Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 129
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Madisonville, Tennessee, United States
    Posts
    17,640
    vCash
    1500
    this way you don't get a Bonds Clone etc...
    "Some people live an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference in the world, Marines don't have that problem." ~ President Ronald Regan

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    17,661
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyRocks77 View Post
    random thought here say if you rate a comp pick... comp pick will be your 2nd round draft pick..(you don't know what you are getting) gets a % boost... you may let for example you let a Barry Bonds walk.. he rates a type A your 2nd round pick gets a 30% boost in all categories, type B gets 20% type C gets 10% and type D gets 5% or something to that nature??

    Big problem is what if you trade your 2nd? well it would have a little more Value than it does now... and each team would only be allowed one comp a year.. so if you have two players in a walk year who do you resign? ..

    I was just throwing those % numbers out there not sure what a good number would be .. but everyone knows that 2nd round picks are not that great...
    I think that sounds very messy. If we're that concerned about getting a "bonds clone" (which we shouldn't be, since he's a type of player that only comes around once or twice), just change the %'s for comp to like 95 for A, 80 for B, whatever. That'd be a lot easier than fooling around with 2nd round draft picks.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    35,492
    vCash
    1500
    The problem I see for that 2nd round pick thing is that people would want to pick their own 2nd rounders since they know they would be getting boosts for them

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    @MattHunt22
    Posts
    6,310
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by TheKid View Post
    please elaborate because every time it's been brought up before there are always serious flaws and loopholes.
    Quote Originally Posted by metsrock229 View Post
    This is not necessarily true, if a Team has traded away their pick, they can't sign the Comp free agent.
    There would have to be some regulation and I'm sure some people will sign them anyway, but that's fixable
    We would just have to keep track of draft pick trading, which we already do. Heading into the FA sims, we would make it clear which teams can't sign a FA because they've traded away their first. Or prior to simming, the person running the sim can check the teams that can't and withdraw any offers that would not be allowed.

    If a person trades their first the sim of signing someone, then the contract could be nulled. If a person has 2 1st round picks, they could sign 2 FAs worthy of 1st round comp.

    Yeah, it may be more work making sure people don't find loopholes, but they did say they are aware it's more work. I would rather have them put in a little more work than to put in a faulty system. However, all they would have to do after is move 1st round picks around instead of creating comp prospects.


    If You Ain't Huckin, You Ain't ****in

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    City of Albuquerque
    Posts
    8,846
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by PhillyLuver View Post
    I think that sounds very messy. If we're that concerned about getting a "bonds clone" (which we shouldn't be, since he's a type of player that only comes around once or twice), just change the %'s for comp to like 95 for A, 80 for B, whatever. That'd be a lot easier than fooling around with 2nd round draft picks.
    Or put a cap on how high a player's ratings can be while still qualifying for the top comp percentage. For instance, anyone over a certain total ratings number would get 80% comp instead of 100%. No clones of the truly elite once in a generation guys like Bonds and Griffey. But still a chance of a useful player, and the benefit of the added talent gradually increasing the depth of the draft classes, as well as more specs and FAs available and a stimulated trade market.

    Quote Originally Posted by sexicano31 View Post
    The problem I see for that 2nd round pick thing is that people would want to pick their own 2nd rounders since they know they would be getting boosts for them
    Good point, and trying to draft second rounders is a pain in the ***. But the desire to choose your player if it is meant as a comp, even if it's a second rounder, is a fairly reasonable request. Otherwise we'll see a lot of people losing a productive hitter to FA and in return getting a middle reliever in the second round that gets a bump in ratings as compensation. Woopty farts, that's worth a whole lot.

    I am not in danger...I AM the danger.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    282
    vCash
    1500
    Does ootpx support fa compensation? What about using that?

  7. #82
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    35,492
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by azazel529 View Post
    Or put a cap on how high a player's ratings can be while still qualifying for the top comp percentage. For instance, anyone over a certain total ratings number would get 80% comp instead of 100%. No clones of the truly elite once in a generation guys like Bonds and Griffey. But still a chance of a useful player, and the benefit of the added talent gradually increasing the depth of the draft classes, as well as more specs and FAs available and a stimulated trade market.



    Good point, and trying to draft second rounders is a pain in the ***. But the desire to choose your player if it is meant as a comp, even if it's a second rounder, is a fairly reasonable request. Otherwise we'll see a lot of people losing a productive hitter to FA and in return getting a middle reliever in the second round that gets a bump in ratings as compensation. Woopty farts, that's worth a whole lot.
    Thinking about it, it would only(likely) be a handful of people a year so you just open the 2nd round to them.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    @MattHunt22
    Posts
    6,310
    vCash
    500
    How about this idea, I think we could make this work really well. Instead of doing a system of draft pick compensation of 1st rounders, or a system where we edit the ratings of our own 2nd rounders, we can combine the two.

    If I were to sign a comp player, I would have to give up my 2nd rounder to the team that I signed them from. Instead of their own 2nd rounder being improved, it would be the other teams. This way, the team is giving up something to actually sign the player. The team receiving comp not only gets an improved 2nd rounder, but keeps their own.

