Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77

Thread: OFFICIAL DISCUSSION THREAD: Legacy Discount

  1. #1
    Beloved Former Owner DukeRulesMAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Frankfort, KY
    Posts
    9,755

    Default OFFICIAL DISCUSSION THREAD: Legacy Discount

    The following amendment will go up for vote next Monday (August 4). Please discuss fully, and point out any needed corrections (either substanlive or linguistic) before then. Also use this thread to make your final cases, pro and con.

    ----------------------------------

    Added to section V.E.2, after the Hometown Discount paragraph:

    Legacy Discount

    For every consecutive season beyond 5 that a player has spent on his current team while playing under a paid (non-MLC) contract and without playing for any other team, that team shall receive an additional, optional 2% discount on that player when matching him. If the owner elects to take this legacy discount, the player is then untradable for the length of his new contract. To indicate that the player is untradable, one dollar shall be added to his annual salary.

    This bonus shall not affect the amounts of the any other applicable discounts, nor shall it affect the ability to trade such discounts if the legacy discount is not used.

    The following section V.E.2 shall be amended from:

    Under no circumstances may the final salary of a player who has received a Qualifying Offer fall below the salary of the Qualifying Offer minus the relevant hometown and loyalty discounts.
    to:

    Under no circumstances may the final salary of a player who has received a Qualifying Offer fall below the salary of the Qualifying Offer minus the relevant hometown, loyalty, and legacy discounts.
    To the extent that the Constitution refers to "hometown and loyalty" discounts elsewhere in the free agency section, the BoG or their delegate has the authority to edit this language in a non-substantive manner to reflect existence of the legacy discount.

    ------------------------------------------------

    This amendment shall go into effect immediately following the 2011 Solecismic Series.


    Owner/General Manger (no longer former this either!) - Kentucky Juggernaut

    Front Office Baseball League Champions: 2011, 2056
    Vaughan League Champions: 2009, 2011, 2012
    Gindin League Champions: 2056, 2057
    Calzone Division Champions: 2011, 2012, 2013
    DEFCON Division Champions: 2058, 2059, 2060
    Vaughan League Wild Card: 2006, 2009



    Owner/General Manager (no longer former!) - Austin Amish

    Front Office Football League Champions: 2054
    AC Champions: 2054
    AC South Champions: 2005, 2006
    AC West Champions: 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055
    AC Wild Card: 2007, 2008, 2043, 2045

    Inaugural FOFL Commissioner

  2. #2
    Owner and GM, Washington Piledrivers and Virginia Woodchucks Subby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    17,771

    Default

    I am voting no for the following reasons:

    1) The discounts we give for hometown players are already significant. Additional discounts are akin to FOBL welfare.

    2) I fully support the notion of team cohesion and "keeping a team together", but as with any team-building strategy, this should come at a cost - teams should plan for such a strategy by drafting and trading for LOYAL guys - not by getting additional handouts from the league (in the form of deep discounting.)

    3) I love the idea of "no-trade" clauses, but would prefer to see them applied to guys who agree to the deep 25% discount we currently give out.

    Losing core guys is part of the game (see the Oakland A's). The best GMs will strategize for the inevitability. Some of the hand-wringing that has taken place over the previous occurences in RFA will be solved by the current match and trade proposal being discussed.
    Virginia Woodchucks 2001-2035, 2039-present
    2004, 2010 Solecismic Series Champions
    Gindin League Champions (4) 2004, 2010, 2032, 2060
    Wilderness/Skates Division Champs (9) 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2045, 2048, 2058, 2060



  3. #3
    Beloved Former Owner TRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    9,239

    Default

    I too am voting NO, for many of the same reasons as Subby, but also because...

    4) Most players that will make it to the point of deserving this legacy discount will be those that their owners do not intend to trade anyway. If they are not intending to trade them, there is no "teeth" to the no-trade clause.

