Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 19:28:22 GMT -5
I'm proposing this understanding that it has little chance of passing - however, here goes....
I propose that we do away with the ability to protect players on the Taxi Squads. This would mean if a player if claimed from someone's Taxi Squad, they would only have the option to promote them to the active roster or let them go.
The NFL does not allow players to be protected without promoting them to the active roster, why should we? If the player is worth preventing anyone else from having, they are worth an active roster spot.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Apr 15, 2017 22:36:36 GMT -5
and I would be ok with that but you get certain people where if current rules weren't in place would claim 10 guys the first day.
Not necessarily because they are good players yet but because "hey, let me throw a hundred darts and see what's a bullseye."
So if you wanted to end protecting then I'd say fine 300% raise and completely guaranteed contract.
Both hyperbole but not by that much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 18:55:19 GMT -5
We do have rules already that restrict teams to one claim per day, I think.
One thing we could do is to make claimed players completely un-cuttable for the duration of their current contract. Go ahead, claim 10 - and then have 10 slots filled with mediocre players for a couple years.
What I'm trying to avoid is teams hiding players that would be starters on other teams. To do that, I think they should have to keep them on their active rosters.
|
|
|
Post by wedgedarin on Apr 21, 2017 16:39:34 GMT -5
We do have rules already that restrict teams to one claim per day, I think. One thing we could do is to make claimed players completely un-cuttable for the duration of their current contract. Go ahead, claim 10 - and then have 10 slots filled with mediocre players for a couple years. What I'm trying to avoid is teams hiding players that would be starters on other teams. To do that, I think they should have to keep them on their active rosters. Greetings.... new guy here. Just curious as to the bolded. Why would we want to avoid that? If one owner has the foresight to draft, trade for or otherwise acquire, why shouldn't they be able to stash them for as long as the current rules allow them to? Example, if I have Andrew Luck and Marcus Mariota rostered and I have the foresight to pick up some Joe Schmo rookie QB who ends up tearing it up, why shouldn't I be able to stash him until someone has the need to trade for him? Or to a point where I trade Luck or Mariota or both and call him up myself? If you want to stick to the "make it like the NFL" thing, I can guarantee you there are players on certain teams' practice squads that would start for other NFL teams. That said, if you have a stud or near-stud QB chilling on on your DTS and are plugging an NFL backup QB into your roster every week, that could be considered tanking and a huge no-no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 17:06:57 GMT -5
Welcome. It's not the stashing that I have an issue with really, it's the using the practice squad to do it. If you want to have four starting QBs on your roster, and you can get them, so be it. If we are effectively going to have 2 "untouchable" spots on the practice squad, why not just bump up the roster size to 38 and be done with it? And I'm very, very doubtful that an NFL team could stash a QB who would start someplace else on their practice squad. They would get claimed in a flash.
|
|
|
Post by wedgedarin on Apr 21, 2017 17:21:56 GMT -5
I'll admit this league is much different from my other dynasty leagues in terms of how the DTS works. In my others, you don't even assign contracts to these guys. As long as a player has 3 or less years' experience in the NFL, they can be stashed there. Only when you need to call them up do you assign them a contract. So maybe I need to see how RADL operates to fully understand the dynamic. From what I've seen thus far, though, this league has FAR more roster turnover than my other leagues, so maybe that sentiment fits that overall dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Apr 21, 2017 21:40:26 GMT -5
I'll say my peace, but your next step would be to get some others to agree change is needed and I'll work something out. I can see examples of your point Mariotta last year and Prescott now but do people think it's a problem? Mariotta was an insurance policy that I paid a hefty price for and when he finally proved himself last year decided he'd get the promotion at the end of last season. Prescott, who knows if he remains good.
Maybe protecting players is not normal, fine. Neither is teams trading away all their picks and just scavenging other taxi squads.
Yes there is a rule about one claim a day, which had to be put in place because I got lists of 8 claims at 12:01 from guys looking to fill their roster out with dart throws.
