Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: CBA Adjustment Discussion Thread

  1. #21

    Re: CBA Adjustment Discussion Thread

    Limited sample size but older pitcher's salaries don't seem to come down to the level that would be reasonable given their actual ratings and potential stats. . Michael Price Timothy Ramos David Dixon

  2. #22

    Re: CBA Adjustment Discussion Thread

    Ouch. I used to think I had one of the highest valuations of defense around....but Robert Amos has me considering different options. Yeah, he's got 100 RA at 2B, but without a bat, it's hard to justify 4 mil+...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    1,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Dbacksfan72 View Post
    Ouch. I used to think I had one of the highest valuations of defense around....but Robert Amos has me considering different options. Yeah, he's got 100 RA at 2B, but without a bat, it's hard to justify 4 mil+...
    Try SS Nidl Hejstek. Yeah, he's a record setting SS with 95+ RA and AR. But the guy hits .227 and he jumped $5 M this flip. Yeah, I hate this new CBA. Because it hurts the teams that are built to be good now significantly. And it doesn't reduce anything enough to balance it. I hate it so much because now essentially I have to destroy my two teams which have made it to 5 WS and won 3 in their respective past 3 seasons. Both leagues Hard Cap and nothing I can do, plus I have zero trading leverage because it's hard cap.
    It's enough to make me consider quitting my two best teams in Hard Cap leagues because everything I worked to build for the last 5 years is down the drain.
    "The other team could make trouble for us if they beat us" - Yogi Berra

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    20,010

    Re: CBA Adjustment Discussion Thread

    Thanks for all the feedback. We are looking at some of these outlier examples and discussing some possible adjustments. Keep the feedback coming. We're listening. Stay tuned for updates on a few tweaks to come.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    2,094
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreltonSimmons View Post
    Try SS Nidl Hejstek. Yeah, he's a record setting SS with 95+ RA and AR. But the guy hits .227 and he jumped $5 M this flip. Yeah, I hate this new CBA. Because it hurts the teams that are built to be good now significantly. And it doesn't reduce anything enough to balance it. I hate it so much because now essentially I have to destroy my two teams which have made it to 5 WS and won 3 in their respective past 3 seasons. Both leagues Hard Cap and nothing I can do, plus I have zero trading leverage because it's hard cap.
    It's enough to make me consider quitting my two best teams in Hard Cap leagues because everything I worked to build for the last 5 years is down the drain.
    Couldn't agree more! I don't care how good his range is. For that player there is no way he is worth more then 5 mil. Bonkers

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    1,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerb81 View Post
    Couldn't agree more! I don't care how good his range is. For that player there is no way he is worth more then 5 mil. Bonkers
    Yeah. No way he should be the top paid player on my team. Maybe $4 M is ok but 7 is too much.
    "The other team could make trouble for us if they beat us" - Yogi Berra

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    20,010

    Re: CBA Adjustment Discussion Thread

    Based on the data we've seen and the feedback we've received, last night we pushed out two adjustments to CBA2.1.

    1) One of the major adjustments with CBA2.1 was to factor a quality pitcher's EN more heavily into salary. A quality pitcher with a high EN will command a higher salary to better reflect their workhorse-ness. But the salary boost was applied in an all-or-nothing approach and that has been changed. The salary boost will now occur incrementally over the years as their development and performance warrants it.

    2) Another major adjustment with CBA2.1 was to factor a middle infielder's RA more heavily into salary. (and to a lesser degree, center fielders). A 2B/SS/CF with a high RA will command a higher salary to better reflect their value as a defender. But the salary boost may have been a bit too extreme, especially for the no-hit/all-glove types. The salary boost will still be significant over CBA2...just not quite as high as you've seen over the past few weeks.


    Please note:
    1) No changes will be made retroactively. The salary model will be applied to all flips to new seasons, all free agents that get created, all new draft lists...but no retroactive changes will be made.

    2) Some players are still greedy and will still be demanding more salary than you think they are worth. Other players will remain humble and request a reasonable salary...maybe even a bargain. None of that has changed.

    As always, we want to hear what you think. So please tell us!
    Last edited by smittias; August 20, 2017 at 02:21 PM.