    Owner/GM - Alabama Pink Elephants

  4. #4
    Beloved Former Owner alhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,252

    Default

    As a "yes" man, I will answer the criticisms of the Woodchuck Daddy and TRA:


    1) The discounts we give for hometown players are already significant. Additional discounts are akin to FOBL welfare.

    This is silly. To get this discount, you have to do a lot of long term planning so that you can keep a guy through multiple RFA periods. Moreover, you have to pay a guy full market value once, and nearly full market value a second time.

    The current discounts are generally not a lot. We hear a lot about a guy like Fred Bush, but Bush is the exception, not the rule. Most guys only have discounts of no more than 15%. Many have discounts as low as 5%.

    As far as this being welfare, it's not welfare because all 36 teams get this. Welfare, by it nature is redistributive.

    The legacy discounts leave every team where they were in the first place, but instead of losing a guy you've had for many real life years and replacing him with a similar guy you have no attachment to, this discounts allows the league to avoid a tiny bit of the endless turnover hurricane and keep some continuity with the core guys with whom you have a special connection.

    The only way you don't get access to this discount is if you frequently turn over your teams through manic trading or build your teams through aggressive RFA bidding and then nuke them every few years.

    2) I fully support the notion of team cohesion and "keeping a team together", but as with any team-building strategy, this should come at a cost - teams should plan for such a strategy by drafting and trading for LOYAL guys - not by getting additional handouts from the league (in the form of deep discounting.)

    This ignores the fact that the legacy discount is not just another bonus. The trade ban is the big key here. To get this discount, you lose:

    1. The ability to trade the player if your team doesn't turn out as good as you hoped.

    2. The trade value in this discount AND the other discounts.

    3. The ability to cut your losses if the guy coppages, gets hurt, etc.

    Moreover, the discounts really dont kick in until the player is on the tail end of their career. This works well because the QO system as it stands is incredibly unforgiving for guys who are getting old and whose value is fading fast. Where this bonus makes a difference is for those 33-34 year old guys who we'd like to see be one team guys for their whole career.

    3) I love the idea of "no-trade" clauses, but would prefer to see them applied to guys who agree to the deep 25% discount [b]we currently give out.

    Losing core guys is part of the game (see the Oakland A's). The best GMs will strategize for the inevitability. Some of the hand-wringing that has taken place over the previous occurences in RFA will be solved by the current match and trade proposal being discussed.


    Subby apparently would like to peel back the RFA discounts we already have by sticking them with the no-trade discount. I don't think this reflects a mainstream position on RFA.

    Losing core guys is indeed part of the game. The legacy discount isn't something that's going to be used for whole teams. If you really think about how it would come to be used, you realize that this is something that is only going to be reserved for special guys.

    I think the match and trade proposal has potential to be helpful, but I think myself and some other owners see the match and trade as a package of reforms with the legacy discount. I think we need both, and I'm not sure I would support the one without the other.

    4) Most players that will make it to the point of deserving this legacy discount will be those that their owners do not intend to trade anyway. If they are not intending to trade them, there is no "teeth" to the no-trade clause.

    I dont think this is the case. People think all the time that they will never trade a certain guy. NM never thought he would trade Behm, Subby has designated ten different guys "Woodchucks for Life" who are now on other teams. TRO had McIntosh trade blocked earlier this year.

    As I've said before, this discount hands out a privilege and a responsibility. If you sign on the dotted line, you get the guy cheaper. However, you sign on the dotted line in blood. You give something back to the league by giving the league the enjoyment of seeing that guy stay on one team.


    Mars Martians: FOFL Champions 2007, 2008

  5. #5
    Owner and GM, Washington Piledrivers and Virginia Woodchucks Subby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    17,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alhill
    The only way you don't get access to this discount is if you frequently turn over your teams through manic trading or build your teams through aggressive RFA bidding and then nuke them every few years.
    Why should your notion of "proper" team-building get more of an advantage than mine? Please explain to me why core players are so inherently superior that you can get up to and above an additional 10% discount to an already discounted deal?

    It is FOBL welfare because not everyone chooses the "core strategy" path. You are unduly penalizing owners that get enjoyment out of team-building through trades and RFA and roster tinkering.

