|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Jan 10, 2023 20:35:23 GMT -5
Holy hell. Not gonna lie my ADHD kicked in half way though.
My favorite combo, shrink rosters, grow TS and bring in poaching. When making changes the ripple effects need to be accounted for, and TS poaching is gold for activity and rebuilds.
I’m not built to be a rule maker, but I can tell you what I think would work well.
A rule I think would be cool and buff the FA pool is compensatory picks for letting guys walk. They should barred from bidding on them in the following ufa. This would also help teams that sold out for a ring who failed recoup a little capital
- top 10 1st - 11-20 2nd - 21-30 3rd Etc
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Jan 12, 2023 8:09:23 GMT -5
I do like the idea of poaching.
With byes, IR and non IR injuries then 42 roster is probably too small unless there are ways to add late without the 24 hour plus wait time
|
|
|
Post by Raiders GM (Chief) on Jan 13, 2023 5:51:28 GMT -5
For some added context, only 12 teams have more than 46 players currently, and only 1 of those 12 teams is over 48.
20 teams with 46 or less 5 with 47 6 with 48 1 with 54
I should have noted that there should be an increased roster size in the offseason with a cutdown period just like the NFL, which will allow a 2nd round of an FA/waiver pool just before kickoff.
I also agree that waiver wire time-frames in the playoffs should be adjusted to account for late injury issues.
If we increase the TS by 2 then it's essentially the same accept promoting to keep young players and increasing the veteran FA pool.
|
|
|
Post by Browns GM (Dan) on Jan 13, 2023 6:52:32 GMT -5
For some added context, only 12 teams have more than 46 players currently, and only 1 of those 12 teams is over 48. 20 teams with 46 or less 5 with 47 6 with 48 1 with 54 I should have noted that there should be an increased roster size in the offseason with a cutdown period just like the NFL, which will allow a 2nd round of an FA/waiver pool just before kickoff. I also agree that waiver wire time-frames in the playoffs should be adjusted to account for late injury issues. If we increase the TS by 2 then it's essentially the same accept promoting to keep young players and increasing the veteran FA pool. I mean that stat isn't exactly correct. For example I have 47 on my active roster but I also have 8 on my TS and another 9 on IR which I'd like (and some who could be promoted) to be on my active roster. I totally agree that cutting down to 42 is too small of a roster, even with PS growing taken into account, and even moreso if you add poaching as how do you expect good rosters to ever keep and grow later round rookies which aren't instant contributors? For example I kept Mykal Walker on my TS for his 1st and 2nd year in the league as he wasn't starting and therefore scoring a minimal amount of points which wouldn't be useful to a competitor. However I knew that he would end up as a starter when Deion Jones got too expensive or was cut making him a project player I wanted to keep on my TS. In this scenario as a competitor I would have no room to stash him safely on my main roster and still have enough scoring depth to win the league, so I have to store him on my TS where a tanking team (Which we have a good number of every year) could poach him for nothing and store him safely on their bottom 3 roster as they don't care about the 0. If we are to add poaching then we need to make sure we're not adjusting roster limits negatively, and if anything we should shift to 50 main roster spots and 5/6 TS slots. Another alternative is to keep the 48 and 8 setup we have but add a protected number of players (maybe 3 or 4) on the TS which cannot be poached or would require pick compensation to be poached (I'm thinking a 3rd). That would avoid teams stashing their top picks on the TS and would allow teams to add developmental players to it without a risk of losing their favourite project rookies. As can be seen from the top 4 teams this season, a team with strong and plentiful depth is sometimes more important than those just reaching the roster minimum but stacked with studs.
