SCS Supercoach Ultimate League

[Darkie]

Gents if you haven't already, if you could have a look through the possible alteration to the 2nd Contracts that would be good, and provide @KLo30 some feedback so we can make a call on whether to go through with the change.

FWIW, having discussed with Ken a few weeks back when he first mentioned it to me, I thought it was beneficial the adjustments. Being a little bit less sting in re-signing those higher end averaging guys, and to longer-term deals, not hurting the bank quite as much. This I think will be good, particularly once we start getting a couple of years in, where it will reward good research, recruiting, and obviously a little bit of luck with getting doing well with your draft selections for players coming into the AFL system.

I am on board with this, for the reasons given. The original pricing structure ended up being quite onerous in my view, so I’m happy for this to be reduced. The amounts in the tables above seem more reasonable to me, although if there was a strong view that they should be somewhat higher/lower I would be okay with that as well.

I like the consultative approach too.

 

[Diabolical]

Over the next month or so, I'll be seeking input for the rules of the competition. Some will be new rules and some will be alterations. All will be designed to improve the game, whether that be to fix holes or make it fairer. As always,, your opinion is sought and valued.

The first is a slight alteration to the 2nd Contracts. Currently, the 2YC go up by 50%, 75%, 100%, 125% and that seemed to work well for averages in the 40 - 75% range when designing the game. We can now see that there are a number of rookies scoring 75%+, for which these percentages seem too harsh in increasing value in years 3 - 5.

I've done another table/calculator with 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% and made a comparison table (all of which can be seen in full in the Teams doc), which I think is a fairer scaling of value over the five years, whilst still require teams to make decisions on length of contracts. The overs aren't as harsh.

2YC 40% to 100%: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...bzjGpqnAKzgUvJNCheSgWVLxIs/edit#gid=986689135
Comparison: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...zjGpqnAKzgUvJNCheSgWVLxIs/edit#gid=1530731510
View attachment 22517

All salaries would be altered to the new values before our trade and draft period.

Please have a look at the tables and provide feedback.

I am happy to go with the majority even though I would prefer to leave it as is.

I didn’t mind the harsh pricing because I thought teams that went hard might get themselves in trouble down the track. It was the reason I faded T Kelly even though I had first pick in that draft. At the end of the day the changes don’t make a huge price difference in % terms, so I don’t think it would have changed my strategy. Therefore I don’t object to the proposed changes.

 

[Bomber18]

Thanks for the suggestions @KLo30 and @Goodie's Guns

I tend to agree with @Diabolical though personally. I think that the harsher salaries also adds to the strategy, especially as the coach could consider offering a 2 to 3 year deal rather than the full 5 to avoid potentially overpaying in the backend but also adding a risk that they might not be able to match to retain the player during the RFA period. I believe there was potentially some discussion of discounts for RFA signings who served a first and second year contract on a team's list. If that eventuated, a coach could potentially consider offering a shorter contract and punting on being able to secure their player for a cheaper price to their 4th or 5th year salaries through the RFA signing process (but with the obvious risk of not being able to due to a very aggressive offer from an opposition coach). I think I would prefer the RFA discount approach to the adjustments to all the 2YCs.

Oddly enough, I didn't think the pricing was too overly unfair either. E.g. Walsh's 5 year contract is worth 945k on average over 5 years. Compared to say Dunkley (930k avg), Neale/Jelly/Zerrett ($1m avg), it doesn't seem too disproportionate for a player hitting 100 in their 2nd year and a likely 110+ player long term.

There are some situations I can see where it's probably a bit disproportionate, more for those players in that 70-80 avg range, in their second year without much more upside but I think that's where the strategy comes in too. If you're bullish on their upside, you can lock them up for 5 years, but if not, 2-3 years and still retain the RFA matching rights.

One query, was the plan to adjust the existing 2YCs as well as the new 2YCs? As someone who signed TKelly though, I think I probably would be quite disadvantaged if the rules re the 2YCs changed from this year onwards (i.e. copping a 967k avg contract, when it could've been 80-100k on avg less). I would be okay with the overall adjustments to 2YCs if the existing 2YCs were also going to be adjusted as well.

Just my 2 cents though, happy to go with the majority vote (though, as a Rowell owner, I might be wishing I'd advocated for the other way if he ends up hitting a 110-115 in his second year haha.)

 

[KLo30]

One query, was the plan to adjust the existing 2YCs as well as the new 2YCs? As someone who signed TKelly though, I think I probably would be quite disadvantaged if the rules re the 2YCs changed from this year onwards (i.e. copping a 967k avg contract, when it could've been 80-100k on avg less). I would be okay with the overall adjustments to 2YCs if the existing 2YCs were also going to be adjusted as well.

Just my 2 cents though, happy to go with the majority vote (though, as a Rowell owner, I might be wishing I'd advocated for the other way if he ends up hitting a 110-115 in his second year haha.)

They will be.

 

[Bomber18]

They will be.

Thanks for the confirmation! I think that's the fairest approach.

I'll keep my preference for no change as is but also happy to follow the majority vote.

 

[Philzsay]

I am happy for the suggested change.

However I may be biased as it does suit my current list. So if the consensus was for no change then that's fine too.

 

[KLo30]

I've spent quite a few weeks analysing teams structures and the prices before suggesting the amendment to the 2nd contract prices. I believe there is more benefit to the game than detriment with this change.

To illustrate why, I've picked a random team, it happens to be Bomber18's, I trust he won't mind.

He has 4 players coming out of contract (FA), 1 player becoming a RFA and 8 rookies eligible for a 2nd contract. For the sake of the exercise I've:

• given 5 year contracts for all 2YC players and priced them all at the average
• given the RFA a modest price (average also)
• replaced the 4 free agents with rookies (price equivalent to his top 4 rookies)

That seems to be a reasonable scenario.

NB. 2YC prices have been altered to the suggested new price structure.

This produces a deficit of over $467K, and would be around $1M under the current 2YC contract structure.

Regardless whether Bomber18 wants to sign a free agent or two, he has decisions to make in order to get under the salary cap.

 

[KLo30]

Let's do Philzsay.

• 2YC at 5 year averages
• He has no RFA
• Keeps/resigns two FA's (prices my even be unders Libba 105+ ave @$700K & Ryder @$550K)
• The other 4 FA's become rookies

Again, he is over $580K in deficit.

 

[KLo30]

In the scenarios above, Bomber18 would be over the contract cap. He would therefore get under the salary cap by not offering 5 year contracts to his rookies. Philzsay could offer 5 year contracts to all rookies and still be able to split 11 years for Ryder and Libba.

The complexities of the game still hold true with the altered 2YC price structure. Any money saved here will be able to be used on RFAs and FAs, which is good for the game.

 

[Connoisseur]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326748890515660800

Great news for Creme de la Creme and hopefully we can field all of our top 6 defenders at once, for the first time in club history (barring any dpp changes):

T Stewart
S Edwards
A Witherden
J McGovern
T Doedee
H Young

 

[KLo30]

Poll added.

 

[Diabolical]

Poll added.

Well that was easy

 

[KLo30]

​

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Oh jeepers @KLo30 I did not need to see this, I've only just been able to put that horrendous performance behind me.

 

[KLo30]

Oh jeepers @KLo30 I did not need to see this, I've only just been able to put that horrendous performance behind me.

Sorry mate. Pretty cool though.

 

[lappinitup]

Apologies - I am coming from a mile back.

Trying to work out all the contracts/worksheet before the draft.

I would prefer the original rules, however I suspect that is because I don't fully understand the rules and it appears to be fairly useless to my team yet help others. haha

 

[lappinitup]

For everyone else out there.

Hate this list - want to make it mine, so come at me with trades.

Chance to take advantage of a newbie!

 

[KLo30]

For everyone else out there.

Hate this list - want to make it mine, so come at me with trades.

Chance to take advantage of a newbie!

It's probably worthwhile you putting something together in the same fashion as Goodie' Giants FC with regards to who is available for trade and what you are after.

We all spent hours drafting with each other, seen how each team put together and traded. We've got an understanding of each other built over this time. Other than hating the list, and wanting to make it your own, I'm not sure we know where to begin. Young/old, draft picks/players, etc.

 

[Bomber18]

For everyone else out there.

Hate this list - want to make it mine, so come at me with trades.

Chance to take advantage of a newbie!

Any interest in some Carlton players like ZWilliams and CCurnow?

 

[lappinitup]

It's probably worthwhile you putting something together in the same fashion as Goodie' Giants FC with regards to who is available for trade and what you are after.

We all spent hours drafting with each other, seen how each team put together and traded. We've got an understanding of each other built over this time. Other than hating the list, and wanting to make it your own, I'm not sure we know where to begin. Young/old, draft picks/players, etc.

I agree - I am well behind in knowledge and experience.
My view rightly or wrongly, is the only advantage I have is the aspect of the "unknown quantity".

Open to all offers and discussions, in the end, all they do is start the conversation.. highly doubt we will agree a trade first up.