Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 77

Thread: OFFICIAL DISCUSSION THREAD: Legacy Discount

  1. #51
    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 Malificent
    A huge change? This is not going to affect enough players to be labeled as a huge change and this comes from someone who is firmly undecided on the issue. RFA itself was a huge change. A legacy discount is not a "huge change to the fundamental operations of the league".
    Franchise player designations, no-trade clauses, and potential 35-40% discounts are huge changes.

    All a matter of opinion.
    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



  2. #52
    Beloved Former Owner Daimyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Berkeley
    Posts
    4,168

    Default

    35-40% discounts on those few 35-36 year old, near-coppage, loyal-rated players who spent their whole career with the same team and will now be untradable even as they die you mean.

  3. #53
    Beloved Former Owner Malificent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    5,384

    Default

    I would be more willing to vote for this if the length of time on a team was extended. Right now, you get it after a player's first non-100K contract and that doesn't strike me as long enough to get a legacy discount. The player doesn't have a choice during the first 5 years.
    Selling my fine art photography at Fragilescape and blogging about it at Fragilescript.

  4. #54
    FOBL Commissioner Simms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Lake Ridge, VA
    Posts
    11,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subby
    Then please show me another measure we have ever brought out of initial discussion to official discussion to vote in three weeks.

    We are about to vote on a brand new idea hatched less than two weeks ago that is going to make a huge change to the fundamental operations of the league.

    Yes, I think we are going to vote too soon.
    I think calling this a "huge change to the fundamental operations of the league" is stretching things just a bit. I'd be surprised to see this used for more than a handful (4-5) players each season. It's not like we're suddenly going to see massive bargains for every team at the negotiating table. This won't exactly be a once-in-a-blue-moon type of thing, but it'll be close. And by-and-large, it *will* only end up being used on the Mansour's and Amann's of the league. Sure, there will be exceptions, but I do feel that you're drastically overstating the effect this is going to have in the long-term.

    Second, so what about the timing? As long as 12 other people feel the same as you, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The vote will fail and it'll be like nothing ever happened.

    I'll say it again...there was a proposal. People discussd it. The discussion stopped. There was a revised proposal. People discussed it again. Discussion stopped. Now there's a new revised proposal and people are discussing it. Would you rather I'd waited two more weeks? What would that have accomplished, other than getting four more pages of Subby and TRO vs. Duke and Al? The people who are opposed to this seem to keep bringing it up in hopes of inspiring others to chime in, but nobody does. There are a few dominant voices and then everybody else. Of the people who bothered to take the time and post their thoughts and concerns, the support was sufficient enough to warrant a vote. Two more weeks wouldn't have changed anything....the same people would be doing most of the talking, and the same people would not be saying word one until it was time to vote. Check other discussions...the MO is always the same.

    The fact that this came to a vote in three weeks instead of five can probably be attributed more to the fact that I wasn't simply sitting on my ass twiddling my thumbs for longer than I usually do than to anything else. Again, I ask....so what?
    FOBL Commissioner, 2001-2010
    Owner/General Manager, Wichita Tumbleweeds, 2001 to present
    Prairie/Skates Division Winner: 2003, 2014, 2022, 2024, 2025, 2033, 2034, 2046
    Wild Card/Skates Divisional Playoff: 2004, 2006, 2015, 2016, 2036, 2037, 2039, 2040, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2052, 2059
    Gindin League Champions: 2003, 2015
    FOBL Champions: TBD

  5. #55
    Beloved Former Owner Malificent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    5,384

    Default

    39% discount:
    - Loyal (20%)
    - Hometown (5%)
    - 12 years with the team (14%)

    Assuming the player was 21 when they came up, that would be a 33 year old getting the discount.

    What are the objections to replacing the hometown with the legacy discount, other than "hometown already exists, we shouldn't screw with existing bonuses"?
    Selling my fine art photography at Fragilescape and blogging about it at Fragilescript.