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Jan 13, 2023 8:09:04 GMT -5
Don't think poaching would be quite that bad, the GM that owns him can always promote him to avoid the poach... or take the comp. There's a decision to be made which I like. The amount of high drafted high scoring rookies/sophomores I've seen on PS's over the years to facilitate a second/third tank is worrying... Poaching negates that tactic unless there's another rule in place
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Jan 13, 2023 15:42:20 GMT -5
Comp for poaching is an excellent idea. It would add to the pain factor for being Willy nilly, plus keeping it to a strategic move.
|
|
|
Post by Raiders GM (Chief) on Jan 14, 2023 5:02:35 GMT -5
For some added context, only 12 teams have more than 46 players currently, and only 1 of those 12 teams is over 48. 20 teams with 46 or less 5 with 47 6 with 48 1 with 54 I should have noted that there should be an increased roster size in the offseason with a cutdown period just like the NFL, which will allow a 2nd round of an FA/waiver pool just before kickoff. I also agree that waiver wire time-frames in the playoffs should be adjusted to account for late injury issues. If we increase the TS by 2 then it's essentially the same accept promoting to keep young players and increasing the veteran FA pool. I mean that stat isn't exactly correct. For example I have 47 on my active roster but I also have 8 on my TS and another 9 on IR which I'd like (and some who could be promoted) to be on my active roster. I totally agree that cutting down to 42 is too small of a roster, even with PS growing taken into account, and even moreso if you add poaching as how do you expect good rosters to ever keep and grow later round rookies which aren't instant contributors? For example I kept Mykal Walker on my TS for his 1st and 2nd year in the league as he wasn't starting and therefore scoring a minimal amount of points which wouldn't be useful to a competitor. However I knew that he would end up as a starter when Deion Jones got too expensive or was cut making him a project player I wanted to keep on my TS. In this scenario as a competitor I would have no room to stash him safely on my main roster and still have enough scoring depth to win the league, so I have to store him on my TS where a tanking team (Which we have a good number of every year) could poach him for nothing and store him safely on their bottom 3 roster as they don't care about the 0. If we are to add poaching then we need to make sure we're not adjusting roster limits negatively, and if anything we should shift to 50 main roster spots and 5/6 TS slots. Another alternative is to keep the 48 and 8 setup we have but add a protected number of players (maybe 3 or 4) on the TS which cannot be poached or would require pick compensation to be poached (I'm thinking a 3rd). That would avoid teams stashing their top picks on the TS and would allow teams to add developmental players to it without a risk of losing their favourite project rookies. As can be seen from the top 4 teams this season, a team with strong and plentiful depth is sometimes more important than those just reaching the roster minimum but stacked with studs. Agree with protecting players from poaching. In my main league we allow each team to poach only 2 players and we also lock the TS from poaching once 2 attempts for poaching have been made against that team. We also call them Taxi Bids instead of poaching. In your Mykal Walker scenario however I disagree. Not with the roster and TS size issue but with the extension issue. You invested all that time in a player and now when the players potential comes to fruition and your investment pays off he will be up for free agency in another year or so and you can only extend one player. Do you extend an all-star on your roster who is at the peak of his game or do you extend the player you invested all this time and believed in who is still on the rise? We should be able to extend more than one player is my point to just about all of this. The counter to that however is if we are able to extend more players then the FA pool is diminished so what can we give up? You may have 9 IR players but you also have 29 pending FAs (1 of whom is on your IR and 1 of whom is your boy Mykal Walker). Many of those players you likely grabbed to replace one or more of your IR losses. With Walker being a 2022 FA your only option is to Tag him right (still figuring this out)? So you invested time and have the pride of picking right and holding him and now you lose him or get him for 1 more year at most and then hope someone doesn't sign him in FA? That's not fun. Again, I'm trying to retain more of my team because I spent time and effort and believe in those players. I should be able to extend more than just one. I should be able to extend a player on FT. There should be pick compensation for FT players. But if I'm keeping more I also realize I need to give somewhere else. My choice is to make the roster limits smaller to maintain a deeper FA pool. We also don't need to go down to 42. Maybe we go down to something like 46 or 48 and see how it goes. We can go incrementally and "dip our toes" so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Jan 14, 2023 9:19:14 GMT -5
I also think all Taxi cuts should be zero cap hit. Maybe put a 4week clause or something. Injury settlement or something.
Example: I see IR sitting in taxi all the time that would normally be cut, but there’s a cap hit. I had one, Josh Ross, who I would have cut but didn’t because of the cap hit. A player with a legitimate shot at becoming a Jon Bostic, who would be attractive to another owner.
Plus on further thought I don’t think shrinking rosters is a good idea. Depth is paramount and is proven out every year. Add in possible return to Covid protocols, it would cripple teams.
|
|
|
Post by Browns GM (Dan) on Jan 14, 2023 17:23:01 GMT -5
I mean that stat isn't exactly correct. For example I have 47 on my active roster but I also have 8 on my TS and another 9 on IR which I'd like (and some who could be promoted) to be on my active roster. I totally agree that cutting down to 42 is too small of a roster, even with PS growing taken into account, and even moreso if you add poaching as how do you expect good rosters to ever keep and grow later round rookies which aren't instant contributors? For example I kept Mykal Walker on my TS for his 1st and 2nd year in the league as he wasn't starting and therefore scoring a minimal amount of points which wouldn't be useful to a competitor. However I knew that he would end up as a starter when Deion Jones got too expensive or was cut making him a project player I wanted to keep on my TS. In this scenario as a competitor I would have no room to stash him safely on my main roster and still have enough scoring depth to win the league, so I have to store him on my TS where a tanking team (Which we have a good number of every year) could poach him for nothing and store him safely on their bottom 3 roster as they don't care about the 0. If we are to add poaching then we need to make sure we're not adjusting roster limits negatively, and if anything we should shift to 50 main roster spots and 5/6 TS slots. Another alternative is to keep the 48 and 8 setup we have but add a protected number of players (maybe 3 or 4) on the TS which cannot be poached or would require pick compensation to be poached (I'm thinking a 3rd). That would avoid teams stashing their top picks on the TS and would allow teams to add developmental players to it without a risk of losing their favourite project rookies. As can be seen from the top 4 teams this season, a team with strong and plentiful depth is sometimes more important than those just reaching the roster minimum but stacked with studs. Agree with protecting players from poaching. In my main league we allow each team to poach only 2 players and we also lock the TS from poaching once 2 attempts for poaching have been made against that team. We also call them Taxi Bids instead of poaching. In your Mykal Walker scenario however I disagree. Not with the roster and TS size issue but with the extension issue. You invested all that time in a player and now when the players potential comes to fruition and your investment pays off he will be up for free agency in another year or so and you can only extend one player. Do you extend an all-star on your roster who is at the peak of his game or do you extend the player you invested all this time and believed in who is still on the rise? We should be able to extend more than one player is my point to just about all of this. The counter to that however is if we are able to extend more players then the FA pool is diminished so what can we give up? You may have 9 IR players but you also have 29 pending FAs (1 of whom is on your IR and 1 of whom is your boy Mykal Walker). Many of those players you likely grabbed to replace one or more of your IR losses. With Walker being a 2022 FA your only option is to Tag him right (still figuring this out)? So you invested time and have the pride of picking right and holding him and now you lose him or get him for 1 more year at most and then hope someone doesn't sign him in FA? That's not fun. Again, I'm trying to retain more of my team because I spent time and effort and believe in those players. I should be able to extend more than just one. I should be able to extend a player on FT. There should be pick compensation for FT players. But if I'm keeping more I also realize I need to give somewhere else. My choice is to make the roster limits smaller to maintain a deeper FA pool. We also don't need to go down to 42. Maybe we go down to something like 46 or 48 and see how it goes. We can go incrementally and "dip our toes" so to speak. Mykal Walker is an RFA so I have total control if he stays with the team or departs and I acquire a pick. My point with him was about poaching not extensions though. I think the extensions are fine as they are and to allow players to hit FA otherwise we'd never see studs or even promising players switching teams without trades.
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Jan 16, 2023 12:21:52 GMT -5
I also think all Taxi cuts should be zero cap hit. Maybe put a 4week clause or something. Injury settlement or something. Example: I see IR sitting in taxi all the time that would normally be cut, but there’s a cap hit. I had one, Josh Ross, who I would have cut but didn’t because of the cap hit. A player with a legitimate shot at becoming a Jon Bostic, who would be attractive to another owner. Plus on further thought I don’t think shrinking rosters is a good idea. Depth is paramount and is proven out every year. Add in possible return to Covid protocols, it would cripple teams. I like the zero cap hit for taxi squad players (I’m going to make it a point to use the practice squad this year) I also thought what I’d make roster limits 50 ?
|
|