What's wrong with debate?

[dave]

Unlock the finances thread. There are a high percentage of GMs who haven't participated in the thread? People may not fully agree with what I proposed but that doesn't mean some positive change won't come out of it. If you're done talking on it or not interested stop reading/posting in it.

This league is broke. There are inactive GMs and financial disparity makes it incredibly hard to trade. That combination leaves so many teams wrecked.

[Marzeial]

I have to agree. People may not like Dave or his views but it has been nice to see so many people engaged in conversation/debate, even if appears to be Dave vs the World.

[pudgejeff]

Unlock the finances thread. There are a high percentage of GMs who haven't participated in the thread? People may not fully agree with what I proposed but that doesn't mean some positive change won't come out of it. If you're done talking on it or not interested stop reading/posting in it.

This league is broke. There are inactive GMs and financial disparity makes it incredibly hard to trade. That combination leaves so many teams wrecked.

It's not debate, it's a bunch of people telling you that you're wrong and you not getting it. And to responded to Marziel's post, I don't think anyone hates Dave, I for one definitely don't, just at this point we are beating a dead horse with this "conversation". Creating this thread was disrespectful IMO, if you had an issue with the thread being closed you should have PM'd the moderator and spoke about it, not just open a new one to get around it.

[Boom]

The "debate" was open for multiple weeks and it took it's course. We have a commissioner and mods for a reason. Take it up to with them in private.

[dave]

Unlock the finances thread. There are a high percentage of GMs who haven't participated in the thread? People may not fully agree with what I proposed but that doesn't mean some positive change won't come out of it. If you're done talking on it or not interested stop reading/posting in it.

This league is broke. There are inactive GMs and financial disparity makes it incredibly hard to trade. That combination leaves so many teams wrecked.

It's not debate, it's a bunch of people telling you that you're wrong and you not getting it. And to responded to Marziel's post, I don't think anyone hates Dave, I for one definitely don't, just at this point we are beating a dead horse with this "conversation". Creating this thread was disrespectful IMO, if you had an issue with the thread being closed you should have PM'd the moderator and spoke about it, not just open a new one to get around it.

I'm not wrong just as you are not right.

It's a subjective matter. The system is flawed.

If there is nothing wrong with the financial system why do we ever touch the cap from the creation of the league? Why not leave it to league default? I'll tell you why because inflating veteran salaries dictate it. The disparity becomes to large.

[dave]

The "debate" was open for multiple weeks and it took it's course. We have a commissioner and mods for a reason. Take it up to with them in private.

It's not a private matter. What is the point of having a "forum" if you can't discuss on it?

[Dbray07]

I'm pretty new to this that's why I didn't get involved with the debate but since I have joined I have never once even came close to the hard cap so I don't feel it's a need to raise the hard cap....if anything we should raise the soft cap because I havnt even been a championship level team and I never have the money to even compete in FA! If we raised the soft cap it would cause a lot more competition for FA!

[dave]

I'm pretty new to this that's why I didn't get involved with the debate but since I have joined I have never once even came close to the hard cap so I don't feel it's a need to raise the hard cap....if anything we should raise the soft cap because I havnt even been a championship level team and I never have the money to even compete in FA! If we raised the soft cap it would cause a lot more competition for FA!

You're right raising hard cap doesn't really solve anything just delays same problem. Increasing the salary cap would help upcoming teams to a degree but it would also increase the amount of the max contract which is part of the problem in my opinion.

In order to compete you need to manipulate the system by offering extravagant 1 year contracts to use as trade pawns.

[dave]

DBray brings up good perspective though. He feels he has a difficult time acquiring contracts to be a real player in the trade market. This goes to my point of league wide salary disparity causing inactivity or simply not promoting activity.

So he has to wait for his rookie contracts to end or 3 seasons to get a player he can offer a silly 1 yr deal just so he can go after some of the big boys. Or he has to find a willing trade parter to trade him an expiring rookie or low level contract with birds.

It's broke.

[bellsduck]

Unlock the finances thread. There are a high percentage of GMs who haven't participated in the thread? People may not fully agree with what I proposed but that doesn't mean some positive change won't come out of it. If you're done talking on it or not interested stop reading/posting in it.

This league is broke. There are inactive GMs and financial disparity makes it incredibly hard to trade. That combination leaves so many teams wrecked.

It's not debate, it's a bunch of people telling you that you're wrong and you not getting it. And to responded to Marziel's post, I don't think anyone hates Dave, I for one definitely don't, just at this point we are beating a dead horse with this "conversation". Creating this thread was disrespectful IMO, if you had an issue with the thread being closed you should have PM'd the moderator and spoke about it, not just open a new one to get around it.

The same things were typed and retyped over nearly 5 pages. If it wasn't locked, when would the discussion have stopped? It's clear you (Dave) have a point you were trying to make. The problem is that you were not convincing anyone. The same could be said the other way. Many people were trying to get a point across to you that they were unable to convince you of. At some point, the debate as you call it, has to stop. There was no budge. Time to move on and think of other ways.

[Brophdog88]

DBray brings up good perspective though. He feels he has a difficult time acquiring contracts to be a real player in the trade market. This goes to my point of league wide salary disparity causing inactivity or simply not promoting activity.

So he has to wait for his rookie contracts to end or 3 seasons to get a player he can offer a silly 1 yr deal just so he can go after some of the big boys. Or he has to find a willing trade parter to trade him an expiring rookie or low level contract with birds.

It's broke.

He has 46 million in salary, he can easily sign an expiring birds player to a large one year deal so he can match salary with expiring. That is the problem, not the size of the contracts but gems unwillingness to spend fake money; if in his teams position there is 0 reason to be 29 million below the hard cap, nothing is gained. Acquiring a crap player who is expiring and has bird years is not hard if you don't have one, and signing them to a 1 year 10 million dollar deal means you can try to match. It doesn't matter how the contracts are sized if teams don't sign expiring to match it

[Oregon Ownage]

Dave - I appreciate your commitment to improving the league with your ideas and thoughts during this stretch we are in. I really do because it is making people post and be active in discussion.

The other thread was closed because as others mentioned, it became a pissing contest. There were two sides of the argument and over the week in which it was discussed, there was no give or take from either side. That IMO is more than enough time for both sides to state their cases and from the looks of it, we would have just continued down the same road for another week without a breakthrough.

I sat on this topic the past couple of days and wanted to hear everything out before I commented with what we were going to do. I believe that we do have a small problem in that the range of experience with GM's in this league though. As DBray mentoned, he is new to this while we have Broph, Dave and others who know the system very well. That leads to topics like we are discussing now of teams not using the salary cap its greatest extend. I started playing when the league was created and right up before I took over simming, did I realize that fact and how to use the cap to my advantage.

The debate shouldnt be whether to raise/lower cap numbers and contracts, but how do we facilitate the growth of newer GMs to a level where they understand the dynamic of the system/game because once that happens, we would see a more active league as teams would have the contracts, players and knowledge of what they want to do and not thinking about whether or not did I screw up with this move/trade.

[FlDuckFan]

Nothing wrong with debate. I too believe we have an issue with inactive GM's , I just don't believe that changing the salary cap will keep people here. Does anyone else have any ideas on what we can do as a league to attract more players and retain them? It stinks wanting to trade with someone but there's either no one to send a message or they never open and read it .

[dave]

Unlock the finances thread. There are a high percentage of GMs who haven't participated in the thread? People may not fully agree with what I proposed but that doesn't mean some positive change won't come out of it. If you're done talking on it or not interested stop reading/posting in it.

This league is broke. There are inactive GMs and financial disparity makes it incredibly hard to trade. That combination leaves so many teams wrecked.

It's not debate, it's a bunch of people telling you that you're wrong and you not getting it. And to responded to Marziel's post, I don't think anyone hates Dave, I for one definitely don't, just at this point we are beating a dead horse with this "conversation". Creating this thread was disrespectful IMO, if you had an issue with the thread being closed you should have PM'd the moderator and spoke about it, not just open a new one to get around it.

The same things were typed and retyped over nearly 5 pages. If it wasn't locked, when would the discussion have stopped? It's clear you (Dave) have a point you were trying to make. The problem is that you were not convincing anyone. The same could be said the other way. Many people were trying to get a point across to you that they were unable to convince you of. At some point, the debate as you call it, has to stop. There was no budge. Time to move on and think of other ways.

There were maybe 8 GMs who responded in the thread. Do they speak for all?

[dave]

DBray brings up good perspective though. He feels he has a difficult time acquiring contracts to be a real player in the trade market. This goes to my point of league wide salary disparity causing inactivity or simply not promoting activity.

So he has to wait for his rookie contracts to end or 3 seasons to get a player he can offer a silly 1 yr deal just so he can go after some of the big boys. Or he has to find a willing trade parter to trade him an expiring rookie or low level contract with birds.

It's broke.

He has 46 million in salary, he can easily sign an expiring birds player to a large one year deal so he can match salary with expiring. That is the problem, not the size of the contracts but gems unwillingness to spend fake money; if in his teams position there is 0 reason to be 29 million below the hard cap, nothing is gained. Acquiring a crap player who is expiring and has bird years is not hard if you don't have one, and signing them to a 1 year 10 million dollar deal means you can try to match. It doesn't matter how the contracts are sized if teams don't sign expiring to match it

It takes 3 years to acquire birds. Outside of trading for a player with birds you're not just getting 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 mil expiring contracts on your team.

It's a process building a sustainable winning franchise. Staying liquid to acquire a stud in free agency and then adding tradeable assets.

I believe with capping veteran salaries these guys would be more attractive in the trade market for teams looking to win and make it more possible to rebuild or retool your roster. The key factor here is promoting activity from all GMs.

In a perfect world everyone would be "responsible" to offer reasonable contracts but there is always a risk someone will max and you won't. No one wants to lose their studs and preventing it with a scaled down contract keeps the integrity while stimulating activity. I'm open to moderation of my idea or maybe another idea all together but lets not just sit on our hands and say that no one is making you offer x.