|
|
Post by St. Louis Sting on Dec 10, 2017 13:02:23 GMT -5
After looking through the NBA drafts, a trend has started to develop where players drafted outside the top 5-6 don't get kept more than a year or two due to the quick escalation of NBA salaries, and the fact that the NBA is such a top-heavy league. Because the league is so top-heavy I think it might make sense to adjust the salary structure of NBA prospects to allow teams to hopefully be able to hang on to their draft picks longer rather than have to cut them after such a short period. Here is my new proposed salary structure:
Picks #1-3
Year 1 = $10
Year 2 = $20
Year 3 = $30
Year 4 = $35
Year 5 = $40
Picks #4-8
Year 1 = $7
Year 2 = $12
Year 3 = $20
Year 4 = $28
Year 5 = $32
Picks #9-12
Year 1 = $5
Year 2 = $8
Year 3 = $12
Year 4 = $16
Year 5 = $22
Picks #13-end
Year 1 = $3
Year 3 = $5
Year 3 = $8
Year 4 = $12
Year 5 = $16
If approved, this change would not go into effect until after this season. Players already drafted would have the salaries adjusted according to the new contract system at that time. Hopefully this will help with the NBA prospect drop epidemic. As always, if you have any other comments or questions please post and we can discuss
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff (Haze) on Dec 11, 2017 9:06:40 GMT -5
I don't think its the salary structure that's broken.
This would not be as much of an issue if we weren't forced to promote players based on real-world rules surrounding service time. If owners were permitted to retain players on their practice squads until they determined a player was 'fantasy-ready' as opposed to 'beyond their real-world rookie service limits', there would be less prospect dropping due to untenable salary situations.
Also, since at this point just about any fantasy viable player has been on a team at some point or another, it could expand the draft eligible pool to players that haven't been promoted to an active roster spot by a fantasy owner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Ragin' Cajuns) on Dec 11, 2017 16:50:55 GMT -5
Kirknall you have a good idea
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Ragin' Cajuns) on Dec 11, 2017 16:52:05 GMT -5
Definitely prefer Kirknall's method over original idea but both are better than what we have now
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Sting on Dec 11, 2017 18:58:30 GMT -5
I don't think its the salary structure that's broken. This would not be as much of an issue if we weren't forced to promote players based on real-world rules surrounding service time. If owners were permitted to retain players on their practice squads until they determined a player was 'fantasy-ready' as opposed to 'beyond their real-world rookie service limits', there would be less prospect dropping due to untenable salary situations. Also, since at this point just about any fantasy viable player has been on a team at some point or another, it could expand the draft eligible pool to players that haven't been promoted to an active roster spot by a fantasy owner. I definitely see some merit to that point, but my response would be that rebuilding teams would never have any reason to promote a player that they drafted. For example, under this suggestion the Huskies could have kept Auston Matthews in their minor league system for years while re-stocking the NHL team, even though every owner would consider Matthews to be "fantasy ready". We already see quite a few great young rookies left off fantasy rosters in order to maintain an extra season of team control (which is intentional in the way the rule is set up and not a problem whatsoever), but implementing something like you are proposing would create an even larger back-log of very talented young players that are in the minor league systems. Any team that doesn't have a chance at a title would just let their players sit until they could compete, and that's no fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeff (Haze) on Dec 11, 2017 19:02:15 GMT -5
Fine, then a player can’t spend more than 3-4 seasons on your squad. We can have a ‘Rule 5’ type rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff (Haze) on Dec 11, 2017 19:07:02 GMT -5
How many years would it take to get an entire prospect squad that’s worthy of turning the tide of a particular league? Is it really worth tanking for 8 years to get 8 top 2-3 picks to do that? Seems barely feasible as a strategy. You also are forced to make the decisions as drafts go by whether to keep/drop a player in order to have a slot to place someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Ragin' Cajuns) on Dec 11, 2017 20:47:44 GMT -5
Why not just make it apply to NBA since that is what we are trying to fix
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Ragin' Cajuns) on Dec 11, 2017 20:49:28 GMT -5
Seems like we may need to adjust the MLB rule too
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon (Huskies) on Dec 11, 2017 22:04:04 GMT -5
Im not sure which side I’m on. Both make very good points
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Sting on Dec 12, 2017 21:26:22 GMT -5
How many years would it take to get an entire prospect squad that’s worthy of turning the tide of a particular league? Is it really worth tanking for 8 years to get 8 top 2-3 picks to do that? Seems barely feasible as a strategy. You also are forced to make the decisions as drafts go by whether to keep/drop a player in order to have a slot to place someone. I do agree that it wouldn't be something I would be worried about long-term, but I don't think that a team remaining at the bottom of a sport for 2-3 years is out of the realm of possibility by any means, and that could mean wasting 2-3 years of an elite level player while talent is stockpiled. There is definitely some very good logic to the thoughts on this, but I believe that the lowered salary will help to alleviate those concerns where owners are currently having to pay fringe-players with upside something $6 or $12 to hold onto them. Another option to consider could be pushing the rookie limits that players can remain in our minor league systems up a little bit higher to allow some more seasoning. I would be more willing to go that route, but I would prefer to see how the lowered salary structure changes things first, because I do think this will make a huge impact on the number of players that get cut early |
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Ragin' Cajuns) on Dec 12, 2017 21:36:52 GMT -5
Why not put it up for an informal vote?
1) Lower NBA Salaries
2) Extend NBA/MLB years to Four
3) Needs more discussion
4) Leave as is
5) Undecided
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Sting on Dec 12, 2017 21:41:41 GMT -5
Why not put it up for an informal vote? 1) Lower NBA Salaries 2) Extend NBA/MLB years to Four 3) Needs more discussion 4) Leave as is 5) Undecided My biggest concern with limiting the number of years a player can be held on the MLB roster is the long developmental time that even some top prospects take. For example, Vladimir Guerrero was drafted in this league when he was 17. Obviously he's moved extremely quickly, but limiting the number of years could cause teams to lose players before they've even player a major league game, which isn't right. And if you're holding an NBA player in your minor leagues for 4 years they probably aren't any good anyways and can just be cut. I'd also prefer to refrain from treating one or two sports significantly differently than the others, as that can have unintended consequences on how prospects are valued. I'm convinced that the salary that was waaaaayyy to high in the first couple years for the non-elite draftees, and lowering that will solve the issue that we were having. If the problem continues we can try to find a more specialized solution |
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Ragin' Cajuns) on Dec 13, 2017 16:07:25 GMT -5
Not sure I support the treating different sports differently statement since we already do. IMO we alter Rules frequently so why not try to fix that may be broken and if we make a mistake then we can fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Ragin' Cajuns) on Dec 13, 2017 16:09:05 GMT -5
That which may be broken.
|
|
