Cap figure

[Mr. Miyagi]

I think the cap value should completely go away. It's inhabiting open trading.

In fantasy football once a player is drafted it does not matter which round he is drafted. His true value is in the eye of each team owner. If you had Chris Johnson whom you drafted in the 1st round, wouldn't you want to trade him straight up for Matt Forte who was probably drafted in the 4th?

I'd say keep the initial auction part intact, but once bought you can either trade for another card or set your own price to sell, regardless of how much you paid for that card.

The cap part comes in that each owner only has 200K to spend. Once spent you'll have to sell your cards for cash to bid on more cards.

[chernobylwraiths]

I like the cap and cap figure for the cards. The only way around it is if you sell a portion of your cap to another owner.

If you overbid for a card, you SHOULD be penalized. Especially since others wanted to buy that card.

[BLeonard]

I think the cap value should completely go away. It's inhabiting open trading.

In fantasy football once a player is drafted it does not matter which round he is drafted. His true value is in the eye of each team owner. If you had Chris Johnson whom you drafted in the 1st round, wouldn't you want to trade him straight up for Matt Forte who was probably drafted in the 4th?

I'd say keep the initial auction part intact, but once bought you can either trade for another card or set your own price to sell, regardless of how much you paid for that card.

The cap part comes in that each owner only has 200K to spend. Once spent you'll have to sell your cards for cash to bid on more cards.

Couple problems with that, at least for this year:

1: The cards would have to be changed constantly to reflect how much the current owner paid for them. Combine that with the fact that not everyone keeps the cards in their sig and it makes it very difficult to track how much someone has actually spent, dollar-wise.

2: Historian and NBF have already paid $200k or more in order to buy just one card.

This is just a couple things off the top of my head....

Also, using your "Chris Johnson for Matt Forte" analogy, in fantasy leagues where they use a salary cap (like we do here) I don't think a person would be willing to deal Forte to pick up Johnson AND take his cap hit on top of it.

In theory, you could do it starting next year, but you'd have to have someone tracking everyone's spending. If Bedard would want to go that route, my suggestion would to not put a dollar value on a card, as you'd be tracking players' spending limits, as opposed to card value.

It could be done and might be worth trying to iron out the wrinkles, assuming Bedard would be willing to go to a cap system based on cash spent, as opposed to card value, but it would have to wait until next season.

One thing that a system like that would really even the playing field out on would be spending to buy a card from another player. You wouldn't see anyone giving a big chunk of change for one card, like Historian and NBF did because, if you're counting their cash spent, NBF would be done with just Drew Barrymore and Historian wouldn't have been able to make the deals he did.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

I like the cap and cap figure for the cards. The only way around it is if you sell a portion of your cap to another owner.

If you overbid for a card, you SHOULD be penalized. Especially since others wanted to buy that card.

In a way, Miyagi's proposal would allow you to, in effect, sell part of your cap. Example:

Say I buy a card for $30k... I now have $170k left (assuming a $200k cap).

Then, you buy the card from me for $25k... You've spent $25k of your cap, while I recover $25k of mine... I'd be back to $195k, in effect losing 5k of my cap in order to sell the card. The cap would be on cash spent, not cards acquired. Make sense?

That's why I said, if Bedard decides to go this way, don't put a dollar value on the cards. That way, you wouldn't have to change the dollar value every time a deal was made.

One problem I see would be selling the card back to Bedard... If you paid $25k for a card that was won agt $30k, what would you get in return for selling it back? 1/3 of $25k or 1/3 of $30k? If a card sells multiple times, tracking how much the sellback value is could get tough. I guess the simple solution would be to not allow sellbacks at all...

Miyagi's idea has legs and could work... But, some bugs would need to be worked out beforehand.

-Bill

[YardRat]

I like the cap.

Maybe next time the values will come down when people realize they drove the market too high this time.

[Mski]

I think the cap value should hold true... even with trades.... Look at the NHL, when a player is traded mid season, the team aquiring him has to account for a cap hit, so in the case of a team like the sabres that are up against the cap, they would have to dump salary to bring someone else in

[BLeonard]

I like the cap.

Maybe next time the values will come down when people realize they drove the market too high this time.

Like I said, there would still be a cap. after thinking about it a bit, I think Miyagi's idea would actually punish you MORE for overspending than the current system. I'll use Clump with Danica McKellar as an example:

Current system: The only 2 ways Clump could move her would be to find a shmuck dumb enough to give up $165k of his cap for her. Not happening. The other option is selling her back, taking a $10k cap penalty and a couple ddays off from auctions. The thing is, after those 2 days he'd gain $155k in cap space... For as insane of an overbid as Clump made, is a $10k cap hit really a good enough punishment?

Miyagi's idea: Clump could find someone willing to give him, say $25k for McKellar... The catch would be, Clump still would have a hit of $140k, which is a much bigger punishment than the $10k cap hit he'd currently take.

Like I said above, if Bedard wanted to go to this type of cap, I'd suggest eliminating the "selling back to the bank" option. at the very least, the penalty should better reflect the cost of the card being sold back... Maybe the cap hit should be 1/3 of the purchase value of the card, as opposed to just the standard $10k.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

I think the cap value should hold true... even with trades.... Look at the NHL, when a player is traded mid season, the team aquiring him has to account for a cap hit, so in the case of a team like the sabres that are up against the cap, they would have to dump salary to bring someone else in

I don't know the answer, so I'm legitamitely asking here:

In the NHL, can a trade be done where the team trading the player away still pays for a portion of the traded player's salary? I know it happens in baseball (but they don't have a cap).

If this can be done in the NHL, I assume the cap would be adjusted for each team, based on how much of the player's salary they were paying... It'd be a similar idea here.

I could see either the current way, or Miyagi's way working and being effective. Miyagi's way would increase trading and probably reduce selling, while the current system makes it easier to sell than trade.

Either way, I forsee auction prices dropping next season. I'm sure there will still be a "WTF" bid ever so often, but I doubt you're gonna see $100k plus bids.

-Bill

[chernobylwraiths]

I don't know the answer, so I'm legitamitely asking here:

In the NHL, can a trade be done where the team trading the player away still pays for a portion of the traded player's salary? I know it happens in baseball (but they don't have a cap).

If this can be done in the NHL, I assume the cap be adjusted for each team, based on how much of the player's salary they were paying... It'd be a similar idea here.

I could see either the current way, or Miyagi's way working and being effective. Miyagi's way would increase trading and probably reduce selling, while the current system makes it easier to sell than trade.

-Bill
Only if the player is waived first. Then they can trade the player but have to keep half of the player's salary till the end of the contract.

:scratch:
waiving girls

[Mski]

I don't know the answer, so I'm legitamitely asking here:

In the NHL, can a trade be done where the team trading the player away still pays for a portion of the traded player's salary? I know it happens in baseball (but they don't have a cap).

If this can be done in the NHL, I assume the cap be adjusted for each team, based on how much of the player's salary they were paying... It'd be a similar idea here.

I could see either the current way, or Miyagi's way working and being effective. Miyagi's way would increase trading and probably reduce selling, while the current system makes it easier to sell than trade.

-Billi believe teams can pay a portion and/or all of a players salary they are trading, but the cap figure still goes to the team they play for, but i'm no cap guru

[chernobylwraiths]

They also pay half of their salary for the remainder of the contract too. See Sean Avery and the Dallas Stars/New York Rangers deal.

At least I'm pretty sure.

[Mr. Miyagi]

If you overbid for a card, you SHOULD be penalized. Especially since others wanted to buy that card.
The penalty is that you've used up cap space for that card, and when you sell it to another owner you will lose cash because it doesn't have the same value to other people. But another owner wanting to buy that card shouldn't be penalized.

[BLeonard]

Only if the player is waived first. Then they can trade the player but have to keep half of the player's salary till the end of the contract.

:scratch:
waiving girls

That doesn't make sense... If a player is waived, they're no longer on the team...

How can you trade a player no longer on the team?

But, whatever, I think you guys get the gist of what I was trying to explain...

-Bill

[The King]

The only way I would abolish a cap would be to reset everyones ZB's. no one started on a level playing field the cap was the way to neutralize that

[Mski]

That doesn't make sense... If a player is waived, they're no longer on the team...

How can you trade a player no longer on the team?

But, whatever, I think you guys get the gist of what I was trying to explain...

-Billsticking with the NHL example, when you "waive" a player and no one picks him up from the wire, the team that released him regains control of his contract rights

[BLeonard]

The only way I would abolish a cap would be to reset everyones ZB's. no one started on a level playing field the cap was the way to neutralize that

Thing is, there would still be a cap... It would just be measured in cash spent, not how much the cards you have cost.

It would actually level the playing field even more, as nobody would be able to pay half a million ZB for a card that has an $11k cap hit.

You can spend to your cap, whether it be by winning auctions, or buying cards off of others. But, once you reach the cap, you're done.

-Bill

[northernbillfan]

It's inhabiting open trading.So it lives in open trading? inhibiting