FanGM

jerrydlux wrote:I'm not saying ltcs should be unlimited because obviously financially it wouldn't make sense.

I'm not suggesting unlimited either, but even if that were the case the cap would regulate it to your point. I would prefer that instead of an arbitrary minimum number of LTC.

Knighty Knight wrote:Contracts are growing because the cap space has been expanding quickly the last few seasons, and everyone has money to spend. I think 2 LTCs are good and simulates a more realistic free agent market. Most A level players never hit the free agent market.

It wouldn't make a huge difference, but we should increase our league minimums so it is in line with RL.

Strategist wrote:I am fundamentally against adding more LTCs. If anything we need to go back to 1. The FA pool this year was so thin. Leading to massive contracts.

Those huge contracts will affect LTC figures, which in turn will lead to fewer teams choosing to use them thus increasing the FA pool. I think we'll see some years where the pool is bigger than others, which is pretty realistic. Or we could see some positional groups have a big pool one year and smaller the next.

For example, this year's safety pool in AFFL free agency was pretty deep but in previous years it's been quite bare.

Fish wrote: It wouldn't make a huge difference, but we should increase our league minimums so it is in line with RL.

We do this every few years I believe. It's been increasing $15k per season under the new CBA. Not sure it's worth the time for Troy to update the code every single year for such a small increment.

If too much cap space is perceived an issue and you update the cap every year, shouldn't you increase salaries as well? How hard would it be to increase minimum from $400k to $465k?

Also on the size of the FA pool...I don't think a large pool with limited number of bids is a good combination, especially if too much available cap space is an issue.

Fish wrote:If too much cap space is perceived an issue and you update the cap every year, shouldn't you increase salaries as well? How hard would it be to increase minimum from $400k to $465k?

Current minimum is $450 so we're talking $450k to $465k and I'm not sure what the time requirements would be to make that adjustment. I'm not a coder.

Yeah..$450k, was thinking about baseball sorry. I'd think it is a single value you just reference, but I'm sure Troy can decide if it is too much trouble.

Fish wrote:Also on the size of the FA pool...I don't think a large pool with limited number of bids is a good combination, especially if too much available cap space is an issue.

Bids should never be unlimited no matter how many times its brought up. Unlimited bids is just a bad idea, it makes 0 sense. It would make the contracts of all players unrealistic and it would negate the advantage the previous owner has of retaining their home grown talent. Bad idea. Can we stop suggesting it?

KevMonk wrote:Bids should never be unlimited no matter how many times its brought up. Unlimited bids is just a bad idea, it makes 0 sense. It would make the contracts of all players unrealistic and it would negate the advantage the previous owner has of retaining their home grown talent. Bad idea. Can we stop suggesting it?

Can you please explain how unlimited bids makes zero sense (it is more realistic so makes sense for that reason alone), negates a team's ability to resign their talent (you have the same opportunity to bid as everyone else and can still match, no?) or why it would lead to unrealistic salaries for every player as you say?

If I'm a GM and need a S, there is nothing stopping me from talking to every S on the market other than my cap and roster size (we have the same limitations). I imagine the stars would sign similar deals to what they are signed to now, it is just the second and third tier players that teams slip through because limited bids forces them to choose which players to bid on that would increase closer to market value. I think GMs like the limited bids because they can sign a good player below market if they pick the right target giving them more money to throw at a star and inflating the price of top tier talent even more.

Fish wrote:

KevMonk wrote:Bids should never be unlimited no matter how many times its brought up. Unlimited bids is just a bad idea, it makes 0 sense. It would make the contracts of all players unrealistic and it would negate the advantage the previous owner has of retaining their home grown talent. Bad idea. Can we stop suggesting it?

Can you please explain how unlimited bids makes zero sense (it is more realistic so makes sense for that reason alone), negates a team's ability to resign their talent (you have the same opportunity to bid as everyone else and can still match, no?) or why it would lead to unrealistic salaries for every player as you say?

More than half of the GMs here use their bids for the sole purpose of driving up the price. Do you honestly believe giving unlimited bids would have no effect? It would ruin our game.