    I just don't understand why the current deep discounts aren't enough...
    Quote Originally Posted by alhill
    Subby apparently would like to peel back the RFA discounts we already have by sticking them with the no-trade discount. I don't think this reflects a mainstream position on RFA.
    I don't think there is anything untoward about adding a no-trade clause to guys who get a 25% discount to the market. I have no interest in reflecting the "mainstream" view of FOBL owners, either. I am interested in developing a fair rule set with which all owners can compete. Anyway - that was just me thinking outside of this amendment and has no bearing on the current discussion.
    Last edited by Subby; 07-28-2003 at 04:18 PM.
    Virginia Woodchucks 2001-2035, 2039-present
    2004, 2010 Solecismic Series Champions
    Gindin League Champions (4) 2004, 2010, 2032, 2060
    Wilderness/Skates Division Champs (9) 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2045, 2048, 2058, 2060



  6. #6
    Beloved Former Owner alhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,252

    Default

    Easy, boy. I don't believe I commented on the desirability of one team-building strategy over the other. I was merely answering your charge that the legacy discount was "welfare" by pointing out that everyone had equal access to the discount unless they chose not to utilize it.


    Mars Martians: FOFL Champions 2007, 2008

  7. #7
    Beloved Former Owner DukeRulesMAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Frankfort, KY
    Posts
    9,755

    Default

    You are unduly penalizing owners that get enjoyment out of team-building through trades and RFA and roster tinkering.
    You are unduly penalizing owners that get enjoyment out of keeping their rosters consistent over a long period.
    Someone could have made that quote when RFA passed, and you would have deemed it ridiculous. Isn't it at least possible that RFA has swing the pendelum a touch too far toward player movement fluidity? This is not a bonus that is going to affect a huge number of players, in fact the number of players it will significantly affect is very low. What it does do is give a little bit of comfort to those owners who have a different team building strategy than you, after having their strategy more or less flushed with the passage of RFA.

    Lord knows there is no bigger supporter of RFA than me, but I don't want 90% of FOBL's stars to turn into 1-2 season rent-a-players, and this will help dial back the obvious current trend toward that.


    Owner/General Manger (no longer former this either!) - Kentucky Juggernaut

    Front Office Baseball League Champions: 2011, 2056
    Vaughan League Champions: 2009, 2011, 2012
    Gindin League Champions: 2056, 2057
    Calzone Division Champions: 2011, 2012, 2013
    DEFCON Division Champions: 2058, 2059, 2060
    Vaughan League Wild Card: 2006, 2009



    Owner/General Manager (no longer former!) - Austin Amish

    Front Office Football League Champions: 2054
    AC Champions: 2054
    AC South Champions: 2005, 2006
    AC West Champions: 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055
    AC Wild Card: 2007, 2008, 2043, 2045

    Inaugural FOFL Commissioner

  8. #8
    Owner and GM, Washington Piledrivers and Virginia Woodchucks Subby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    17,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alhill
    Easy, boy. I don't believe I commented on the desirability of one team-building strategy over the other. I was merely answering your charge that the legacy discount was "welfare" by pointing out that everyone had equal access to the discount unless they chose not to utilize it.
    It favors one team-building strategy over another. Thus it is welfare for owners that favor that path...

    Boy.
    Virginia Woodchucks 2001-2035, 2039-present
    2004, 2010 Solecismic Series Champions
    Gindin League Champions (4) 2004, 2010, 2032, 2060
    Wilderness/Skates Division Champs (9) 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2045, 2048, 2058, 2060



  9. #9
    Owner and GM, Washington Piledrivers and Virginia Woodchucks Subby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    17,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DukeRulesMAB
    What it does do is give a little bit of comfort to those owners who have a different team building strategy than you, after having their strategy more or less flushed with the passage of RFA.
    Then I would suggest those owners vote for the match and trade amendment and draft loyal players. They already get a 10-25% discount on their homegrown guys...
    Virginia Woodchucks 2001-2035, 2039-present
    2004, 2010 Solecismic Series Champions
    Gindin League Champions (4) 2004, 2010, 2032, 2060
    Wilderness/Skates Division Champs (9) 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2045, 2048, 2058, 2060



  10. #10
    FOBL Owner/GM Buddy Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    9,838

    Default

    The homegrown player discount is only 5% - that is almost nothing. The main RFA discounts have nothing to do with how long a player has been on one team.

