SCSUL RULE CHANGES - Discussion

[Bomber18]

If the salary is the same, the contract length prevails.

Thanks Klo. Yes, understand that part.

But was more talking about when it comes to matching the deal. I think currently say Coach B and C are bidding on a RFA, and say Coach C wins on a $400k on a 2 year deal, if the original Coach (Coach A) wants to take that player on a longer deal, they’ll have to join the bidding and offer say 400,001 on a 3-4 yr deal rather than be able to match the contract and set the contract length at 3-4.

 

[KLo30]

Thanks Klo. Yes, understand that part.

But was more talking about when it comes to matching the deal. I think currently say Coach B and C are bidding on a RFA, and say Coach C wins on a $400k on a 2 year deal, if the original Coach (Coach A) wants to take that player on a longer deal, they’ll have to join the bidding and offer say 400,001 on a 3-4 yr deal rather than be able to match the contract and set the contract length at 3-4.

No. Match the salary and set the contract length at 2 or more years.

 

[Bomber18]

No. Match the salary and set the contract length at 2 or more years.

Oh I see, so it’s already the way I suggested? That’s great!

Might be misremembering things but during the RFA draft someone may have asked whether the matching coach could set the contract length and I had thought the answer was “no, they would need to bid a longer contract length”.

 

[lappinitup]

I'm expecting that salaries for FA will not be at the level seen in the original draft. Much like in the AFL where there are only a handful at $1M and then it's maybe a few at $800K and then the rest under $700K. We will see.

Hope so!

 

[KLo30]

Row:
1. Initial loading
2. Current loading
3. 20% discount year one with current loading
4. Year 1 current price, Year 2 current price, Year 3 - 5 (1.4, 1.6, 1.8)

View attachment 34840
View attachment 34841

Full tables can be found in the 2020 Teams sheet > 2YC Comparison.

There are a number of rule changes in proposal form which need discussing before implementation. Time is running out to have these introduced before the season begins, let alone the draft and trading.

I'm going to put a new one out every few days for discussion and then voting (if required), so please keep an eye out over the next few weeks.



The first rule for voting is the one that was discussed above in regards to 2nd Contracts.

Yes or No in the poll at the top.

• Option 4: Year 1 current price, Year 2 current price, Year 3 - 5 (1.4, 1.6, 1.8)
• Only for new 2nd Contracts. No backdating
• Implemented for season 2022

Yes if you agree with all three dot points
No if you disagree with any or all dot points

@Goodie's Guns @Connoisseur @Bomber18 @Philzsay @lappinitup @Diabolical @Deeman1 @Darkie @Jordan's Jets

 

[KLo30]

The next rule is for the Pre-Season Draft and Long Term Injury list.

I've tweaked two aspects (which I've bolded).
1. Some salary cap relief for a long term injury. Up to the average value of a player on our lists of $410,000.
2. Mid Season Draft will be held in the middle of our season.


QUOTE="KLo30, post: 778071, member: 1303

"These three rules go together in many ways, though you can do the Mid Season Draft with only one of the two scenarios.

The idea is to give teams more flexibility in list management, and to allow a mechanism to cover for season ending injuries.

For clarification, teams would not be able to trade themselves to an open roster spot for Mid Season Draft purposes.


PRESEASON DRAFT - LIST SIZE

Teams will be permitted leave up to two positions on their 44 player list unfilled at the completion of the Pre Season Draft. Teams must leave a minimum of $150,000 of salary per player available in their salary cap for drafting of top up players in the Mid Season Draft. These positions can only, and must, be filled via the Mid Season Draft.

DRAFT

LONG TERM INJURY LIST

The SCSUL Long Term Injury (LTI) list would work in the same manner as the AFL. Teams would be able to place players on the LTI list who won't play, and/or take any further part, in the current season.

Teams are eligible to claim up to $410,000 in salary cap relief of the players salary for the season. Teams will be responsible for the payment of the remainder of the players salary in that season, however the contract year won't be counted for cap purposes.

Teams will be able to replace the player through either the Pre Season or Mid Season Drafts.