  6. #56
    Owner and GM, Washington Piledrivers and Virginia Woodchucks Subby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    17,771

    Default

    Nice to have you back, Commish
    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



  7. #57
    Beloved Former Owner Daimyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Berkeley
    Posts
    4,168

    Default

    How many 21 year olds play in the majors in the FOBL? How many of those are loyal? I think Fasano was about 22 when he came and he's loyal, but over half the guys in the draft are 21+ at draft day.

  8. #58
    FOBL Owner/GM Ryan S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Simms
    Ryan (who's only comment was an "I'm with stupid" smiley)
    I have officially appointed Subby to speak on my behalf in this debate.
    Las Vegas Sucks!!!!

  9. #59
    Beloved Former Owner TRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    9,239

    Default

    For the record, I have no problem with the speed of the process.

    I do worry that it is a knee jerk reaction to what happened to Devinney (who this amendment doesn't effect )

    I don't think it is a huge change to the integrity of the league or anything of the sort, I just think the RFA rules as is provide well enough for keeping your players in tact.

    I'd be more apt to add in a legacy rule which I do think is designed fairly well if it changed hometown and if it meant a scaling back of the LOYAL discount. Alas, I don't believe that a scaling back of the LOYAL discount is possible due to some team building strategies already in place.

    Owner/GM - Alabama Pink Elephants

  10. #60
    Beloved Former Owner tauter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Blaine, MN
    Posts
    3,630

    Default

    I really want to see a "Keep All Your Players for Free and Add All the Quality Players You Want" amendment...


    Owner/GM - Minnesota Windchill - Winter Is Coming
    FOBL Champs: 2012
    Gindin League Champs: 2012
    Wilderness Division Champs: 2012, 2013
    GL Wild Card Winner: 2011



  11. #61
    Beloved Former Owner Malificent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    5,384

    Default

    I think it would be fine if legacy replaced hometown. I think that would shrink possible max discounts enough without having to change the loyalty discount.
    Selling my fine art photography at Fragilescape and blogging about it at Fragilescript.

  12. #62
    FOBL Board of Governors CubsFan915's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    16,505

    Default

    I'd be willing to support Mali's idea if we made it "Take the hometown discount at 5% OR the legacy discount"... As long as the hometown (not legacy) discount has no trade restrictions.
    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

  13. #63
    Beloved Former Owner Malificent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    5,384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CubsFan915
    I'd be willing to support Mali's idea if we made it "Take the hometown discount at 5% OR the legacy discount"... As long as the hometown (not legacy) discount has no trade restrictions.
    I'd be fine with this too.
    Selling my fine art photography at Fragilescape and blogging about it at Fragilescript.

  14. #64
    FOBL Board of Governors CubsFan915's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    16,505

    Default

    Dola... Too bad my boss sits directly behind me and I can't get into the DCM... I'll bet the chat is...interesting... today.
    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

  15. #65
    Beloved Former Owner Malificent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    5,384

    Default

    The chat has actually been pretty mild. Nothing particularly exciting going on.
    Selling my fine art photography at Fragilescape and blogging about it at Fragilescript.

  16. #66
    Beloved Former Owner TheDawgsAreOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,686

    Default

    You can move me to the definitely yes side, Simms. While I share some of Subby's concerns that discounts are too big, I am viewing this amendment in a vacuum - is it good to add these discounts? The answer, to me, is clearly yes. I've made it clear that any problem I have lies with the size of the loyalty bonuses. Those aren't changing, so I'll live with them.
    Prairie Division Champions - 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2023
    Gindin League Champions - 2011, 2013, 2023
    FOBL Champions - 2013, 2023

  17. #67
    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 TheDawgsAreOut
    You can move me to the definitely yes side, Simms. While I share some of Subby's concerns that discounts are too big, I am viewing this amendment in a vacuum - is it good to add these discounts? The answer, to me, is clearly yes. I've made it clear that any problem I have lies with the size of the loyalty bonuses. Those aren't changing, so I'll live with them.
    If I were you I would support it also...you'll get a 22% discount on Reedy as opposed to a 10% one. That is the nice thing about this idea.

    This is where the system works.

    I guess I have a hard time envisioning how this will look in 3 or 4 seasons. Maybe I am over-reacting. Maybe with the sped-up dev cycle in ootp5 no one will want to lock in.

    We'll see.
    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



  18. #68
    FOBL Board of Governors Hollywood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    22,696

    Default

    DEFCON 69!

  19. #69
    FOBL Owner/GM Buddy Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    9,838

    Default

    If it was not too much trouble, could we tack on a Nickname Restrictionsbegone rider to this amendment minutes before voting begins?

  20. #70
    FOBL Owner/GM Drake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    8,603

    Default

    Let's vote already, fuckwits!
    Nemesis of sporr *to be named later

  21. #71
    Beloved Former Owner alhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malificent
    I would be more willing to vote for this if the length of time on a team was extended. Right now, you get it after a player's first non-100K contract and that doesn't strike me as long enough to get a legacy discount. The player doesn't have a choice during the first 5 years.
    You don't get the discount on the first contract, and, assuming most contracts are three years, this means that no legacy discounts kick in until a player is an 8-year vet, somewhere between 30-33 years old. And that's assuming the guy isn't ever traded or anything like that.

    Most OOTP major league careers aren't more than 12-15 years total anyway, assuming no injuries, bad dev hits, etx..


    Mars Martians: FOFL Champions 2007, 2008

  22. #72
    Beloved Former Owner DukeRulesMAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Frankfort, KY
    Posts
    9,755

    Default

    Couple points as I wade through the discussion...

    - Simms' vote breakdown was the exact reason I agreed with moving this to the official discussion thread stage. The chat vote breakdown added nothing to the no side.

    - The reason I put in a vote date (as I have in every single "Official Discussion Thread" I've ever posted), is that the imminence of an actual vote stands a better possibility of bringing in any late arriving voices. It also is a signal to those who would rather sit out the day-to-day arguments that the discussion is about to go to vote, so now would be a good time to chime in.

    Obviously, if the perceived apparent support from the original thread devolves into bickering in the official discussion thread, the vote can be postponed.

    - Subby sez:

    Then please show me another measure we have ever brought out of initial discussion to official discussion to vote in three weeks.
    Bing posted the full-time Sunday sim amendment on on 4/20/03. It went to official discussion stage on 5/2/03, and was voted on beginning 5/6/03.

    I'll also note that that short period of time that you seem to think is railroading was more than enough time for the support to flounder, and the amendment to die by a decent margin.

    - In response to Mali's statements, I wasn't quite sure what he was getting at, but I do want to make clear that this discount will apply to a player's *second* non-rookie deal, not his first. I specifically engineered the time table to start tallying on the 6th year, so that the owner had to show a commitment to the player before getting the bonus.

    - Yes, there is a chance a still-productive 33 year old could get a massive bonus. This is a tiny number of players, hardly enough to make a difference. And the odds of anyone surviving that many years of dev are pretty low. I'll also remind people that coppaging commences earlier in v5, though how much earlier is hard to say.

    - Finally, in response to Mali's question, I think there are a large (enough) number of people around that would oppose making the hometown discount untradable that is would make the amendment unpassable. It is entirely possible that I am wrong, please feel free to run on a poll on the issue, and if I am, we'll re-write the amendment.


    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

  23. #73
    Beloved Former Owner DukeRulesMAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Frankfort, KY
    Posts
    9,755

    Default

    I will now make my case for the amendment. I believe it does a number of positive things for the league.

    - It gives a bonus to players who are not hometowners, but have spent a large number of years with a team. See: Applegate/McIntosh/Amann/Leung/etc.

    - It encourages having some stars stay with one team (or two teams if traded early enough) their whole career. It is my belief that as RFA stands, the true FOBL stars such as JJ and Dorazio and Ohl will be passed around like a not-so-cheap whore from the time they get their first real contract to the time they coppage, because once they shake loose from their original team, they become just a rent-a-bat for one or two seasons for their new team, and are shuffled around for the rest of their existence. This is something I would like to see less and less of over time.

    - This in effect lowers the Qualifying Offer for coppaging players who have spent their whole career with a team. The largest bonuses given will be to players who are so old and (largely) bad that it's just letting the owner keep an old favorite cheaper and easier than he could under the current system.

    - I think this is a very underrated point, but this *may* help FOBL slightly with its extreme low payroll and low win teams. As it stands now, there is no reason for a "tanking" team to hold onto a longtime star. In fact, some would argue it is a bad idea. For example, when SEM breaks up this year, it could trade Dorazio, knowing in all likelihood when they are back on top, they can just bring him back if they want. Makes for more effective tanking.

    As an example, this amendment gives Seminole a very good reason to keep Dorazio. If they grit their teeth for this contract, he'll be more reasonable next time around when SEM is ready to compete, and even more reasonable the next (if he's still any good at that point). I don't know that this will change behavior, but it certainly will add an incentive not to trade everything. It certainly can't hurt.


    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

  24. #74
    FOBL Board of Governors Morgado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    6,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tauter View Post
    To me this sounds like the player can never have played for another team, ever. Shouldn't the "without playing for any other team" be clarified to "any other team during that time period"?
    Since this was never adequately answered the first time around, I would like to clarify and be sure I am understanding this correctly. Based on post 18 of this thread by shaw that gives Jihad Amann's situation as an example and is implicitly confirmed by Subby immediately thereafter as well as followed on by a reinforcing example from Cubs using Iron Leung, I am assuming the controlling part of the subsection at the start is only referring to the current team's current unbroken string of consecutive seasons and not referencing any other pre-existing unbroken string of seasons with that team for that player (which is essentially what tauter is understanding this to be).

    The current language is slightly different from that used by He Who Shall Not Be Named at the start of this thread. From the shawstitution, the relevant subsection is:

    3) Legacy Discount:
    If a current team wins an auction, it may elect to apply an additional, optional “legacy” discount on players who have spent more than 5 consecutive seasons with the current team. The legacy discount shall equal 2% multiplied by the number of consecutive seasons beyond 5 that the player has spent on the current team while playing under a paid (non-MLC) contract and without playing for any other team. If the current team 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.
    What's funny is this thread gave me a few semi-profound thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by He Who Shall Not Be Named
    I think this is a very underrated point, but this *may* help FOBL slightly with its extreme low payroll and low win teams. As it stands now, there is no reason for a "tanking" team to hold onto a longtime star. In fact, some would argue it is a bad idea. For example, when SEM breaks up this year, it could trade Dorazio, knowing in all likelihood when they are back on top, they can just bring him back if they want. Makes for more effective tanking.
    Amazingly prescient, since this combined with the new cash cap and salary floor rules are actually making me plan exactly in this manner.

    Quote Originally Posted by He Who Shall Not Be Named
    It encourages having some stars stay with one team (or two teams if traded early enough) their whole career. It is my belief that as RFA stands, the true FOBL stars such as JJ and Dorazio and Ohl will be passed around like a not-so-cheap whore from the time they get their first real contract to the time they coppage, because once they shake loose from their original team, they become just a rent-a-bat for one or two seasons for their new team, and are shuffled around for the rest of their existence. This is something I would like to see less and less of over time.
    And that right there makes me feel like an ABSOLUTE FUCKING SHITTY ASSHOLE for what I am contemplating doing in the 2045 offseason. Cuz it's so fucking true.
    Last edited by Morgado; 10-26-2012 at 09:47 AM.

    Davenport Falcons - 2043 FOBL Solecismic Series Winners

    (05 OCT 2011) 09:56:52 am [kurtism]: morg is the honey badger of economic analysts
    Jenny's Constant = [(7^((e/1)-(1/e)) - 9)]*(pi)^2
    I ♣ baby seals.
    *shurg* \_(ツ)_/

  25. #75
    Owner and GM, Washington Piledrivers and Virginia Woodchucks Subby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    17,771

    Default

    Wow I really hate myself some times. Sorry Simms.
    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



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
  •