Help Center
|
|
|
Guest (Login) Help Center |
GLFFL - Otto Graham League |
| Warp Speed Warriors | 
Date Tue Feb 14 2:26:12 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Howdy! OK, I confess, I just voted on the second poll. Wasn't aware of that one until the Fishies sent out the e-mail. I voted and it looks like it's going to be pretty much a split down the middle. Figures!  Hmmm, Ideas. And it's so early in the morning too, 11:15am. Ouch, how am I supposed to think? Let's see, I suppose the compromise would have to occur where the two sides are the closest. Since I haven't talked to anyone specifically about their positions it is difficult to determine which compromise would work the best. So, that being said, here is my best shot at a compromise that involves both systems. I've included a more full explanation of my thinking at the bottom of this e-mail under Final Comments. A consistent Baseline works well with the exception being that each position is unique, therefore a cookie cutter baseline for every position doesn't work properly. The QB position has longevity and a mid-range salary, the RBs have a short 'shelf-life' and high salaries, there are many WRs and the one position that starts the highest number of players. Another problem with RB is that the position is so scarce that a faster cap acceleration is needed. So this proposal is my attempt to combine a baseline of dollar amounts and percentage increases for EACH position seperately. The baseline would be determined by looking at the average dollar amounts people have spent on that position in the past and superimposing a baseline over those amounts to reflect a more realistic increase. I'm going to propose a baseline for each position, based on current salary of the top players at their position. See how this works for you. QB - Baseline of $20. (Average QB price of top 16 = $12.65) Top QB - 20% increase / Average of #2 through #6 after their increases, whichever is greater #2 - #5 QB - $3 / 15% increase, whichever is greater #6 - #10 QB - $2 / 10% increase, whichever is greater #11 - #16 QB - $1 / 5% increase, whichever is greater CONCEPT - The QBs price out in the teens for the most part with four of the QBs being over the $20 mark. The $3 / $2 / $1 increases are consistent with the average salary price of a QB in the top 16. For those QBs that end up over the $20 mark the percentage kicks in and boots their salary to a higher level. Given that QBs will usually be productive for a decade or sometimes longer (Favre - 15 years / Marino - 17 years / P. Manning - 8 years and going strong) these increases pile up and generate a turnover that is consistent with the longevity of the position. Also, removing the dollar increase on the top producer ensures that a $1 stud that hits #1 overall in any given year will have his salary dramatically increased to reflect his newfound 'studness'. RB - Baseline of $50. (Average RB price of top 16 = $34.44) Top RB - 20% increase / Average of #2 through #6 after their increases, whichever is greater #2 - #5 RB - $8 / 15% increase, whichever is greater #6 - #10 RB - $5 / 10% increase, whichever is greater #11 - #16 RB - $3 / 5% increase, whichever is greater The RBs average out at the $35 mark, but two players at $1 each skew that number downward. Removing the two $1 players and you get an average of $39.21 which is closer to the $40 range. Setting up a $50 baseline for the RB position results in four of the top 16 RBs pricing over that mark, and the remainder being under that mark. Same as the QBs. Being that the RBs have a shorter 'shelf-life' than any other position, the higher baseline results in higher cap increases and thus more turnover due to cap casualties. Also, the #1 stud has his value increased 20% or he has his cap escalated by averaging out the #2 / #3 / #4 / #5 / #6 player salaries after their increases. This ensures that any really low priced player gets an immediate jump to reflect their increased production and value. WR - Baseline of $30. (Average WR price of top 24 = $16.25) Top WR - 20% increase / Average of #2 through #6 after their increases, whichever is greater #2 - #7 WR - $5 / 15% increase, whichever is greater #8 - #15 WR - $3 / 10% increase, whichever is greater #16 - #24 WR - $2 / 5% increase, whichever is greater Most WRs end up in the high teens to low twenties, with a few being single digit values and others being $25+ amounts. Being that WR is the position where you have to start the most amount of players, increasing the number of players that receive an increase by 8 seemed logical. This was adopted from the third option that received about half the votes. With this $25 baseline there ends up being 6 total WRs over that $25 mark in the top 24. That remains consistent with the QBs and RBs who each have 4 out of 15 and the WR having 6 out of 24. TE - Baseline of $10 (Average TE price of top 16 - $5.06) Top TE - 20% increase / Average of #2 through #6 after their increases, whichever is greater #2 - #8 TE - $2 / 15% increase, whichever is greater #9 - #16 TE - $1 / 10% increase, whichever is greater Only three TEs hit double digit marks out of the top 16. Beyond that everyone else was mostly $1, $3, or $5. This is a low priced position, as such the baseline is lower to reflect that. The #1 overall producer gets a hefty hike, but everyone below that gets a $2 or $1 increase for the most part. Considering a $3 TE would bump up to $5 isn't so bad. If it's a $24 player, then that player would get a bump of $4 from the 15% increase to $28. For the TE position it works as it takes into consideration the lower priced majority and the higher priced studs. K & DEF - Baseline of $10 Top K & DEF - 20% increase / Average of #2 through #6 after their increases, whichever is greater #2 - #8 K & DEF - $2 / 15% increase, whichever is greater #9 - #16 K & DEF - $1 / 10% increase, whichever is greater Most of the Kickers and DEF run in the $1 to $5 range. So the couple of bucks increase works with the low dollar amounts. Should someone go nuts with a K or DEF salary that hits over the $10 mark then the percentage would kick in. But in general this simply allows for a few dollar increase and would result in turnover after a few years when the salary hits close to the $10 range which is high for those two positions. FINAL COMMENTS - This is an attempt to combine the two most popular choices from the votes. I set up a baseline for every position as half the group had voted for choice #1, and I tailored the baseline to each position specifically based on current salaries and pricing trends over the last two years which was the primary element of position #3 which had the other half of the votes. I'm hoping this is an acceptable compromise for both sides to be able to meet in the middle. Let's see what kind of talk this generates! Oh my, I just noticed that this took me an hour and a half. LOL I'm such a nut! Later, Jason |
| *FastFish Shoes |
Date Tue Feb 14 4:21:54 p.m. ET 2006
|
| BRILLIANT !!! let's get it done folks...the FF season is moving on and it's time to finalize our 2006 plans for Otto. |
| *KATs Cowboys & kowgirls |
Date Sat Feb 18 3:19:19 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Kirk, Jason & rest of league owners obviously jason has put a lot of time/calculations into the format etc...and seems to have a very good grasp on what needs be accomplished for long-term viability of Otto Graham (& if implemented in paul brown salary cap format too). certainly i think it hurts the long-term aspect of the league if we don't get a good increase system in place but would equally hurt the format/league if we end up with too many players seeing big increases (option 3 in vote) that would create too many players recieving big cap increases every year creating too many top players being dropped for cap relief and therefore, almost becoming a "re-auction" on the studs/top performers i went back and studied this proposal by Jason listed below in this email string. i personally LIKE this proposal with one thought/suggestion, with the number of emerging top TEs like Gates to go with Gonzo, Shockey, Heap, Witten, Alge and others... might suggest that TEs are put in same grouping as WRs for CAP increase numbers/percentages. other than that, i like the overall cap / position analysis that Jason calculated using different $amounts for the different starting positions of RBs, QBs, WRs etc... with the "vote" on last poll at 8 for option 1, 7 for option 3 and 0 for option 2.... clear that no consensus on that poll and as kirk put in email for that poll vote, looking for 'clear majority vote' on those 3 options. thoughts ? LT ps. again great job Jason !!! |