Not necessarily good starters either just, if the starter gets hurt type guys.
I'm fine with changing it, but if they need my practice guys so desperately and they didn't pick him in the draft because they suck at drafting then they should pay a price.
I don't know the answer but they get a bigger than 20% raise which honestly is less than $5 most times. Claiming team wouldn't ever want to trade these superstars I'd imagine. There is a point where my TS guys are good mostly because they make $4 or less. If you still think they're good at $25 then more power to you. So give them a raise and guarantee it. My point is only this, yes maybe 4 or 5 TS guys could be starters elsewhere, and that might be true in the NFL if you include LB's and DB's certainly any kicker could start on another team but the level of talent on the Patriots TS is likely better than that of the Browns and here it is the same.
There is one team that is at TS capacity of 10. I guess I'd like to see other teams try to sign potential good players before complaining (and I don't consider you complaining, you make a valid point at least to discuss) about the good players other teams have.
You have a problem with the PROTECTED designation and that's the counter to the "grabby teams" who would claim everyone if they could.
Again, if it's a problem in other's eyes, then we take away a protected slot and make claims stop earlier than the trade deadline, when it does now, and limit teams to 3 or 4 attempted claims a season and player gets a significant raise and whatever else we decide.
I'm going to argue the other side but don't take that to mean I'm against any change. Generally there is always a better way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 22:33:14 GMT -5
I hadn't seen teams trading away all their picks and just scavenging - although maybe that was before I was in the league. If that's a problem, and the solution is the "protected" designation, then I'm actually wondering why we should have a Taxi Squad at all? Just let every team have rosters of 46, and raise the salary cap a bit to compensate for it.
|
|
|
Post by wedgedarin on Apr 22, 2017 0:33:06 GMT -5
I hadn't seen teams trading away all their picks and just scavenging - although maybe that was before I was in the league. If that's a problem, and the solution is the "protected" designation, then I'm actually wondering why we should have a Taxi Squad at all? Just let every team have rosters of 46, and raise the salary cap a bit to compensate for it. I'll be honest, other than not counting against salary/contract years cap, it doesn't appear that there is much difference between DTS players and active guys. Maybe that's the whole point, and that's all that this league wants it to be. I'm actually fine with it... quite different than other leagues, like I noted earlier.
|
|
AA
Not the Droid I Seek
3%
2013 RADL Champion
Posts: 356
|
Post by AA on Apr 23, 2017 20:59:34 GMT -5
I'd be for doing away with protected TS guys. If someone else isn't using them on an active roster, and I want them to start on my team, I'd like to be able to have that option.
I'm not one to do a mad grab for TS players, so I don't know if this would be a deterrent or not, but what if you just made it so that claiming a TS player meant an automatic raise? I'm thinking of something akin to the franchise Tag salaries. If I want to claim Prescott, then I have to pay him the tier 2 salary (or something close to that). That should mean people were only claiming players they really wanted.
If the original owner decides to keep his TS guy, he has to promote him to the active roster, but gets to keep him at his original contract. That still rewards owners who draft well.
|
|
|
Post by wedgedarin on Apr 23, 2017 21:03:29 GMT -5
I know I'm the f'in new guy and all, but I've been in dynasty leagues for a long time and to me, massive changes to how the DTS operates really denigrates the overall meaning of "dynasty". Just my opinion.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on May 13, 2017 19:23:26 GMT -5
I know I'm the f'in new guy and all, but I've been in dynasty leagues for a long time and to me, massive changes to how the DTS operates really denigrates the overall meaning of "dynasty". Just my opinion. New guy feedback appreciated. Too late though, we've already made a few changes over a few years.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on May 13, 2017 19:31:05 GMT -5
My feeling is we go for a combination of a few of these ideas. I think you get to protect 1 and only 1 TS player a year. Any claims on any player after that you have to promote him, make him the protected player and then the player that you protected in the past goes to the team that got the origional claim, or you let him go and get compensation in return. Based on the RFA chart.
|
|