#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

Inner_GI wrote:For those concerned about # of players being insured:

2015: 49
2014: 64
2013: 57
2012: 57

I think having a constant 60 is probably fine for the league.

IamQuailman wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:46 pm On the contrary, (brought this up on skype) we could do a hybrid of current and this. 1 free insurance/team, then pay for subsequent insurances incremently increasing. Cap at max of 3 or 4?

Player 1 - free
Player 2 - 10pts
Player 3 - 20pts

Cost is same as present day, but every team gets to protect their "cornerstone". Max at 3 players per squad.

Player

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

WigNosy wrote:Couple of points...

1. I would use a veto on a proposal remove age restrictions entirely. The reason older players get worse is because if your potential drops below your current, THEN your current drops. That is what happens to older players' skills. Take away the age restriction and the first drop around age 31 is as bad they will ever get because their potentials will be restored and the next year their current drops back to where their current is already at. You don't want Kevin Love purple at age 60.

2. Part of the reason the media cap was raised and pick em points have been generously raised is that we had lots of points leaving the sim economy due to TC. The new point system was based on an economy of about 1000 points entering the league per year. The new media cap and more generous pick ems added about 500 more potential points. This was offset by the drain of about 600 points per season from TC insurance. Eliminating insurance entirely leaves far too many points for training and luxury tax at current prices. Put another way, the unintended consequence of this proposal is that it cuts relative tax and training prices by 1/3 to 1/2.

3. I think teams should be able to pay more points to protect more players or fewer points to protect fewer. Capping at only 2 players doesn't seem good.

4. Is it really THAT hard to put a link and/or update your bank when you pay insurance? I feel like the proposed fix is way out of proportion to the problem.

ballsohard wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:32 pm What if every 1st rounder had 2 free years of insurance instead ?

garbageman wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:12 pm I know that it sucks when a player you like loses potential or gets worse, but I'm against adding protections. Aside from the points economy, we have a supply and demand economy of talent. If we start adding rules to protect more and more players and fewer players ever decline, especially rookie contract ones, it takes some of the risk and chance out of the game, and the skill of running a team includes dealing with risk and chance. I think being able to protect players more easily would put a damper on trading (which is I think one of the most important skill aspects of the game) because everyone will have the ability to just construct a safe team with few wrenches thrown in for adjustments.

To mitigate the cost of insurance, I think the media cap could be bumped up a little bit. Right now, 5 articles is a pretty lofty goal. If we removed the cap restriction, I doubt we'd see people pumping out infinite articles, but something like 40 points a season would allow anyone who wants to put in the work to put up 8 pieces of media in order to be able to insure 4 players will have well earned that.

We should take a look at whether the points that disappear in TC reappear as media points, which also come from nowhere. Right now, with 30 GMs allowed 25 points apiece, That gives us enough to insure 2 players and have 5 left over. The only other place points go is the tax, which should be covered by the points awards for winning. If you're way over the tax and not picking up the points to cover the tax, that should be a sign that your strategy is not working.

1. how about the idea of if we do this you have to CLAIM your insured rookie guys in the TC thread? If not claimed, they are not insured.

• Non-rookie contract players would be available for paid training as currently set.

Inner_GI wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:05 pm I'm okay with both of those ideas, though I really don't get the reasoning behind trading in RCT for Insurance. It's not really a decision. Like it's so easy to make, that we'd never use RCT again, and if that's the point, why not just vote to remove that separately?

The value of protecting potentials vs MAX 24 points increased in ratings (if the rookie even has space for it in their potentials) isn't remotely even. Everyone would choose insurance.

IamQuailman wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:03 pm I'm cool with the 2 or 3 free trainings per team as well, everything after is paid.

Any thoughts on the "partial refund"? Or hell even full refund?

I really wish more people would talk here, even if its like "yeah i like this" or "NAH"... we need MORE discussion before this goes to vote, and it's a very important topic.