  11. #11
    Beloved Former Owner DukeRulesMAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Frankfort, KY
    Posts
    9,755

    Default

    So basically, your response is "I like the churn 'em strategy, so fuck this keep 'em shit."

    I say this not to accuse you of voting out of self-interest, because we both know you'll adjust to whatever is passed. But you basically dislike this amendment because you have more fun playing the "churn 'em" style, which you fear will be less viable if this goes through.

    I personally would prefer the league have a little more stability. If nothing else, as al has pointed out deftly, this might encourage rebuilding teams to keep a player or two, and cause less of the 5M/30 win teams. I also think having a number of one team players is cooler than having mostly stars who have 10 different teams on their resume when they retire.

    It's a matter of personal preference, and I respect your view. When this goes to vote, I guess we'll find out which one is more popular.


    Owner/General Manger (no longer former this either!) - Kentucky Juggernaut

    Front Office Baseball League Champions: 2011, 2056
    Vaughan League Champions: 2009, 2011, 2012
    Gindin League Champions: 2056, 2057
    Calzone Division Champions: 2011, 2012, 2013
    DEFCON Division Champions: 2058, 2059, 2060
    Vaughan League Wild Card: 2006, 2009



    Owner/General Manager (no longer former!) - Austin Amish

    Front Office Football League Champions: 2054
    AC Champions: 2054
    AC South Champions: 2005, 2006
    AC West Champions: 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055
    AC Wild Card: 2007, 2008, 2043, 2045

    Inaugural FOFL Commissioner

  12. #12
    Owner and GM, Washington Piledrivers and Virginia Woodchucks Subby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    17,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DukeRulesMAB
    So basically, your response is "I like the churn 'em strategy, so fuck this keep 'em shit."

    I say this not to accuse you of voting out of self-interest, because we both know you'll adjust to whatever is passed. But you basically dislike this amendment because you have more fun playing the "churn 'em" style, which you fear will be less viable if this goes through.
    I don't prefer one strategy over the other, actually. This "keep 'em shit" (as you put it) is perfectly acceptable to me. I could just as easily build a core group of 2-3 players using the loyalty discount and hometown bonus currently available.

    My point is that we already have deep discounts available to owners that want to pursue the core strategy. Why do we need to pile an additional 6-18% discount on top of all that? You make it sound like we are starting at zero bonus and I am advocating staying there. Which is not reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeRulesMAB
    I personally would prefer the league have a little more stability. If nothing else, as al has pointed out deftly, this might encourage rebuilding teams to keep a player or two, and cause less of the 5M/30 win teams. I also think having a number of one team players is cooler than having mostly stars who have 10 different teams on their resume when they retire.
    Might. Might not. If you want a more aesthetically-pleasing career stats page, then perhaps we should look at the root causes of excessive player movement (tanking, no match and trade amemdment, absence of no-trade clause for 25% guys) instead of reflexively jacking up the discounts on players.
    Virginia Woodchucks 2001-2035, 2039-present
    2004, 2010 Solecismic Series Champions
    Gindin League Champions (4) 2004, 2010, 2032, 2060
    Wilderness/Skates Division Champs (9) 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2045, 2048, 2058, 2060



  13. #13
    FOBL Owner/GM clintl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    5,948

    Default

    I am voting Yes.
    FOBL Santa Cruz Sea Lions
    2008 Solecismic Series Champions
    2008, 2030 Gindin League Champions
    2008, 2012, 2016 Dola Division Champions
    2041 DEFCON Division Champions
    2009, 2019, 2029, 2030 Gindin League Wild Card

    FOFL Davis Toads
    2033, 2034 NC Conference Champions
    2012, 2019, 2023, 2031, 2033, 2034 NC West Champions
    2004, 2005, 2006, 2035, 2038 NC Wild Card

  14. #14
    Beloved Former Owner alhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,252

    Default

    It's a rare day when Duke and I agree on something, and I think he hits the nail on the head:

    The RFA system as it is currently designed is imbalanced in favor of the trade churn/FA churn strategy. The people that enjoy this strategy have had this endeavor made extremely easy since RFA, while the team builders have been running uphill.

    What the legacy discount does is give the team builders an extreme weapon of self-defense to allow them to protect one or two players that are especially important to them. They still have to pay for those guys: at their peak age the most likely discount increase will be from 5% to 11% or 15% to 21%, not a particularly generous "welfare" check, by any stretch.

    Churners will still be able to churn away; the number of legacy discounted players will not be large.

    In a way, I see this as a form of a franchise player tag, which I think most people would like to see, but for which we haven't come up with a workable way of implementing.

    But in the end, it gets us to a more fair balance between play styles than we currently have.


    Mars Martians: FOFL Champions 2007, 2008

  15. #15
    FOBL Owner/GM frozenrope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    8,867

    Default

    I think the main point of contention is "what amount of discount is deemed appropriate to slap a no-trade rule on him?"

    Subby thinks the current discounts should have the no-trade rule; Al thinks that additional discounts should have the no-trade rule and that the current discounts should be made to be flexible. At least that's how I'm seeing this.

    If that's the case, I would have to go with Subby on this one. I don't think that loyalty discounts and homegrown discounts should be utilized and then traded away to someone else. If that piece of RFA is changed, then the legacy discounts are moot. I don't think that we should throw more discounts to a team just to get them to take the risk of keeping him. *shurg*

    Show me where I'm wrong on how I'm perceiving this debate and I might change my tune.


    'Tragedy is when I stub my toe. Comedy is when you fall down a manhole and die." - Mel Brooks

    "Prophet Harold Camping who predicted the end of the world has died. That's kinda sad but its not the end of the world" -
    Eric Idle

  16. #16
    FOBL Owner/GM clintl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    5,948

    Default

    I think the opponents of this are way overreacting to the impact. Out of my entire roster, there are only six players who would be eligible for legacy discounts the next time they come up for RFA if this were in place now - Joan Cross, Harry Mayer, Lenny Phillips, Merrill Halley, Jerome Carillo, and Alan Hurst. And out of those six, Cross and Mayer will be coppaging at that point, and Halley has had a talent hit that makes it unlikely I will give him a QO next time. Carillo and Hurst are minsal depth guys I keep signing and keeping at AAA (and are old now, anyway). Thus, Phillips is the only guy that I would be able to use it on in the near future. And I suspect that most teams are in similar situations. There just aren't going to be very many guys that this would apply to.

    As a compromise, I would support dropping the "Loyal" discount from 20% to 15%, but beyond that, I like this as an addition, not as a substitution.
    FOBL Santa Cruz Sea Lions
    2008 Solecismic Series Champions
    2008, 2030 Gindin League Champions
    2008, 2012, 2016 Dola Division Champions
    2041 DEFCON Division Champions
    2009, 2019, 2029, 2030 Gindin League Wild Card

    FOFL Davis Toads
    2033, 2034 NC Conference Champions
    2012, 2019, 2023, 2031, 2033, 2034 NC West Champions
    2004, 2005, 2006, 2035, 2038 NC Wild Card

  17. #17
    Beloved Former Owner Daimyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Berkeley
    Posts
    4,168

    Default

    My impression is that right now the league is obviously slanted toward the rent-a-player strategy for the best FA's. I think guys like JJ and Ohl are just as likely to play for a new team every season right now as they are to stick with the same team for even three seasons.

    I don't think this amendment will drastically change that, but it is at least a small step toward balance.

  18. #18
    FOBL Board of Governors Hollywood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    22,696

    Default

    I agree with Al, Duke, Clint and Daimyo. I am voting a hearty YES to this and I urge others to do the same.

    It is ridiculous that a guy like Amann, who has been on my team for 10 years, gets no hometown bonus and no bonus tied to his longevity with my team. This amendment wouldn't help me in the short run, but I like the policies it rewards.

  19. #19
    Owner and GM, Washington Piledrivers and Virginia Woodchucks Subby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    17,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood
    It is ridiculous that a guy like Amann, who has been on my team for 10 years, gets no hometown bonus and no bonus tied to his longevity with my team. This amendment wouldn't help me in the short run, but I like the policies it rewards.
    I like the rule in Amann's case. In my opinion, he should be the poster child for the amendment.

    If the discount was capped at a total of 25% and guys that got a 20-25% discount to the market were given no-trade clauses, I would support it in a heartbeat.

    As it is, expecting a guy in the prime of his career to give you a 31%+ discount is ridiculous...
    Virginia Woodchucks 2001-2035, 2039-present
    2004, 2010 Solecismic Series Champions
    Gindin League Champions (4) 2004, 2010, 2032, 2060
    Wilderness/Skates Division Champs (9) 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2045, 2048, 2058, 2060



  20. #20
    FOBL Board of Governors CubsFan915's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    16,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood
    I agree with Al, Duke, Clint and Daimyo. I am voting a hearty YES to this and I urge others to do the same.

    It is ridiculous that a guy like Amann, who has been on my team for 10 years, gets no hometown bonus and no bonus tied to his longevity with my team. This amendment wouldn't help me in the short run, but I like the policies it rewards.
    Steve, thanks for pointing somebody else out. I was feeling kinda bad that I was going to point out Bryan Leung who was acquired in the 2002 season. Does anybody consider Leung to be a Billyclub? Hell, does anyone (besides CJP and me) even remember that Leung was a Billyclub at one point? By the time his next RFA comes up, Leung will have been on my team 10 complete seasons, and most of an 11th, and despite all of that, I only get 10%. I don't get a hometown bonus, and I don't get anything for making it a point to being him back - especially this season, when bringing him back makes it likely that I won't be able to afford either Kaster or (original Confed) Stefan Miller. (OK, I'm also being restricted because I brought back original Confed Ryan Mansour, and Confed 2003 draftee Clyde Tilly - I probably should have let one of them walk.)

    I think clintl's got a good compromise suggestion - reducing the "loyal" bonus to 15% will scale back some of the most egregious discounts (though I personally don't have a problem with the current discount levels at all) while still providing quite a reward to drafting, or even trading for, those loyal players. But to not allow something to keep a long-time, now fading, star seems a bit much.
    Richmond Confederates

    Gindin League Wild Card 2008, 2018, 2028
    Prairie Division Champion 2009
    Gindin League Champion 2028
    Vaughan League Division Semi-Finalist 2036, 2037, 2038, 2048, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055, 2056
    Skates Division Regular Season Champion 2057
    Skates Division Playoff Champion 2057
    Gindin League Division Semi-Finalist 2058

  21. #21
    Owner and GM, Washington Piledrivers and Virginia Woodchucks Subby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    17,771

    Default

    I thnk this entire amendment needs to be re-written.

    * Merge the legacy and hometown bonuses. Players that have spent at least 5 contiguous years with a team should get a 2% discount per year of service. That would increase the minimum hometown discount to 10% (which, it seems, is what folks are most interested in.)

    * Loyalty bonuses for loyal rated players would be reduced to 15%.

    * Total bonuses would be capped at 30%.

    * Any owner taking 25% or more in bonuses on a player must accept a no-trade on that player for the life of the contract.

    This compromise puts more emphasis on hometown loyalty from the very beginning but is prudent in its limitation of excessive bonus awards.
    Virginia Woodchucks 2001-2035, 2039-present
    2004, 2010 Solecismic Series Champions
    Gindin League Champions (4) 2004, 2010, 2032, 2060
    Wilderness/Skates Division Champs (9) 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2045, 2048, 2058, 2060



  22. #22
    Beloved Former Owner Malificent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    5,384

    Default

    That would be acceptable to me.
    Selling my fine art photography at Fragilescape and blogging about it at Fragilescript.

  23. #23
    Beloved Former Owner TRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    9,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subby
    I thnk this entire amendment needs to be re-written.

    * Merge the legacy and hometown bonuses. Players that have spent at least 5 contiguous years with a team should get a 2% discount per year of service. That would increase the minimum hometown discount to 10% (which, it seems, is what folks are most interested in.)

    * Loyalty bonuses for loyal rated players would be reduced to 15%.

    * Total bonuses would be capped at 30%.

    * Any owner taking 25% or more in bonuses on a player must accept a no-trade on that player for the life of the contract.

    This compromise puts more emphasis on hometown loyalty from the very beginning but is prudent in its limitation of excessive bonus awards.
    I could live with this, though I think the bonus cap is more controversial than the already very controversial drop in LOYAL bonus.

    I love your fourth point the most, and if that were to be included, I wouldn't give a rats ass about a bonus cap.

    Owner/GM - Alabama Pink Elephants

  24. #24
    Beloved Former Owner alhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,252

    Default

    I dont think we should use this amendment as a proxy to undo the discounts that we implemented in RFA. That was a tough enough vote as it was, and people have relied on that for a number of seasons now. I think we should focus on ways we can build upon the RFA system to make things a little easier for teams to keep one or two long-term players to which they've grown attached.

    Subby's suggestions would actually make it HARDER overall for teams to keep their players than the first place. Overall discounts would be lower, and more discounts would be subject to no trade restrictions. This rewriting proposal feels like a Trojan Horse. The current discounts are inadequate for the rare situation of a core player who had played many years for one team. Most of the league wants to add a supplemental discount to the current discount for those rare players. What people don't want is to tear the old discounts down and then to give back a little of that.

    Moreover, Subby's system seems to make it easier to re-sign a guy when he is on his first major league contract, by increasing the hometown discount, which is exactly what people didn't want, and yet harder to sign a guy whose been around for a long time, by capping the total discount. The great thing about legacy discounts is they only help much at the downhill of a guy's career. Subby's alternative piles it on at the beginning and then caps it, so that it will have more effect when a player is younger and less relative effect when the player is older. We need the exact opposite, where the discount starts small when a player hits the market the first few times, and then can get significantly large at the tail-end of the guy's career. That is what the legacy discounts do.


    Mars Martians: FOFL Champions 2007, 2008

  25. #25
    FOBL Owner/GM clintl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    5,948

    Default

    I prefer the amendment as currently written to Subby's version.
    FOBL Santa Cruz Sea Lions
    2008 Solecismic Series Champions
    2008, 2030 Gindin League Champions
    2008, 2012, 2016 Dola Division Champions
    2041 DEFCON Division Champions
    2009, 2019, 2029, 2030 Gindin League Wild Card

    FOFL Davis Toads
    2033, 2034 NC Conference Champions
    2012, 2019, 2023, 2031, 2033, 2034 NC West Champions
    2004, 2005, 2006, 2035, 2038 NC Wild Card

Similar Threads

  1. Official Smiley Collection Thread
    By Simms in forum FOBL General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-03-2003, 08:11 AM
  2. Pool of pee discussion (From the CAP Scouting Thread)
    By Subby in forum FOBL General Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-29-2003, 01:34 AM
  3. IMPORTANT: Official Owner's Caps
    By DukeRulesMAB in forum FOBL General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-20-2003, 12:48 PM
  4. OFFICIAL 2008 Fourth Round Picks Thread
    By Ctown in forum FOBL Draft Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2003, 07:50 AM
  5. OFFICIAL 2008 First Round Picks Thread
    By DukeRulesMAB in forum FOBL Draft Central
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-16-2003, 10:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •