Post by Dirt on Mar 12, 2022 12:04:16 GMT -5
Before we start this debate or conversation about some rules of TMBSL 6.0. I would like to shout out to Eric and his wisdom for bringing rules and other amazing stats to the league. You have turned TMBSL sim league into a better place than when you took over. This is not a roast but just a debate to see if we can find some flaws in our rule system. With my brief job as GM with Eric, i have been impressed by the robot and I'm not sure if anyone could do a better job. We thank you, now onto the round table.
presented by: BK, Druce, Magic, Pete, Ank and Dirt
1. If you were commissioner, what rule would you change or add to the league?
BK - i would bring back the weighted lottery
Druce - I would add trade exceptions, I would vary the prospect builds more, reduce upgrade caps and try and leave less to tc luck. I'd do away with the wheel, and make current scouts more accessible.
Majic - This is easy and hard as I have 2 primary changes that I would look to make: Get rid of wheel and get rid of, or limit amnesties.
I have a long track record of hating the wheel, I just think it primarily benefits the better GM's and also leaves alot up to luck. Whether its TC luck or class luck, a GM's fortunes can turn good or bad based on how the players end up being. Not all classes or top picks are created equal and if a GM gets stuck with bad luck and his players never develop its can be a long, boring couple of years. I could go on and on with this topic but I will end it there.
As for a more realistic change, I would love to limit or remove amnesties. I think the cheap cost of amnesties creates easy paths for any team to create cap space. In older versions of the league, primarily 4.0 and 5.0, good teams had to be smart with their salary cap and pick which players to keep or let move on. When stars required new contracts you had pick and choose who to keep or how to creatively stay under the cap. Now, those teams can just overpay a player and then amnesty them as soon as they need the space, requiring very little planning. On the flip side, we see massive overpays, or multiple maxes, every year that have no business being given simply because its so easy to amnesty. I did it last year and then quickly was able to get away from a bad max and I will continue to do it until it works or I have no space. I think limiting the ability to amnesty players would market correct the FA pool and eventually result in more balance. We shouldnt be seeing multiple amnesties done each year for players.
Pete - Well-worn territory at this point, but the biggest changes I'd like to see are reducing the availability of amnesties and improving the contraction waiver process. Amnesties occur multiple times each season and allow cap issues to be waived away with little effort. Cap management is such a big part of sim league and it just feels too simple that your problems can go away for just 50k. The contraction process is something that we went back and forth about for a while and then everyone just sort of ran out of steam and we never got a better system. I'd like to see one that is completely decoupled from standings, as it is one of the only parts of the league that still provides incentive to be bad. No one has left in a while but if Odin's team gets divvied up in contraction some of the old discussions will start up again.
Ank - The obvious one is fixing Contraction Waivers. Just dump them into the FA pool the following offseason. Other than that, I would add some more customization around assistant coaches. I feel like that has gotten stale. I like the idea of having 2 different coaches and changing up what the coaches do.
Dirt – I think Eric did an excellent job bringing really good rules to the league throughout the years. His style is different and in a good way. I think we need to adjust the Amnesty rules even though I don’t think it completely murders the league. I think the Max and Amnesty Meta should change especially for those GMs that lose a good player to a unresponsible max contract. Why can’t we do the amnesty rules very similar to the buyout rules? 1 every 3 seasons should be good enough to keep your cap in check. I understand it might lower the amount of cash flow through the league but I still prefer the benefits of signing a mid-level guy to a legit mid-level contract.
I always thought I would prefer the lotto but it is nice to know what pick you are trading for and that allows for more trades and better players being traded around the league. I’ve slowly come to the census of keeping the wheel over the lotto. I just wanted to throw that out there and admit I've been wrong about the wheel.
2. It's impossible to have a good team without upgrades. What is a good way besides box score rewards to help the least active GMs compete? Or Should we keep it the same?
BK - maybe more bucks for missing the playoffs. i don't think 25k is crazy
Druce - Well since our league is like a micro economy, and we don't want to discourage those who are active from being active, it's very difficult to try and level the playing field for the less active GMs. Ultimately we're going to have haves and have nots and it's a very delicate balance between wealth re-distribution and incentivizing activity.
Majic - I dont know that I have a problam with the current cost for upgrades, I think they are more than fair. Reasonably speaking, you need about 55k each season to complete the necessary tasks to compete; 40k for upgrades and 5k for an assistant coach. You get 8k every season for doing your DC correctly and teams usually get a minimum of 10-15k from Box Score Rewards. Add in the 10k reward for missing playoffs and any awards your players might have, there is alot of free money to be had. I do not think its unreasonable to think a GM needs to do 1 article every 2 seasons to add 50-60k to their bank. Obviously in years where you have a higher draft pick you will want to have another 20-30k for scouts, but that can be properly planned. Overall I think the ability to earn free money, mixed with the article voting, creates an easy path to earning the necessary funds to build a team.
Pete - I think there are plenty of ways for less active GMs to earn bucks still, from the 10k missing playoffs bonus to selling upgrades or absorbing contracts for cap space. I think you would run into problems with active GMs having easier access to cash through the same outlets.
Ank - We absolutely need to improve the package that new GMs receive (like 60 extra uppies in whatever year they want and 60k to pay for them). But we haven't had a new GM in a while unfortunately. I feel like it would be tough to target assistance towards the least active GMs? Easier to target it towards the worse teams. I think most people would be fine with some manner of support for the bottom half of teams (e.g. like a free scout or two? I dunno something small but helpful.
Dirt – After thinking about this more I think this wasn’t one of the better rule questoinsi sent. After looking at DC and Box Score rewards you should be able to collect 35K to get 1 player upgraded per season. Trading some upgrades can also help you amnesty if you need more cash. It doesn’t take a lot of effort if you're in the league to collect enough cash for what you want to do. The one issue is having cash for scouts but in the wheel, you get 1 great pick per 5 years and in 3 months you should be able to spit out an article or something to get you the money. I don’t think it needs to change.
3. Would you like to see any attribute caps change? Why?
BK - i definitely think attribute caps is an interesting thing to talk about. i don't know if i can think of any attribute caps that i would add for sure and i don't think i would take any away. i think we've struck a pretty good balance.
Druce - Frankly I don't know what inside isn't capped for every position. Jump shot and shot blocking are capped, why not inside? Since not all attributes produce the same performance I think the cost should vary. 1:1 for inside, jump shot, handling, shot blocking, 1:1.5 for stealing, rebounding, strength, 3pt shot, 1:2 quickness, defensive attributes etc.
Majic - I actually like the balance of the league right now and think its at the best place its been. We have seen a number of different stylistically built teams win titles and be competitive. I think we have done a nice job at making SG's valuable again as we rarely saw them used at the end of 5.0. I wouldnt mind boosting the inside for SGs a tad higher but I honestly have no idea what the ramifications would be. In all, I think we are in such a better place for league balance than we ever were in 5.0, and obviously light years better than 4.0.
Pete - It would be interesting to see what things would look like if we lifted the inside scoring attribute cap for PGs. I feel like the league has started to shift on valuing inside scoring over 3s and jump shot for a point guard and I'm not sure how the league would react if PGs could suddenly exceed 70. But ultimately I feel like the attribute caps now work pretty well. Elite shotblockers are still rare, and the limits on inside scoring for PGs and SGs are helpful for keeping the league from reverting to 4.0-style outside offense domination.
Ank - For a while there I wanted the shot-blocking cap to be raised slightly. Not sure if I still feel that way. I think you could at least raise the shot-blocking cap for PFs to match that of the cap for centers.
Also, I think we could raise the Inside cap for SGs to like 80. SGs already get dinged due to the rebounding limitations. And it's not like Inside-Offense SGs are overpowered, far from it.
Maybe we install a slightly lower JS Cap for PF and C? Like 80 instead of 85?
Dirt – This is a tough question to answer because it would cause such a massive ripple throughout the league. Even if I wanted to change some of the caps, I don’t think this is something you do in the middle of a league. It would have to be put in place at a new creation draft. I think moving the inside cap for SGs is a good idea. I wouldn’t go away with the cap but making it 80 would be nice. I think Eric knows more than I do so I will follow his lead. I also would love to be able to cap my PG at 80 because everyone thinks it would be a waste. The SHO cap is fine with me and I don’t mind any other. I would just prefer a little bit more inside into my SG and Pgs. With all that said though, moving +10 into inside isn’t a good enough reason to change such an important role in the league.
4. Changing positions was a thing back in 2.0.
BK - How would you feel if we could have 1 position change per player and only during his rookie season?
i don't think you should be able to change to any position. i think eric builds the players so specific and has different bills for different positions that it would make things pretty imbalanced it'd have to be a lot of adjusting for how eric builds the players.
Druce - I feel like we'd have a league with a lot of SFs and Cs and not many SG and PF. I don't think position changes are necessary honestly.
Majic - I will admit that I do not understand the full benefits of this, but from what I understand I think I would be OK with this proposal. It feels like every year we have a handful of guys that would likely be better fits at a different position, whether that be PG to SG because of TO issues, SF to SG for rebounding, SF to PF for a variety of reasons. I remember in 5.0 we had the combo positions and certain players could play 1 spot up from their listed role, I would like something like that return to give more versatility. The IRL NBA has alot of tweener players now and it would be cool to find a way build that into Sim League.
Pete - I get a headache just thinking about going back to position changes. We had so many arguments about eligibility and cheesing. Any system that allows position changes comes with tons of rules to make sure people don't abuse it and potentially limits Eric's ability to make players with unique builds. With depth chart eligibility tied to listed position, I feel like this would be a net negative.
Ank - I don't really see the benefit here. No thank you.
Dirt – I like this idea but I understand after doing so many tests why Eric doesn’t allow it anymore. Stretch 4’s getting moved to Center is a super small example. I think there may be just a few scouts I've seen where I wish I could move to them to a big instead of a small forward. There really isn’t a huge need for this. I just think it adds a little more to the league, but on the other hand it adds more things for Eric to do. It would have some impact on higher potential rookies throughout the natural training camp process. Moving a PF Ok special to another position would be interesting.
5. Drafts are random and it's realistic not every draft is even but with that said, do you think Eric is doing good with the builds? If not what is the suggest on what he should change?
BK - think eric is doing a pretty good job with the buids. i think people are mostly frustrated with profile players not being as good as they are in real lifi also think these people are the same people that complain about talent inflation. i feel like a way that could kill two birds with one stone would be just to start making the non profile players less good.
Druce - I've previously stated my issues with the builds, and I maintain that profile players are over-nerfed outside of certain players. I would like to see more variation in builds. When we've got a group of 5-7 guys with the same build in a draft all we're doing is just leaving it up to random chance as to who gets better and who gets worse/stays stagnant.
Majic - We recently had a discussion on this and I think its something that should be revisited. I think eric has adjusted the way he builds the top prospects and we get a solid influx of 2-3 really, really good players entering each year. I think in the early parts of 6.0 we saw some very good and very bad top of the draft players and eric has evened that out. I do think we continue to see some imbalance with the profile players as it seems eric is sometimes harsher on them than the non-profile guys. It seems that eric will take some profile players flaws and make them bad, to the point that some guys are unplayable. Its also evident that eric has stock templates that he uses for all non-profile players, and often those templates are better than the way profile players are built. Profile players are there for a reason and I would prefer to see a majority of those guys carve out roles, even if they are backups, for their careers.
Pete - The randomized draft classes are one of the drawbacks of a wheel league for sure, because someone like KC can wind up with 1.1 for the worst draft class in league history, and then his next highest pick comes around 10 seasons later and it's another underwhelming class. That being said, I think we've seen that some classes people are excited about don't pan out while others that don't have much fanfare produce some great players. I think the added variation in player types has been welcome and we're still seeing that talented players can be found up and down the draft order. As long as that keeps up, I don't have any complaints about player builds.
Ank - Overall, I think it's fine. For the non-profile players, I think we have enough data to do an analysis on how the different archetypes have performed (while also accounting for who was upgraded). That would be very helpful to determine if any archetypes need a nerf/boost.
For the profile players, it's a tough task. And with college stats being a thing, at least the profile players with massive warts are revealed before they are selected. I do think there have been perhaps too many instances of profile players just getting hammered due to a negative sentence in their profile. Like a profile guy being a lackluster rebounding SF shouldn't translate to D+ rebounding grade. Same with a Center getting 10 Handles (Darko). That's basically a death knell. But if you are going to lessen those warts, we'd have to rebalance elsewhere of course.
Dirt – This question is walking such a thin line because of how much Eric tests. After seeing so many scouts there are small variations of builds out there when it comes to non-profile guys. The only reason we get so many scouts on those guys is to find a gem. The Profile guys do have differences and some smaller similarities. The players Strengths always vary but the SG inside grades is very similar. It’s just pretty obvious what kind of build your going to get when you look at what position they are being drafted at. This really isn’t a question for the top 5 because those guys are normally different in several ways. I wouldn’t change much just because it’s been working and some drafts are just stronger than others and that’s just how the wheel rolls in the league.
6. Crazy, but I think if you draft 5 straight max guys you should be able to retain them. How would you feel if we had no or extended the HC?
BK - no this is too easy and makes drafting too OP. for example i have three guys expiring this free agency that will probably be max players.
Druce - I think that makes it exponentially easier for the teams that have talent and exponentially harder for those that don't. Rebuilding would take longer, and teams windows would also be longer. I think we'd have a lot of people lose interest because the FA pools would thin and making a bad pick would be a more harsh situation than it already is.
Majic - I dont really have an issue with the current cap structure, as noted above my main concern is how easy it is to circumvent the cap and manage your roster due to amnesties. I could listen to an argument in increasing the 50 million cap so that you could have slightly more room to sign FA's, but I would preferrably like to leave the 80 million hard cap in place. I think the structure of our maxes and how the age/experience functionality works is very easy and simple.
Pete - This is something I've thought about in the past. I think it would be interesting to spitball some kind of luxury tax where a team could go over the HC to keep a core together, but at a cost high enough that most GMs would not or that would punish teams for going over the luxury tax multiple seasons in a row. There could be a way to mimic the NBA luxury tax rules as a currency reward (maybe paying it out to non-tax paying teams?). However, this would mean FA would potentially be even less exciting than it has been, where teams could potentially avoid cap crunches and hang on to elite talent in a league where we usually see just one or two max level players hit FA each year.
Ank - Nah. The Wheel already is a big boost to staying on top as a contender after you've made it there. The hard cap is a necessary limitation to hinder the super teams. If anything, I'd rather reduce the Hard Cap instead of increasing it. That would be more fun but would require more effort to keep a great team great (i.e. you'd need to wheel and deal more). Maybe we increase the soft cap to 60 and keep the hard cap at 80? That would cause more FA fuckery I think. Just spit balling here.
Dirt – The 80 HC will always make sense to me but it would be interesting to see just how big some teams would go. Would be crazy to have a luxury tax you can pay to get your team to 85 Mil. 100 K for 85 Mil cap for a season would be interesting to see just who would do it. It would make more cash flow through the league. I think it would be a terrible idea to change the soft cap imo. I think 50 Is more than enough. I would only prefer to move the cap to retain the players you have. For Example signing LaSalle like Ank did. It would help you secure your true max player on his 2nd max contract. I also understand how ridiculous all this sounds so I understand why this rule would never change.
7. With Odin leaving over funds, what about taking away 2nd and 3rd Round picks? Is there a penalty that could serve to those with very little currency?
BK - i think you should just have some time to get above the negative amount two sims would be good that's how long you have to get out from under the hard cap.
Druce - This is a non-issue. There are plenty of ways to earn currency in the league.
Majic - That is an interesting idea, the fine gets broken out to other GM's that are outside of the playoffs, or some other metric. Really though, I am not sure I see the need in fining someone right away if they have gone in the negative. This is no shot at Tim by any means, but sometimes the bank isnt up to date, or something is missed. Listen, we are all adults, with lives, jobs and families. Things are going to get missed every now and then. I would rather see the rule changed to give the GM a set amount of time to get back above 0 before any fine or penalty went into affect, and even then I dont really care to penalize someone. Eventually they will make up the amount or they wont be able to make any purchases until it is.
Pete - Fining 10k to someone with a negative bank balance feels like something Congress would investigate. I appreciate that it at least keeps things moving. There aren't a lot of better alternatives, as taking away a 2nd round pick removes one of the easiest ways to add funds for someone in the negative, and a third round pick is something too insignificant to serve as a deterrent. I'd like to find a middle ground, like maybe Tim gives a GM an overdraft alert and they have a day to get into the positive before a fine gets levvied. I can understand Odin's frustration but I'd rather be an extra 10k in the hole than lose a draft pick
Ank - I think there should be a grace period ideally. Although you'd probably need the bank to monitor the grace period which adds more responsibilities to Tim's already shitty job so
I do think that a currency fine is appropriate and better than a 2nd/3rd pick forfeiture.
Dirt – We've only had this issue a couple times in 6.0. I don’t think anything should change. You are a responsible human knowing what you’ve spent, you shouldn’t have a 24/7 banker keep up with your cash. If you're that broke just ask around for a RT or trade a 2nd rounder to delap and boom you're not in this position anymore. If you did lose a 2nd round pick, I think people would be more responsible to make sure they never went into the red.
8. We've changed 5 scouts on the clock because of the cartel issue. Now that our numbers base dwindled. Should we go back to the old ways to save the league some cash?
BK - i like the current system. i wish we could just trade scouts for money in the trade threads.
Druce - I'd actually like to see the scout number decreased. Might allow some better players or projects to fall a bit. I also think that Hidden Gem status should be randomized between picks 15-60. I think it's a little counter productive to have a top pick be gem eligible.
Majic - I actually like the 5 scout limit, I think it requires a GM to properly review his options and then select from the group he feels strongest about. With the added benefit of college stats I think limiting scouts to 5 players is a reasonable rule. You can get alot of really good information from the stats and then dwindle your target list down to your top 5, then scout. I think this is a good combination with what is currently available to the league.
Pete - I think people are less uptight about scouting and a lot of GMs are happy to share scouts for everyone to see in Shout. The problem cartels brought up were how easy it was for GMs to scout nearly the whole draft at a cheap rate. Selfishly I'd love to be able to see more scouts for cheaper, and I think scouting/drafting/player development is the most fun part of this league. But I think the limits have accomplished what they meant to and even with some individual sharing we no longer have GMs with info on 20+ prospects before the draft even starts.
Ank - I like the current system. It works well. We need things that require cash. It leads to great content like this roundtable.
Dirt – The current system and the cartel are on in the same. GMs are closer than others and GMs know who are friendly enough to share the scouts they have. It’s really irrelevant at this time because GMs will find a way to get as many scouts as possible. If this rule keeps people from bitching in shout lets just keep it. I really don’t mind either way.
9. Bouncing off of #8. What GM would you like to see return? Why?
BK - i would love to see soup come back. i think he is a great guy and a great gm.
Druce - Anyone who is active, because ultimately the league is better with more active GMs. Soup and Bankz provided content, drama, activity. Skrouse was always around, JHB. Literally anyone who is active I'd like to have back.
Majic - Skrouse is the easy answer for me. I always liked skrouse, he was a solid GM and was always a good presence in shout. I loved his additional of the Skrouse market and was sad to see that go when he left. I think skrouse would be the easy answer of the first GM I would like to see back.
Pete - Any and all of them. I would love to see as few computeams as possible and a lot of the GMs we've lost (Soup, Bankz, JHB, Skrouse, Ward) were good for the overall activity of the league. I think if anyone wants to come back they should, although I think if the scouting restrictions are keeping GMs away I'd rather just stick to the rule as is, because it's a sign that something else will probably cause them to quit the next time Eric makes a decision they disagree with.
Ank – Soup would be a good return candidate. He needs to redeem himself after cratering so hard. Doesn't seem like he can cut it in a wheel league? Bruns would be another excellent addition. Everybody loves Bruns! Solid GM, good guy, strong shout presence (although weaker now that he has a fully finished basesment).
Dirt – All the members of TXIA. Bruns, Buster and Soup will always have a place in my sim heart. I miss playing xbox with all those guys but of course time rolls on and kids ruin everything. I love this software for the good and bad and wish others could view it like I do. RIP TXIA.
10. When do we say 6.0 is too inflated and start to possibly transition into 7.0?
BK - when we run out of draft classes
Druce - Every league I've been in has gotten inflated, it just is what it is. Look at the creation draft to now. I think we roll 7.0 after we've used up all the draft classes and they've had a chance to run their course.
Majic - I have no intention to push for 7.0 anytime soon. We easily made it into the late 40's of 5.0 before we started discussing a plan for 6.0. I would like to see us stick out 5.0 for as long as possible, or at least for as long as we have draft classes.
Pete - Getting the 03 draft and 86 draft so close together is going to stretch our limits. 6.0 talent levels are much higher than they were at the start but I think they compare well with where we were 10 seasons ago, which is a sign that it's not running amok. If we get to a point where perimeter scorers and outside focus becomes the dominant trend, or we have a top ten shotblocker group with several guys averaging 4+ per game, that would be a sign that we're heading to 4.0 territory and it might be time to consider a reboot.
Ank - Inflation is ok so long as the pace is slow. Because then everyone can inflate together. And we certainly are a long way off from the wild inflation of 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0. There's certainly been inflation but nothing that has alarmed me too m.... *Looks at LeBron's grades as an 18 year old with A Potential
Dirt – I think we're pretty far away from inflation. I think the teams seem better because obviously we don’t have as many GMs. Even after drafting LBJ this year, if someone told me we could get 29 teams if we went to 7.0 right now, I would be all for it. As of now it’s just finding bodies to take over teams. We only have a handful of stud PGs and in my opinion that’s the opposite of inflation. Too many great PGs could really kill a league in a hurry. Or having 15 players with 5 bleals. We don’t have that so I think we are good for some time.
presented by: BK, Druce, Magic, Pete, Ank and Dirt
1. If you were commissioner, what rule would you change or add to the league?
BK - i would bring back the weighted lottery
Druce - I would add trade exceptions, I would vary the prospect builds more, reduce upgrade caps and try and leave less to tc luck. I'd do away with the wheel, and make current scouts more accessible.
Majic - This is easy and hard as I have 2 primary changes that I would look to make: Get rid of wheel and get rid of, or limit amnesties.
I have a long track record of hating the wheel, I just think it primarily benefits the better GM's and also leaves alot up to luck. Whether its TC luck or class luck, a GM's fortunes can turn good or bad based on how the players end up being. Not all classes or top picks are created equal and if a GM gets stuck with bad luck and his players never develop its can be a long, boring couple of years. I could go on and on with this topic but I will end it there.
As for a more realistic change, I would love to limit or remove amnesties. I think the cheap cost of amnesties creates easy paths for any team to create cap space. In older versions of the league, primarily 4.0 and 5.0, good teams had to be smart with their salary cap and pick which players to keep or let move on. When stars required new contracts you had pick and choose who to keep or how to creatively stay under the cap. Now, those teams can just overpay a player and then amnesty them as soon as they need the space, requiring very little planning. On the flip side, we see massive overpays, or multiple maxes, every year that have no business being given simply because its so easy to amnesty. I did it last year and then quickly was able to get away from a bad max and I will continue to do it until it works or I have no space. I think limiting the ability to amnesty players would market correct the FA pool and eventually result in more balance. We shouldnt be seeing multiple amnesties done each year for players.
Pete - Well-worn territory at this point, but the biggest changes I'd like to see are reducing the availability of amnesties and improving the contraction waiver process. Amnesties occur multiple times each season and allow cap issues to be waived away with little effort. Cap management is such a big part of sim league and it just feels too simple that your problems can go away for just 50k. The contraction process is something that we went back and forth about for a while and then everyone just sort of ran out of steam and we never got a better system. I'd like to see one that is completely decoupled from standings, as it is one of the only parts of the league that still provides incentive to be bad. No one has left in a while but if Odin's team gets divvied up in contraction some of the old discussions will start up again.
Ank - The obvious one is fixing Contraction Waivers. Just dump them into the FA pool the following offseason. Other than that, I would add some more customization around assistant coaches. I feel like that has gotten stale. I like the idea of having 2 different coaches and changing up what the coaches do.
Dirt – I think Eric did an excellent job bringing really good rules to the league throughout the years. His style is different and in a good way. I think we need to adjust the Amnesty rules even though I don’t think it completely murders the league. I think the Max and Amnesty Meta should change especially for those GMs that lose a good player to a unresponsible max contract. Why can’t we do the amnesty rules very similar to the buyout rules? 1 every 3 seasons should be good enough to keep your cap in check. I understand it might lower the amount of cash flow through the league but I still prefer the benefits of signing a mid-level guy to a legit mid-level contract.
I always thought I would prefer the lotto but it is nice to know what pick you are trading for and that allows for more trades and better players being traded around the league. I’ve slowly come to the census of keeping the wheel over the lotto. I just wanted to throw that out there and admit I've been wrong about the wheel.
2. It's impossible to have a good team without upgrades. What is a good way besides box score rewards to help the least active GMs compete? Or Should we keep it the same?
BK - maybe more bucks for missing the playoffs. i don't think 25k is crazy
Druce - Well since our league is like a micro economy, and we don't want to discourage those who are active from being active, it's very difficult to try and level the playing field for the less active GMs. Ultimately we're going to have haves and have nots and it's a very delicate balance between wealth re-distribution and incentivizing activity.
Majic - I dont know that I have a problam with the current cost for upgrades, I think they are more than fair. Reasonably speaking, you need about 55k each season to complete the necessary tasks to compete; 40k for upgrades and 5k for an assistant coach. You get 8k every season for doing your DC correctly and teams usually get a minimum of 10-15k from Box Score Rewards. Add in the 10k reward for missing playoffs and any awards your players might have, there is alot of free money to be had. I do not think its unreasonable to think a GM needs to do 1 article every 2 seasons to add 50-60k to their bank. Obviously in years where you have a higher draft pick you will want to have another 20-30k for scouts, but that can be properly planned. Overall I think the ability to earn free money, mixed with the article voting, creates an easy path to earning the necessary funds to build a team.
Pete - I think there are plenty of ways for less active GMs to earn bucks still, from the 10k missing playoffs bonus to selling upgrades or absorbing contracts for cap space. I think you would run into problems with active GMs having easier access to cash through the same outlets.
Ank - We absolutely need to improve the package that new GMs receive (like 60 extra uppies in whatever year they want and 60k to pay for them). But we haven't had a new GM in a while unfortunately. I feel like it would be tough to target assistance towards the least active GMs? Easier to target it towards the worse teams. I think most people would be fine with some manner of support for the bottom half of teams (e.g. like a free scout or two? I dunno something small but helpful.
Dirt – After thinking about this more I think this wasn’t one of the better rule questoinsi sent. After looking at DC and Box Score rewards you should be able to collect 35K to get 1 player upgraded per season. Trading some upgrades can also help you amnesty if you need more cash. It doesn’t take a lot of effort if you're in the league to collect enough cash for what you want to do. The one issue is having cash for scouts but in the wheel, you get 1 great pick per 5 years and in 3 months you should be able to spit out an article or something to get you the money. I don’t think it needs to change.
3. Would you like to see any attribute caps change? Why?
BK - i definitely think attribute caps is an interesting thing to talk about. i don't know if i can think of any attribute caps that i would add for sure and i don't think i would take any away. i think we've struck a pretty good balance.
Druce - Frankly I don't know what inside isn't capped for every position. Jump shot and shot blocking are capped, why not inside? Since not all attributes produce the same performance I think the cost should vary. 1:1 for inside, jump shot, handling, shot blocking, 1:1.5 for stealing, rebounding, strength, 3pt shot, 1:2 quickness, defensive attributes etc.
Majic - I actually like the balance of the league right now and think its at the best place its been. We have seen a number of different stylistically built teams win titles and be competitive. I think we have done a nice job at making SG's valuable again as we rarely saw them used at the end of 5.0. I wouldnt mind boosting the inside for SGs a tad higher but I honestly have no idea what the ramifications would be. In all, I think we are in such a better place for league balance than we ever were in 5.0, and obviously light years better than 4.0.
Pete - It would be interesting to see what things would look like if we lifted the inside scoring attribute cap for PGs. I feel like the league has started to shift on valuing inside scoring over 3s and jump shot for a point guard and I'm not sure how the league would react if PGs could suddenly exceed 70. But ultimately I feel like the attribute caps now work pretty well. Elite shotblockers are still rare, and the limits on inside scoring for PGs and SGs are helpful for keeping the league from reverting to 4.0-style outside offense domination.
Ank - For a while there I wanted the shot-blocking cap to be raised slightly. Not sure if I still feel that way. I think you could at least raise the shot-blocking cap for PFs to match that of the cap for centers.
Also, I think we could raise the Inside cap for SGs to like 80. SGs already get dinged due to the rebounding limitations. And it's not like Inside-Offense SGs are overpowered, far from it.
Maybe we install a slightly lower JS Cap for PF and C? Like 80 instead of 85?
Dirt – This is a tough question to answer because it would cause such a massive ripple throughout the league. Even if I wanted to change some of the caps, I don’t think this is something you do in the middle of a league. It would have to be put in place at a new creation draft. I think moving the inside cap for SGs is a good idea. I wouldn’t go away with the cap but making it 80 would be nice. I think Eric knows more than I do so I will follow his lead. I also would love to be able to cap my PG at 80 because everyone thinks it would be a waste. The SHO cap is fine with me and I don’t mind any other. I would just prefer a little bit more inside into my SG and Pgs. With all that said though, moving +10 into inside isn’t a good enough reason to change such an important role in the league.
4. Changing positions was a thing back in 2.0.
BK - How would you feel if we could have 1 position change per player and only during his rookie season?
i don't think you should be able to change to any position. i think eric builds the players so specific and has different bills for different positions that it would make things pretty imbalanced it'd have to be a lot of adjusting for how eric builds the players.
Druce - I feel like we'd have a league with a lot of SFs and Cs and not many SG and PF. I don't think position changes are necessary honestly.
Majic - I will admit that I do not understand the full benefits of this, but from what I understand I think I would be OK with this proposal. It feels like every year we have a handful of guys that would likely be better fits at a different position, whether that be PG to SG because of TO issues, SF to SG for rebounding, SF to PF for a variety of reasons. I remember in 5.0 we had the combo positions and certain players could play 1 spot up from their listed role, I would like something like that return to give more versatility. The IRL NBA has alot of tweener players now and it would be cool to find a way build that into Sim League.
Pete - I get a headache just thinking about going back to position changes. We had so many arguments about eligibility and cheesing. Any system that allows position changes comes with tons of rules to make sure people don't abuse it and potentially limits Eric's ability to make players with unique builds. With depth chart eligibility tied to listed position, I feel like this would be a net negative.
Ank - I don't really see the benefit here. No thank you.
Dirt – I like this idea but I understand after doing so many tests why Eric doesn’t allow it anymore. Stretch 4’s getting moved to Center is a super small example. I think there may be just a few scouts I've seen where I wish I could move to them to a big instead of a small forward. There really isn’t a huge need for this. I just think it adds a little more to the league, but on the other hand it adds more things for Eric to do. It would have some impact on higher potential rookies throughout the natural training camp process. Moving a PF Ok special to another position would be interesting.
5. Drafts are random and it's realistic not every draft is even but with that said, do you think Eric is doing good with the builds? If not what is the suggest on what he should change?
BK - think eric is doing a pretty good job with the buids. i think people are mostly frustrated with profile players not being as good as they are in real lifi also think these people are the same people that complain about talent inflation. i feel like a way that could kill two birds with one stone would be just to start making the non profile players less good.
Druce - I've previously stated my issues with the builds, and I maintain that profile players are over-nerfed outside of certain players. I would like to see more variation in builds. When we've got a group of 5-7 guys with the same build in a draft all we're doing is just leaving it up to random chance as to who gets better and who gets worse/stays stagnant.
Majic - We recently had a discussion on this and I think its something that should be revisited. I think eric has adjusted the way he builds the top prospects and we get a solid influx of 2-3 really, really good players entering each year. I think in the early parts of 6.0 we saw some very good and very bad top of the draft players and eric has evened that out. I do think we continue to see some imbalance with the profile players as it seems eric is sometimes harsher on them than the non-profile guys. It seems that eric will take some profile players flaws and make them bad, to the point that some guys are unplayable. Its also evident that eric has stock templates that he uses for all non-profile players, and often those templates are better than the way profile players are built. Profile players are there for a reason and I would prefer to see a majority of those guys carve out roles, even if they are backups, for their careers.
Pete - The randomized draft classes are one of the drawbacks of a wheel league for sure, because someone like KC can wind up with 1.1 for the worst draft class in league history, and then his next highest pick comes around 10 seasons later and it's another underwhelming class. That being said, I think we've seen that some classes people are excited about don't pan out while others that don't have much fanfare produce some great players. I think the added variation in player types has been welcome and we're still seeing that talented players can be found up and down the draft order. As long as that keeps up, I don't have any complaints about player builds.
Ank - Overall, I think it's fine. For the non-profile players, I think we have enough data to do an analysis on how the different archetypes have performed (while also accounting for who was upgraded). That would be very helpful to determine if any archetypes need a nerf/boost.
For the profile players, it's a tough task. And with college stats being a thing, at least the profile players with massive warts are revealed before they are selected. I do think there have been perhaps too many instances of profile players just getting hammered due to a negative sentence in their profile. Like a profile guy being a lackluster rebounding SF shouldn't translate to D+ rebounding grade. Same with a Center getting 10 Handles (Darko). That's basically a death knell. But if you are going to lessen those warts, we'd have to rebalance elsewhere of course.
Dirt – This question is walking such a thin line because of how much Eric tests. After seeing so many scouts there are small variations of builds out there when it comes to non-profile guys. The only reason we get so many scouts on those guys is to find a gem. The Profile guys do have differences and some smaller similarities. The players Strengths always vary but the SG inside grades is very similar. It’s just pretty obvious what kind of build your going to get when you look at what position they are being drafted at. This really isn’t a question for the top 5 because those guys are normally different in several ways. I wouldn’t change much just because it’s been working and some drafts are just stronger than others and that’s just how the wheel rolls in the league.
6. Crazy, but I think if you draft 5 straight max guys you should be able to retain them. How would you feel if we had no or extended the HC?
BK - no this is too easy and makes drafting too OP. for example i have three guys expiring this free agency that will probably be max players.
Druce - I think that makes it exponentially easier for the teams that have talent and exponentially harder for those that don't. Rebuilding would take longer, and teams windows would also be longer. I think we'd have a lot of people lose interest because the FA pools would thin and making a bad pick would be a more harsh situation than it already is.
Majic - I dont really have an issue with the current cap structure, as noted above my main concern is how easy it is to circumvent the cap and manage your roster due to amnesties. I could listen to an argument in increasing the 50 million cap so that you could have slightly more room to sign FA's, but I would preferrably like to leave the 80 million hard cap in place. I think the structure of our maxes and how the age/experience functionality works is very easy and simple.
Pete - This is something I've thought about in the past. I think it would be interesting to spitball some kind of luxury tax where a team could go over the HC to keep a core together, but at a cost high enough that most GMs would not or that would punish teams for going over the luxury tax multiple seasons in a row. There could be a way to mimic the NBA luxury tax rules as a currency reward (maybe paying it out to non-tax paying teams?). However, this would mean FA would potentially be even less exciting than it has been, where teams could potentially avoid cap crunches and hang on to elite talent in a league where we usually see just one or two max level players hit FA each year.
Ank - Nah. The Wheel already is a big boost to staying on top as a contender after you've made it there. The hard cap is a necessary limitation to hinder the super teams. If anything, I'd rather reduce the Hard Cap instead of increasing it. That would be more fun but would require more effort to keep a great team great (i.e. you'd need to wheel and deal more). Maybe we increase the soft cap to 60 and keep the hard cap at 80? That would cause more FA fuckery I think. Just spit balling here.
Dirt – The 80 HC will always make sense to me but it would be interesting to see just how big some teams would go. Would be crazy to have a luxury tax you can pay to get your team to 85 Mil. 100 K for 85 Mil cap for a season would be interesting to see just who would do it. It would make more cash flow through the league. I think it would be a terrible idea to change the soft cap imo. I think 50 Is more than enough. I would only prefer to move the cap to retain the players you have. For Example signing LaSalle like Ank did. It would help you secure your true max player on his 2nd max contract. I also understand how ridiculous all this sounds so I understand why this rule would never change.
7. With Odin leaving over funds, what about taking away 2nd and 3rd Round picks? Is there a penalty that could serve to those with very little currency?
BK - i think you should just have some time to get above the negative amount two sims would be good that's how long you have to get out from under the hard cap.
Druce - This is a non-issue. There are plenty of ways to earn currency in the league.
Majic - That is an interesting idea, the fine gets broken out to other GM's that are outside of the playoffs, or some other metric. Really though, I am not sure I see the need in fining someone right away if they have gone in the negative. This is no shot at Tim by any means, but sometimes the bank isnt up to date, or something is missed. Listen, we are all adults, with lives, jobs and families. Things are going to get missed every now and then. I would rather see the rule changed to give the GM a set amount of time to get back above 0 before any fine or penalty went into affect, and even then I dont really care to penalize someone. Eventually they will make up the amount or they wont be able to make any purchases until it is.
Pete - Fining 10k to someone with a negative bank balance feels like something Congress would investigate. I appreciate that it at least keeps things moving. There aren't a lot of better alternatives, as taking away a 2nd round pick removes one of the easiest ways to add funds for someone in the negative, and a third round pick is something too insignificant to serve as a deterrent. I'd like to find a middle ground, like maybe Tim gives a GM an overdraft alert and they have a day to get into the positive before a fine gets levvied. I can understand Odin's frustration but I'd rather be an extra 10k in the hole than lose a draft pick
Ank - I think there should be a grace period ideally. Although you'd probably need the bank to monitor the grace period which adds more responsibilities to Tim's already shitty job so
I do think that a currency fine is appropriate and better than a 2nd/3rd pick forfeiture. Dirt – We've only had this issue a couple times in 6.0. I don’t think anything should change. You are a responsible human knowing what you’ve spent, you shouldn’t have a 24/7 banker keep up with your cash. If you're that broke just ask around for a RT or trade a 2nd rounder to delap and boom you're not in this position anymore. If you did lose a 2nd round pick, I think people would be more responsible to make sure they never went into the red.
8. We've changed 5 scouts on the clock because of the cartel issue. Now that our numbers base dwindled. Should we go back to the old ways to save the league some cash?
BK - i like the current system. i wish we could just trade scouts for money in the trade threads.
Druce - I'd actually like to see the scout number decreased. Might allow some better players or projects to fall a bit. I also think that Hidden Gem status should be randomized between picks 15-60. I think it's a little counter productive to have a top pick be gem eligible.
Majic - I actually like the 5 scout limit, I think it requires a GM to properly review his options and then select from the group he feels strongest about. With the added benefit of college stats I think limiting scouts to 5 players is a reasonable rule. You can get alot of really good information from the stats and then dwindle your target list down to your top 5, then scout. I think this is a good combination with what is currently available to the league.
Pete - I think people are less uptight about scouting and a lot of GMs are happy to share scouts for everyone to see in Shout. The problem cartels brought up were how easy it was for GMs to scout nearly the whole draft at a cheap rate. Selfishly I'd love to be able to see more scouts for cheaper, and I think scouting/drafting/player development is the most fun part of this league. But I think the limits have accomplished what they meant to and even with some individual sharing we no longer have GMs with info on 20+ prospects before the draft even starts.
Ank - I like the current system. It works well. We need things that require cash. It leads to great content like this roundtable.
Dirt – The current system and the cartel are on in the same. GMs are closer than others and GMs know who are friendly enough to share the scouts they have. It’s really irrelevant at this time because GMs will find a way to get as many scouts as possible. If this rule keeps people from bitching in shout lets just keep it. I really don’t mind either way.
9. Bouncing off of #8. What GM would you like to see return? Why?
BK - i would love to see soup come back. i think he is a great guy and a great gm.
Druce - Anyone who is active, because ultimately the league is better with more active GMs. Soup and Bankz provided content, drama, activity. Skrouse was always around, JHB. Literally anyone who is active I'd like to have back.
Majic - Skrouse is the easy answer for me. I always liked skrouse, he was a solid GM and was always a good presence in shout. I loved his additional of the Skrouse market and was sad to see that go when he left. I think skrouse would be the easy answer of the first GM I would like to see back.
Pete - Any and all of them. I would love to see as few computeams as possible and a lot of the GMs we've lost (Soup, Bankz, JHB, Skrouse, Ward) were good for the overall activity of the league. I think if anyone wants to come back they should, although I think if the scouting restrictions are keeping GMs away I'd rather just stick to the rule as is, because it's a sign that something else will probably cause them to quit the next time Eric makes a decision they disagree with.
Ank – Soup would be a good return candidate. He needs to redeem himself after cratering so hard. Doesn't seem like he can cut it in a wheel league? Bruns would be another excellent addition. Everybody loves Bruns! Solid GM, good guy, strong shout presence (although weaker now that he has a fully finished basesment).
Dirt – All the members of TXIA. Bruns, Buster and Soup will always have a place in my sim heart. I miss playing xbox with all those guys but of course time rolls on and kids ruin everything. I love this software for the good and bad and wish others could view it like I do. RIP TXIA.
10. When do we say 6.0 is too inflated and start to possibly transition into 7.0?
BK - when we run out of draft classes
Druce - Every league I've been in has gotten inflated, it just is what it is. Look at the creation draft to now. I think we roll 7.0 after we've used up all the draft classes and they've had a chance to run their course.
Majic - I have no intention to push for 7.0 anytime soon. We easily made it into the late 40's of 5.0 before we started discussing a plan for 6.0. I would like to see us stick out 5.0 for as long as possible, or at least for as long as we have draft classes.
Pete - Getting the 03 draft and 86 draft so close together is going to stretch our limits. 6.0 talent levels are much higher than they were at the start but I think they compare well with where we were 10 seasons ago, which is a sign that it's not running amok. If we get to a point where perimeter scorers and outside focus becomes the dominant trend, or we have a top ten shotblocker group with several guys averaging 4+ per game, that would be a sign that we're heading to 4.0 territory and it might be time to consider a reboot.
Ank - Inflation is ok so long as the pace is slow. Because then everyone can inflate together. And we certainly are a long way off from the wild inflation of 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0. There's certainly been inflation but nothing that has alarmed me too m.... *Looks at LeBron's grades as an 18 year old with A Potential
Dirt – I think we're pretty far away from inflation. I think the teams seem better because obviously we don’t have as many GMs. Even after drafting LBJ this year, if someone told me we could get 29 teams if we went to 7.0 right now, I would be all for it. As of now it’s just finding bodies to take over teams. We only have a handful of stud PGs and in my opinion that’s the opposite of inflation. Too many great PGs could really kill a league in a hurry. Or having 15 players with 5 bleals. We don’t have that so I think we are good for some time.
