Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Where Should Our Comp Specs Come From?

Voters
14. This poll is closed
  • Create a New Player

    11 78.57%
  • Draft Pick

    2 14.29%
  • Other/Not Sure

    1 7.14%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    City of Albuquerque
    Posts
    8,847
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyRocks77 View Post
    I want a comp just not sure which one would be good.. I do think their ought to be a Risk involved though
    Absolutely every prospect comes with a risk, especially comps. Look at how many of them in TKO either don't fill out or get hurt and never make it. If we are able to change the development speed so players take a more realistic amount of time to develop then that adds a more appropriate amount of risk.

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

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    City of Albuquerque
    Posts
    8,847
    vCash
    1500
    So...it looks like the overwhelming majority of us prefer a comp system that doesn't involve draft picks in any way, and instead uses players created from scratch. I came up with an idea based on TKO's system that will give us the potential to have a system that gives something to the GM losing the player but prevents the cloning of the truly elite players. Also, no loopholes. See below....

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

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    City of Albuquerque
    Posts
    8,847
    vCash
    1500
    A Player will be qualified as a "Type A" Free Agent if they meet ALL of the following qualifications:
    - Were signed to a multi-year contract.
    - Must have a combined VORP between 100-120 over last season and the current season (aka 50-60 VORP average between the two seasons)
    - Age (as of Dec 31st) is 29 or younger
    "Type A" - a prospect with Potentials equal to 100% of the Free Agent's Overalls

    A Player will be qualified as a "Type B" Free Agent if they meet ALL of the following qualifications:
    - Were signed to a multi-year contract.
    Must have a combined VORP between 100-120 over last season and the current season (aka 50-60 VORP average between the two seasons)
    Age (as of Dec 31st) is 29 or older
    "Type B" - a prospect with Potentials equal to 90% of the Free Agent's Overalls

    A Player will be qualified as a "Type C" Free Agent if they meet ALL of the following qualifications:
    - Were signed to a multi-year contract.
    - Must have a combined VORP between 121-140 over last season and the current season (aka 61-70 VORP average between the two seasons)
    - Age (as of Dec 31st) is 29 or younger
    "Type C" - a prospect with Potentials equal to 90% of the Free Agent's Overalls

    A Player will be qualified as a "Type D" Free Agent if they meet ALL of the following qualifications:
    - Were signed to a multi-year contract.
    - Must have a combined VORP between 121-140 over last season and the current season (aka 61-70 VORP average between the two seasons)
    - Age (as of Dec 31st) is 29 or older
    "Type D" - a prospect with Potentials equal to 80% of the Free Agent's Overalls

    A Player will be qualified as a "Type E" Free Agent if they meet ALL of the following qualifications:
    - Were signed to a multi-year contract.
    - Must have a combined VORP between 141-160 over last season and the current season (aka 71-80 VORP average between the two seasons)
    - Age (as of Dec 31st) is 29 or younger
    "Type E" - a prospect with Potentials equal to 80% of the Free Agent's Overalls

    A Player will be qualified as a "Type F" Free Agent if they meet ALL of the following qualifications:
    - Were signed to a multi-year contract.
    - Must have a combined VORP between 141-160 over last season and the current season (aka 71-80 VORP average between the two seasons)
    - Age (as of Dec 31st) is 29 or older
    "Type F" - a prospect with Potentials equal to 70% of the Free Agent's Overalls

    A Player will be qualified as a "Type G" Free Agent if they meet ALL of the following qualifications:
    - Were signed to a multi-year contract.
    - Must have a combined VORP higher than 160 over last season and the current season (aka 81 VORP or higher average between the two seasons)
    - No age requirement
    "Type F" - a prospect with Potentials equal to 60% of the Free Agent's Overalls


    Stipulations:
    -The free agent must be signed by opening day in order for the previous team to receive compensation.
    -You do not receive compensation if you resign one of your own players after he files for free agency.
    -The compensation prospect will be the same position as the free agent
    -The names of all compensation prospects will be randomly generated by the game. In order to keep the historical aspect of the league intact as much as possible, you are not allowed to choose the name of your compensation prospect.
    Last edited by azazel529; 12-22-2012 at 01:03 PM.

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

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    City of Albuquerque
    Posts
    8,847
    vCash
    1500
    This is a framework for now. It gives us good enough comp specs that trades could become much more active and a pending FA will have some sort of value in a trade, but there is also incentive to let them walk and have more guys available to sign on a yearly basis. But the tiered system keeps it from resulting in a bunch of superstar clones, while still adding in talent.

    No messy draft pick swapping, no superstar clones, but we get more trading and FA activity and see the draft pool talent start to rise as a result.

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

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    City of Albuquerque
    Posts
    8,847
    vCash
    1500
    Also, I don't know how yet, but there would be a rule to close the loophole that allows GMs to throw huge amounts of money at an FA on a short term deal just to get comp, although I think the lower ceiling of the comps based on elite guys will help with that too.

    We'll have to come up with a different set of requirements for RPs too.

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

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    17,722
    vCash
    1500
    Maybe I'm an idiot, but why is the VORP requirement going up as the comp spec gets worse?

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    City of Albuquerque
    Posts
    8,847
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by PhillyLuver View Post
    Maybe I'm an idiot, but why is the VORP requirement going up as the comp spec gets worse?
    The answer is riiiiiiiiiiiiight in front of you.

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

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    17,722
    vCash
    1500
    Superstar clones are definitely still possible with this system. What happens if a superstar gets hurt for part of a year, puts up 30 vorp, then puts up 80 the next year? That'd be an A comp. Or what happens when a team locks up a playoff seed early and then sits their superstar so he qualifies for A as opposed to like E? Or, say, Bonds slumps and puts up two 55 vorp years. Still a superstar clone A comp prospect.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    City of Albuquerque
    Posts
    8,847
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by PhillyLuver View Post
    Superstar clones are definitely still possible with this system. What happens if a superstar gets hurt for part of a year, puts up 30 vorp, then puts up 80 the next year? That'd be an A comp. Or what happens when a team locks up a playoff seed early and then sits their superstar so he qualifies for A as opposed to like E? Or, say, Bonds slumps and puts up two 55 vorp years. Still a superstar clone A comp prospect.
    1) Injuries are turned off (I think they should be turned on, but that's another discussion).

    2) The rule could be written to prohibit intentionally benching a player or any other action that would purposely lower the VORP to qualify for a better comp.

    3) It's obviously not impossible that a guy like that would slump and bounce right back but I don't think it's terribly likely that it would happen often. John Hale, Pat Putnam, Griffey Jr., Larry Walker, Barry Bonds, Rusty Staub, Darryl Strawberry, George Brett, Paul Molitor...the best hitters in the history of the league rarely ever dip from 80 VORP down below 60 and then back up to 80 or higher.

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

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    17,722
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by azazel529 View Post
    1) Injuries are turned off (I think they should be turned on, but that's another discussion).

    2) The rule could be written to prohibit intentionally benching a player or any other action that would purposely lower the VORP to qualify for a better comp.

    3) It's obviously not impossible that a guy like that would slump and bounce right back but I don't think it's terribly likely that it would happen often. John Hale, Pat Putnam, Griffey Jr., Larry Walker, Barry Bonds, Rusty Staub, Darryl Strawberry, George Brett, Paul Molitor...the best hitters in the history of the league rarely ever dip from 80 VORP down below 60 and then back up to 80 or higher.
    1. Wow, I never knew that. I thought this league was striving for realism?

    2. Good idea. I think we should definitely have something along those lines.

    3. True. My only other concern is that it kind of equalizes the comp for all stars leaving in FA. Shouldn't someone get more for letting a true beast like Bonds go than letting a midlevel star go? IE shouldn't a G comp be better than an A comp still? 60% for G comp is going to basically kill the comp spec

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    City of Albuquerque
    Posts
    8,847
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by PhillyLuver View Post
    1. Wow, I never knew that. I thought this league was striving for realism?

    2. Good idea. I think we should definitely have something along those lines.

    3. True. My only other concern is that it kind of equalizes the comp for all stars leaving in FA. Shouldn't someone get more for letting a true beast like Bonds go than letting a midlevel star go? IE shouldn't a G comp be better than an A comp still? 60% for G comp is going to basically kill the comp spec
    They've been off forever. I wasn't even commissioner yet when they were turned off. Randy would have more insight as to the reasoning behind why it was changed.

    You have a point, and like I said those numbers are just a framework to use as a starting point. I think the sliding scale idea does the best job of addressing our needs while also addressing the concerns of everyone that was against seeing superstars cloned all the time (which is a decent point). But you're right, we don't want the Bonds and Griffey comps to be total garbage. We just want to prevent having the very top of the elite guys recreated all the time. No Atkins and Atkins Jr. situations.

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

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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