    This prevents teams from signing multiple comp players/top FAs. This also gives the team the ability to trade their 2nd rounder without worrying about getting comp. This should also increase the value of 2nd rounders in trades, since it would give the ability for a team to sign more than 1 comp player. If I have 3 2nd round picks, it gives me the ability to sign 3 comp players.

    There are loopholes with draft pick compensation without eliminating trading, but I believe I addressed them in my previous post.

    We could also only open up the 2nd round draft to comp picks as well like sexicano said. It would be drafting as if they were supplemental picks. It's pretty simple to move around the players to the right team after autoing the rest of the draft. If we can get 30 picks done in TKO, why can't we get 22/24 + 5 or so more? The supplemental picks don't even have to be done by the time of draft day. The players will be edited and moved around anyway.
    However, who would draft first in the supplemental round? The comp of the player with the highest vorp, then next highest? Or would it go by whoever's comp pick would've been first.

    Also, we could discuss if superstar comp players, that put up 150vorp over 2 years or so, deserve getting a 1st rounder back instead of a 2nd rounder. Since we would be increasing the ratings by a certain %, an edited 1st rounder would be better than a 2nd rounder and much more fair.

    Thoughts? It's a lot of work, but I feel like this system has a ton of potential.


    If You Ain't Huckin, You Ain't ****in

  9. #84
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    35,492
    vCash
    1500
    I can get on board with that

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,634
    vCash
    1500
    I like where mets is going with that, but I would still make first round protected. This way a team gets a compensation for losing a player but not a clone which is ridiculous.

    TKHO'S NJ THUNDERCATS
    METRO CUPS - 1
    FINALIST TROPHIES - 2
    DONINANCE TROPHIES - 1
    DIVISION TITLES - 4


  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    @MattHunt22
    Posts
    6,310
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill_R10 View Post
    I like where mets is going with that, but I would still make first round protected. This way a team gets a compensation for losing a player but not a clone which is ridiculous.
    Well, I feel like the top 5 or top 10 should be protected, the draft usually drops off after that and a 1st round pick may not even be part of the system and if so, should only be for players like Bonds, Griffey, etc.

    Even an edited 1st round pick wouldn't come close to that (outside the protected range).


    If You Ain't Huckin, You Ain't ****in

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,634
    vCash
    1500
    True but honestly there's still a chance at a good player falling to the late first round that after a boost would turn into a guy that should be a top 5-10 pick. I really don't feel that anyone should get a comp that's as good as a top 5 pick.

    TKHO'S NJ THUNDERCATS
    METRO CUPS - 1
    FINALIST TROPHIES - 2
    DONINANCE TROPHIES - 1
    DIVISION TITLES - 4


  13. #88
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    35,492
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill_R10 View Post
    True but honestly there's still a chance at a good player falling to the late first round that after a boost would turn into a guy that should be a top 5-10 pick. I really don't feel that anyone should get a comp that's as good as a top 5 pick.
    TBH that can happen. A recent example, Mike Trout was drafted 25th overall.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    @MattHunt22
    Posts
    6,310
    vCash
    500
    We could also set caps on how good a player can actually get through edits

    For example, say Sexicano let Bonds go instead of extending him. I sign him, he gets my pick and drafts Jose Vidro which would be 12th overall. Outside of the protected range.

    At a 30% boost (random # thrown out earlier), Jose Vidro's stats boost to 88-81-52-61-99
    Barry Bonds sits at 86-69-91-83-65. Maybe we cap ratings to not be any more than 110% of the original players ratings. So Vidro would still have high contact, but his gap would drop to 76, and his AVK would drop to 72.
    Vidro then becomes 88-76-52-61-72. You also have no guarantee that Vidro develops.. so maybe there's a different way to cap the player. Especially since the type of player you'll be drafting is different and you can't exactly use that capping system on pitchers.
    I actually don't mind the ratings of Vidro before the cap. He becomes a really good player, a top 5 2B easily. Just not one of the top players in the league and far from a clone of Bonds. I used Vidro because players that favor ratings in one or two categories benefit from the boost more than evened out players. Carlos Guillen boosts to 77-82-56-72-70. While they're close, Vidro still benefits more.

    Pitchers would be different, Let's take Holt, the 10th pick. He would be protected, but maybe in a different draft that type of player drops out of the protected range.
    With the 30% boost, Chris Holt becomes 55-99-79. I don't think that's alright. That could be the #1 SP prospect.

    I don't think a cap for position players is necessary, but absolutely needed for SP, especially MRs (I think MRs should be prohibited from the boost since they would become elite closers).

    Once again, this is just a smaller proposal that could be considered for the handful of superstars like Bonds/Griffey that would put up these VORPs. There should be no reason that these players should be let go to FA, but if they are, not only does it add a great player to FA, but the team gets at least something good back without creating/amounting to a clone.
    Last edited by metsrock229; 12-05-2012 at 01:42 AM.


    If You Ain't Huckin, You Ain't ****in

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    @MattHunt22
    Posts
    6,310
    vCash
    500
    I feel like Twitchy with the amount of time/research I'm putting into this discussion.


    If You Ain't Huckin, You Ain't ****in

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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