking, IMO.

soonertf wrote:I think there should be measures to prevent teams from tanking year end and year out, but I don't think limiting trading is necessarily the solution. As I've mentioned in the past, I'd prefer a target on winning as a measure (minnimum of 12 wins over any 3 yr period). This would be only averaging 4 wins a season. If a GM can't muster up an average of 4 wins a season, then it's time to let someone else try their hand and that GM can go back into the waiting pool. This would solve a lot of the tanking without putting a lot of limits on trading, etc.

I would agree with this wholeheartedly.

Even a GM that takes over a bad team can still manage 12 wins over 3 seasons. This has been brought up before, especially in AFFL where we usually draft the elite GM's from the other two leagues.

whteshark wrote:

soonertf wrote:I think there should be measures to prevent teams from tanking year end and year out, but I don't think limiting trading is necessarily the solution. As I've mentioned in the past, I'd prefer a target on winning as a measure (minnimum of 12 wins over any 3 yr period). This would be only averaging 4 wins a season. If a GM can't muster up an average of 4 wins a season, then it's time to let someone else try their hand and that GM can go back into the waiting pool. This would solve a lot of the tanking without putting a lot of limits on trading, etc.

I would agree with this wholeheartedly.

Even a GM that takes over a bad team can still manage 12 wins over 3 seasons. This has been brought up before, especially in AFFL where we usually draft the elite GM's from the other two leagues.

I support this as well and in drastic, drastic situations it could come down to a committee vote.