A maximum of two players from a team will be eligible to be replaced through this process.

DRAFT

MID SEASON DRAFT

A Mid Season Draft will be held before the commencement of round 10. Teams with available salary and contract space will be eligible to participate in the Md Season Draft. Teams are able to draft up to three players to fill spaces on their list caused by LTI and/or held back from the Pre Season Draft.

Teams may offer players up to 2 years (pro rata) in contract length. Rookie eligible players must be drafted to a 2 year (pro rata) contract.

DRAFT
/QUOTE

 

[Bomber18]

The next rule is for the Pre-Season Draft and Long Term Injury list.

I've tweaked two aspects (which I've bolded).
1. Some salary cap relief for a long term injury. Up to the average value of a player on our lists of $410,000.
2. Mid Season Draft will be held in the middle of our season.


QUOTE="KLo30, post: 778071, member: 1303

"These three rules go together in many ways, though you can do the Mid Season Draft with only one of the two scenarios.

The idea is to give teams more flexibility in list management, and to allow a mechanism to cover for season ending injuries.

For clarification, teams would not be able to trade themselves to an open roster spot for Mid Season Draft purposes.


PRESEASON DRAFT - LIST SIZE

Teams will be permitted leave up to two positions on their 44 player list unfilled at the completion of the Pre Season Draft. Teams must leave a minimum of $150,000 of salary per player available in their salary cap for drafting of top up players in the Mid Season Draft. These positions can only, and must, be filled via the Mid Season Draft.

DRAFT

LONG TERM INJURY LIST

The SCSUL Long Term Injury (LTI) list would work in the same manner as the AFL. Teams would be able to place players on the LTI list who won't play, and/or take any further part, in the current season.

Teams are eligible to claim up to $410,000 in salary cap relief of the players salary for the season. Teams will be responsible for the payment of the remainder of the players salary in that season, however the contract year won't be counted for cap purposes.

Teams will be able to replace the player through either the Pre Season or Mid Season Drafts.

A maximum of two players from a team will be eligible to be replaced through this process.

DRAFT

MID SEASON DRAFT

A Mid Season Draft will be held before the commencement of round 10. Teams with available salary and contract space will be eligible to participate in the Md Season Draft. Teams are able to draft up to three players to fill spaces on their list caused by LTI and/or held back from the Pre Season Draft.

Teams may offer players up to 2 years (pro rata) in contract length. Rookie eligible players must be drafted to a 2 year (pro rata) contract.

DRAFT
/QUOTE

Like these tweaks, makes it more likely to help people who have been hard hit with LTIs such as ACLs.

Few queries:

1. If a coach fills their list to 42 players in the preseason draft (leaving 2 spots open for the MSD) but then trades 2 more players onto their list to bring their total players to 44 or more players in total, what would the effect be on the MSD rules? Does the coach still have to fill the two spots via the MSD and also ensure that they leave $300k in their cap space free until the MSD?

2. Does the $410k of salary cap relief apply as an aggregate total? Eg if you had one LTI, you have $410k extra cap space, two LTIs means 205k per player and so forth?

3. Unrelated to the MSD but will the added SC positional changes after R6, R12, R18 also apply to SCSUL?

 

[KLo30]

Like these tweaks, makes it more likely to help people who have been hard hit with LTIs such as ACLs.

Few queries:

1. If a coach fills their list to 42 players in the preseason draft (leaving 2 spots open for the MSD) but then trades 2 more players onto their list to bring their total players to 44 or more players in total, what would the effect be on the MSD rules? Does the coach still have to fill the two spots via the MSD and also ensure that they leave $300k in their cap space free until the MSD?

2. Does the $410k of salary cap relief apply as an aggregate total? Eg if you had one LTI, you have $410k extra cap space, two LTIs means 205k per player and so forth?

3. Unrelated to the MSD but will the added SC positional changes after R6, R12, R18 also apply to SCSUL?

1. To be eligible to participate in the MSD teams need to have available list positions.

2. Up for debate. My original thought was that it would be an aggregate, however I haven't given much thought to the overall consequences of allowing an aggregate of up to $820,000 for the game.

3. Yes, we will follow the SC positional changes.

 

[Bomber18]

1. To be eligible to participate in the MSD teams need to have available list positions.

2. Up for debate. My original thought was that it would be an aggregate, however I haven't given much thought to the overall consequences of allowing an aggregate of up to $820,000 for the game.

3. Yes, we will follow the SC positional changes.

Thanks for this! That makes sense but sorry a few more comments / queries.

On 1, I take it that a team could eg elect to leave two spots open in the PSD (with $300k put aside) but then be able trade to fill those spots before the MSD, using the $300k space to do so.

On 2, an aggregate of 410k makes sense to me and seems reasonable. The other query/thought I had is whether the relief would also be capped to the LTI player’s salary? EG say I draft a fringe 120k rookie that does an LTI, I would get 120k cap relief and not 410k?

 

[KLo30]

Thanks for this! That makes sense but sorry a few more comments / queries.

On 1, I take it that a team could eg elect to leave two spots in the PSD open (with $300k put aside) but then be able trade to fill those spots before the MSD, using the $300k space to do so.

On 2, an aggregate of 410k makes sense to me and seems reasonable. The other query/thought I had is whether the relief would also be capped to the LTI player’s salary? EG say I draft a fringe 120k rookie that does an LTI, I would get 120k cap relief and not 410k?

That's what a discussion thread is all about!

1. Yes, they can fill those spots via trade. However, a team cannot trade away players to enter the MSD. They must have already left a spot on their list open or have a LTI(s) in order to participate.

2. Most teams have little salary cap space. Losing a star player makes it very tough in this game, so replacing with a rookie and being able to use the extra dollars in a trade would be reasonable in my eyes. You can't replace a Steele, Gawn, Lloyd, etc via one player in a draft. You might be able to be creative with drafting and trading to lessen the impact.

 

[Darkie]

Nice work on the rule changes Ken. I think it will be good to settle these, and I suspect they’ll be quite beneficial overall.

Can I check please:

1. Does everyone receive 2 MSD picks regardless of their list position (ie whether they have list spots and adequate cap space), and are they tradeable?

2. Is the LTI list in operation until the final trade deadline for the season?

3. Do you have a source and/or duration in mind for determining whether an injury is long term?

 

[KLo30]

Nice work on the rule changes Ken. I think it will be good to settle these, and I suspect they’ll be quite beneficial overall.

Can I check please:

1. Does everyone receive 2 MSD picks regardless of their list position (ie whether they have list spots and adequate cap space), and are they tradeable?

2. Is the LTI list in operation until the final trade deadline for the season?

3. Do you have a source and/or duration in mind for determining whether an injury is long term?

1. Every team will received 3 MSD picks, which are tradeable, regardless of list sizes.

2. The LTI list is available to teams up until the MSD. Long term injuries thereafter will not be eligible for any cap relief.

3. We will use the AFL.com.au injury list. Team nominations for players to be put on the LTI will be assessed by the commissioner on the case by case basis.

 

[Darkie]

1. Every team will received 3 MSD picks, which are tradeable, regardless of list sizes.

2. The LTI list is available to teams up until the MSD. Long term injuries thereafter will not be eligible for any cap relief.

3. We will use the AFL.com.au injury list. Team nominations for players to be put on the LTI will be assessed by the commissioner on the case by case basis.

Thanks for clarifying, that’s helpful.

I’ll need to think more about the proposed changes, but this all seems pretty sensible to me.

 

[Bomber18]

That's what a discussion thread is all about!

1. Yes, they can fill those spots via trade. However, a team cannot trade away players to enter the MSD. They must have already left a spot on their list open or have a LTI(s) in order to participate.

2. Most teams have little salary cap space. Losing a star player makes it very tough in this game, so replacing with a rookie and being able to use the extra dollars in a trade would be reasonable in my eyes. You can't replace a Steele, Gawn, Lloyd, etc via one player in a draft. You might be able to be creative with drafting and trading to lessen the impact.

Very helpful to have your thoughts on all this clarified, thanks! A few more from me in that case!

1. What are your thoughts on coaches potentially trading in an LTI player to be able to participate in the MSD? Say they have 44 fit players but then trade in an LTI, do they still have a right to name them as an LTI and participate in the MSD? Or is it strictly for teams with 44 or less players?

2. I see, got it! It is sounding like the $410k aggregate relief would apply no matter who the LTI player is. I’m fine with this but there may be some advantages to coaches I guess who have a rookie LTI but then can replace them with a 400k salary player mid season, if this is how we approach it. I think I agree with how it works for say a Steele type ie being allowed to draft a rookie and keep the cap relief for a trade.

 

[KLo30]

Very helpful to have your thoughts on all this clarified, thanks! A few more from me in that case!

1. What are your thoughts on coaches potentially trading in an LTI player to be able to participate in the MSD? Say they have 44 fit players but then trade in an LTI, do they still have a right to name them as an LTI and participate in the MSD? Or is it strictly for teams with 44 or less players?

2. I see, got it! It is sounding like the $410k aggregate relief would apply no matter who the LTI player is. I’m fine with this but there may be some advantages to coaches I guess who have a rookie LTI but then can replace them with a 400k salary player mid season, if this is how we approach it. I think I agree with how it works for say a Steele type ie being allowed to draft a rookie and keep the cap relief for a trade.

1. Players on the LTI list are not able to be traded. If a player is still on the primary list, regardless of injury status, they may be traded. The new team can nominate that player for the LTI list.

2. It is up to $410K. A $125K rookie receives $125K in relief. A $300K mid pricer receives $300K in relief. A $1M star receives the full $410K.

 

[Bomber18]

1. Players on the LTI list are not able to be traded. If a player is still on the primary list, regardless of injury status, they may be traded. The new team can nominate that player for the LTI list.

2. It is up to $410K. A $125K rookie receives $125K in relief. A $300K mid pricer receives $300K in relief. A $1M star receives the full $410K.

Excellent thanks for that! I thought 2 was as you described it the second time but got slightly confused by the first response. Agree with that “up to” approach!

 

[Jordan's Jets]

There are a number of rule changes in proposal form which need discussing before implementation. Time is running out to have these introduced before the season begins, let alone the draft and trading.

I'm going to put a new one out every few days for discussion and then voting (if required), so please keep an eye out over the next few weeks.



The first rule for voting is the one that was discussed above in regards to 2nd Contracts.

Yes or No in the poll at the top.

• Option 4: Year 1 current price, Year 2 current price, Year 3 - 5 (1.4, 1.6, 1.8)
• Only for new 2nd Contracts. No backdating
• Implemented for season 2022

Yes if you agree with all three dot points
No if you disagree with any or all dot points

@Goodie's Guns @Connoisseur @Bomber18 @Philzsay @lappinitup @Diabolical @Deeman1 @Darkie @Jordan's Jets

Before I vote just wanted to clarify - Option 4 from that original post is the only option up for voting? Personally I think Option 3 with the 20% upfront reduction would be the way to go and I would vote that if given the option. But if it's Option 4 or current set up that's fine, just want to be certain before adding my vote.

P.S. I like both the MSD and LTI proposals

 

[KLo30]

Before I vote just wanted to clarify - Option 4 from that original post is the only option up for voting? Personally I think Option 3 with the 20% upfront reduction would be the way to go and I would vote that if given the option. But if it's Option 4 or current set up that's fine, just want to be certain before adding my vote.

P.S. I like both the MSD and LTI proposals

Yes, only Option 4 to vote on. Yes = Option 4. No = Current set up.


Voting for MSD and LTI proposals likely to go up later today or tomorrow.

 

[Philzsay]

Voted.

Thanks again Ken for all the time you put into running this awesome league, very much appreciated.

 

[Darkie]

Voted.

Thanks again Ken for all the time you put into running this awesome league, very much appreciated.

Indeed, thanks very much @KLo30 - I too have now voted.

I’m not sure if you are voting on the polls Ken, but if you aren’t, I think I complete the set of 9 other coaches voting (so you could proceed to the next poll whenever it suited you - obviously no rush on my side).