Salary allottment
 

I would like to toss out an idea, and see what the leagues thoughts are.

We have a 20000 salary cap. Our roster is split up by minimums of 13 IOP and 9 IDP....we start 8 IOP and 9 IDP. And yet, I doubt anyone devotes more than 15% of their salary cap to IDP's. This leads to inflated salaries for RB's and WR's, and also allows for the majority of the teams to retain their RFA's without really having to worry about cap space.

While I like renegotiations and franchising players, I think there is very little turnover in our league, and thus really a Dynasty keeper league.

My thought is to impose a more balanced split of our salary cap, maybe something like 70/30, maybe even 60/40. I am just not too sure how we could impose it...would need to have some grandfathering in of current contracts.

anyways, thoughts on the subject? Maybe I am only one who thinks this something worth looking into?

Re: Salary allottment
 

We start 6 IDP's, right?

Re: Salary allottment
 

Yeah, pretty sure he meant we start 6 IDP's, this makes sense, little attention is payed to IDP's it seems

Re: Salary allottment
 

Leave it alone. The market has determined the value of contracts and it would cause way too much complications when there is an easier solution. The problem is not the salary cap, the problem is the renegs we have.

If you want to encourage more player movement we need to shorten contracts and/or limit renegotiation not mess with the salary cap.

Re: Salary allottment
 

I'm with Frank. I think we can raise the renegotiation levels or consider reneg levels based on position.

Re: Salary allottment
 

Re: Salary allottment
 

I would like to leave it as it is.

Re: Salary allottment
 

I am all for Player Movement - The last Movement I had STUNK up the joint.

Re: Salary allottment
 

if the objective is to increase the cost for IDPs so less is available for offensive players so there is more movement of offensive players a simple way may be to increase the salary structure for IDPs.

Re: Salary allottment
 

The current salary structure is determined by the market, not by the % or figure of cap space.

There two possible issues the league could fix if we wanted.

1) Increase player movement - this WILL be fixed by altering the current reneg rules and/or contract year length.

2) Low value of IDPs - simple way to fix this would be to increase the number of starting IDPs.

Implementing both reneg restructure and increase # of starting IDPs would be my suggestion for improving SAC'D.

Re: Salary allottment
 

I was just trying to get a feel for how people thought the structure was working, as we are entering our 5th year, I believe. I just do not see that much movement with RFA's, this year being first I think that a top RB was let go.

I just think the reason is, because no one spends much of their money on IDP's..the reason our salary cap was increased by nearly 10K more than Frenzy, was to allow for IDP's. But the biggest portion of that extra cap space is used on IOP's. We rarely have teams with major needs, who cannot afford to fill those needs. In Frenzy teams seem to constantly have to make decisions on major offensive players. Maybe my perceptions are wrong, but this is what I am seeing being in both leagues.

But also, I am not saying I do not like SAC'd, or that anything is broke and we need to fix it. Was just throwing out an idea on what everyone else thought, as I see this as a possible area we need to tweek. And this is where I thought maybe some tweeking was needed...

Re: Salary allottment
 

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but I don't think changing the salary cap is the correct way to go about it.

If you want to increase player movement then we need to tweak the reneg rules.

My proposal would be:
- Eliminate the 1 year trade reneg - so no reneg from trades or FA pick ups.
- Make the 2 year reneg make it more similar to the franchise tag. Maybe the average of the Top 5 RFA per position for the past 3 years?
- A player can only be reneged once in their entire career.

If you want to increase IDP value by simply increasing the # of starting IDPs will increase their value and force teams to allocate more money to the IDP side.

Re: Salary allottment
 

OK..now I see where you are heading with this....that makes more sense to me now, and much easier to install into rule book....

Maybe add 2 floater positions...one LB/DB and one DB/DL

I can see top 5 - that makes sense....

Re: Salary allottment
 

Increase the Minimum IDP salary will also force more cap space to IDPs. My roster had quite a few 100cb IDPs.

Re: Salary allottment
 

I also like the 1 reneg idea..

If you don't want to add floater positions another thing to consider is to simply increase the value of IDPs would be by increasing the scoring rules for an IDP.

It seems that seldom more than 20% of a week's score come from the IDP positions so right now, most teams can basically ignore IDPs and skate through with good Offensive skill players .. This naturally leads to the lopsided allocation of of salaries offensive and defensive.

If IDPs scored more every week, then teams would be forced to compete more aggressively for the best IDP players (and therefore less agressively for offensive skill positions) or they would simply :surender: any chance at a Championship..

Re: Salary allottment
 

ok..any ideas on tweeks that may give IDP's better scores? Seems LB are pretty close to WR's right now...not sure if DB's and DL's are in line with TE's and PK's? How much more valuable do we want to make them>?

Re: Salary allottment
 

Part of the scoring inequities between offense and defense are around the number of starters (not just points scored by player). Maybe look at adding an extra defensive slot or two each week (there are 8 off and 6 defense now if the kicker is considered offense) and also maybe consider raising the value of tackles from 2 points to 3 points.

Of course we might want to implement these changes next season since most of us have constructed our rosters based on the current set-up.

Not sure but I think it costs more for a QB then a WR by draft slot. Since the RFA/UFA process seems to value WR's more maybe we should also look at those salaries while we are going through this process.

Re: Salary allottment
 

I would hesitate to raise points per tackle, as that would benefit LB's more, and those are already scoring in top levels comparable to WR's and most 2nd tier RB's

Re: Salary allottment
 

If you want to increase the value of IDPs I think the best way to do it is to increase the numbers of starters and possibly split them into more groups.

Start:
1 DE
1 DT
1 DL

Start
3 LB

Start
1 S
1 CB
1 DB

This would help increase the # of starters, create a new market for stud DTs (who currently rank behind most DEs) and give value to CBs over safeties.

This would expand starting IDP players to:

Top 12 DEs
Top 12 DTs
Top 12 DT+DE

vs. Top 24 DL

Top 36 LBs vs Top 24 LBs

Top 12 CB
Top 12 S
Top 12 DB

vs Top 24 DBs

This move would significantly increase the value of defensive players and make them more in line with offense.

Also, we really need to reconsider tweaking the reneg rules or shortening contract length.

Re: Salary allottment
 

I would have to see if MFL splits out positions that far....

Re: Salary allottment
 

I think adding more starters would help. If you look at the top DB to the 20th DB there isn't much of a change in ppg. So why pay for some that will get you 15 ppg over paying minimum for someone that will get 12 ppg.
I would be in favor of increasing the number of IDPs by 2 in some way. In other leagues I am in, we start 8 IDPs...a minimum of 2 of each position and a max of 3. I think that is about the same as Burt listed above.

Re: Salary allottment
 

I think you can split the LB into OLB and MLB as well if you really wanted to.

Re: Salary allottment
 

Checking on MFL, I can split out only:

DL to DE and DT
DB to CB and S

Linebackers do not split out further

Re: Salary allottment
 

Not that this matters much, since I agree we could increase the value of IDPs but as of the last Roster App for 2010 this is how teams have spent their cap space on IDPs:

1. Mutts (23.06%)
2. Geeks (18.46%)
3. Gunslingers (18.31%)
4. Tommy-Konckers (17.89%)
5. Floyds (15.79%)
6. Mashers (12.24%)
7. Scorpions (11.24%)
8. 36 Chambers (10.98%)
9. Greatshepski (10.56%)
10. Clowns (8.59%)
11. Hunters (7.17%)
12. Bloodsuckers (6.54%)

Looks like a classic bell curve to me.

Re: Salary allottment
 

Starting more IDPs would be okay and have the effect of increasing the value of IDPs which in turn should level the split of salaries between offensive and defense.

But GAHHH! I vote NO on splitting out IDP positions .. that is just too much minutia .. it would be like seperating RBs from FBs or X-WRs from Z-WRs! :insane:

Re: Salary allottment
 

and probably 40% of Floyds 16% is spent on a single LB....

Re: Salary allottment
 

Just for fun here is how it looks like based on difference between %rank and IDP total points scored:

1. Hunters +6 (11 spending/5th points)
2. 36 chambers + 4 (8/4)
X. Floyds +4 (5/1)
4. Knockers + 2 (4/2)
5. Bloodsuckers +1 (12/11)
6. Clowns 0 (10/10)
X. Mashers 0 (6/6)
8. Geeks -1 (2/3)
9. Scorpions -2 (7/9)
10. Shep - 3 (9/12)
11. Gunslingers - 4 (3/7)
12. Mutts -7 (1/8)

Looks like Hunters, 36 Chambers, and Floyds got good bang for their buck. Mutts, Gunslingers, and Shep overpaid their defenses. Everyone got roughly what they paid for in terms of team building strategy.

Re: Salary allottment
 

Nice data. I like the idea of adding an additional DL, LB and DB to starting lineup (may need to consider increase max defensive roster too). Not a fan of breaking out DL and DB into distinct categories.

What about looking at gradually trimming back salary cap? For example over a 2-3 year period from 20,000 to 18,000 or 17,000 (1,000 cbs per year...or 500 per year)?

Re: Salary allottment
 

I like the idea of adding 3 additional defensive starters.

Re: Salary allottment
 

Not a fan of reducing salary cap, when we don't have to mess with it in order to get the desired results (increase IDP value).

Just wondering why people are opposed to splitting DL and DB? Imagine a league where we don't laugh at drafting McCoy in the 1st round (while Suh went in the 5th)!

In the end, I won't fight to hard about splitting the DL/DB, but I think we should strongly consider adding IDP starters if everyone agrees IDPs are valued a little less.