  8. #28

    Re: CBA Adjustment Discussion Thread

    I see all the complaints about people having to break up good teams because their players now want to be paid what they are worth. I agree some of the adjustments might have been high for extreme cases. But making the old, tired, "High RA MI/ High FI/EN starters, scrub 'pen" formula more difficult to pull off is a GOOD THING. The easiest way to win the game should be the most expensive, IMO. If unbeatable dynasties become too expensive to maintain sooner than they otherwise would have, it's a GOOD THING.

    It's good for the game, even if it hurts to rip off that band-aid.
    2ML - SD Padres (1906, 1909, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1931, 1942, 1945, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1971)
    BD - Antarctica (1993,1994, 1996, 2004, 2005, 2019, 2041, 2044, 2046)
    CBF - Duck (2053, 2056, 2058, 2060, 2070, 2071, 2075, 2077, 2087, 2088, 2091, 2092, 2102, 2105,2106, 2107)
    CWS - UNC ( 1953, 1954, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1976)
    HR - Phillies (1901, 1903, 1905, 1906, 1917, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1927, 19291931)
    CarL - Port Royal (2026)
    (52-38 in WS (active) 59-47 (all))

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    2,094
    Quote Originally Posted by smittias View Post
    Based on the data we've seen and the feedback we've received, last night we pushed out two adjustments to CBA2.1.

    1) One of the major adjustments with CBA2.1 was to factor a quality pitcher's EN more heavily into salary. A quality pitcher with a high EN will command a higher salary to better reflect their workhorse-ness. But the salary boost was applied in an all-or-nothing approach and that has been changed. The salary boost will now occur incrementally over the years as their development and performance warrants it.

    2) Another major adjustment with CBA2.1 was to factor a middle infielder's RA more heavily into salary. (and to a lesser degree, center fielders). A 2B/SS/CF with a high RA will command a higher salary to better reflect their value as a defender. But the salary boost may have been a bit too extreme, especially for the no-hit/all-glove types. The salary boost will still be significant over CBA2...just not quite as high as you've seen over the past few weeks.


    Please note:
    1) No changes will be made retroactively. The salary model will be applied to all flips to new seasons, all free agents that get created, all new draft lists...but no retroactive changes will be made.

    2) Some players are still greedy and will still be demanding more salary than you think they are worth. Other players will remain humble and request a reasonable salary...maybe even a bargain. None of that has changed.

    As always, we want to hear what you think. So please tell us!
    I love it. As I have always said the CBA2.1 was to drastic to the other side. This sounds like it may even things out. Thank you for listening.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,689

    Re: CBA Adjustment Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulpecula View Post
    I see all the complaints about people having to break up good teams because their players now want to be paid what they are worth. I agree some of the adjustments might have been high for extreme cases. But making the old, tired, "High RA MI/ High FI/EN starters, scrub 'pen" formula more difficult to pull off is a GOOD THING. The easiest way to win the game should be the most expensive, IMO. If unbeatable dynasties become too expensive to maintain sooner than they otherwise would have, it's a GOOD THING.

    It's good for the game, even if it hurts to rip off that band-aid.
    I agree with Vulp. My one concern was the rookie SP with EN but that was fixed. I hope there wasnt too much backtracking on range money
    song of the week: Hang me up to dry
    work in progress: https://luketelarico.github.io/

     
    2016: 3,437-3,070 (.528) ~ 4 WS
    2017: 7,291-5,957 (.550) ~ 8 WS

    Sweet-Atlanta Braves(1878-)1886, 1888, 1891, 1892, 1897, 1898
    TML-Anaheim Angels (1959-)1964, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1972, 1976
    CarL-Kingston Clownfi(2017-)2022, 2027, 2031, 2032
    LEG-Juan More Inning(2033-)2045, 2046, 2047
    BD-Orange County Jui(2034-)2038
    *WBC-Venezuela Cara(1925-)1925, 1928, 1930
    *Dodgers-CaliforniaBB(1950-)1953
    GOAT- Squirtle Squad (1994-)1997
    CWS-Stanford Cardina(1977-)
    ReAA-Corpus Christi H(2098-)
    TCL-Misty Mountain H(2101-)
    ThrowB-2018 | TP-1983

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •