2024 BDL Winter Owners Summit

[TedLavie]

35 minutes ago, bcb1213 said:

heres a nice consistent scale btw

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntl-hnKTHvLQYApqtxab1TVcCTrhbmpmiEOZeIoV28Y/edit?usp=sharing

You need to open the doc, can't view it.

44 minutes ago, SirA1 said:

For me it is simply a matter of uncertainty. The justification you and Blue are using is that since we do 3 Ups that way then the Rookie scale should be done that way as well. There were 41 3 Ups last year. Which is out of a max of 48. Most players go to FA where the min bids start at 50%. 

So using 3 Ups as an argument when you are going to apply that principle to 80 rookies every year seems a bit extreme. I would just rather revisit it as needed every few years in case something drastic happens in the NFL with their rookie scale.

Just a precision for the bolded part. We're using it on 1 player - the #1 overall. The rest of the salaries do not match with the IRL ones simply because it's not compatible with the $500 salary we want to give to the 6.1.

My argument isn't totally that though. My thinking is this: our top salaries usually come from our top players, which usually are 3upped. So the best players in BDL are usually at 75% of their IRL salaries. I'd like to apply this principle to the top assets (ie. the top 5 picks) in the draft. Ideally, the whole 1st round would be that but it's not feasible so that the gap salary wise between a CJ Stroud and a Patrick Mahomes, or between a Will Anderson and a Nick Bosa, is basically the same than IRL.

But really I think we need to do it every year to stay up to date with the NFL numbers. You talk about uncertainty but, as you say it yourselves, if something drastic happens we always have the possibility to make a change. What I want is that the "revisiting" is the exception, not the rule.

[Scoundrel]

1 minute ago, TedLavie said:

You need to open the doc, can't view it.

Just a precision for the bolded part. We're using it on 1 player - the #1 overall. The rest of the salaries do not match with the IRL ones simply because it's not compatible with the $500 salary we want to give to the 6.1.

My argument isn't totally that though. My thinking is this: our top salaries usually come from our top players, which usually are 3upped. So the best players in BDL are usually at 75% of their IRL salaries. I'd like to apply this principle to the top assets (ie. the top 5 picks) in the draft. Ideally, the whole 1st round would be that but it's not feasible so that the gap salary wise between a CJ Stroud and a Patrick Mahomes, or between a Will Anderson and a Nick Bosa, is basically the same than IRL.

But really I think we need to do it every year to stay up to date with the NFL numbers. You talk about uncertainty but, as you say it yourselves, if something drastic happens we always have the possibility to make a change. What I want is that the "revisiting" is the exception, not the rule.

These are good points Ted 

[bcb1213]

8 minutes ago, TedLavie said:

You need to open the doc, can't view it.

Just a precision for the bolded part. We're using it on 1 player - the #1 overall. The rest of the salaries do not match with the IRL ones simply because it's not compatible with the $500 salary we want to give to the 6.1.

My argument isn't totally that though. My thinking is this: our top salaries usually come from our top players, which usually are 3upped. So the best players in BDL are usually at 75% of their IRL salaries. I'd like to apply this principle to the top assets (ie. the top 5 picks) in the draft. Ideally, the whole 1st round would be that but it's not feasible so that the gap salary wise between a CJ Stroud and a Patrick Mahomes, or between a Will Anderson and a Nick Bosa, is basically the same than IRL.

But really I think we need to do it every year to stay up to date with the NFL numbers. You talk about uncertainty but, as you say it yourselves, if something drastic happens we always have the possibility to make a change. What I want is that the "revisiting" is the exception, not the rule.

should work now

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntl-hnKTHvLQYApqtxab1TVcCTrhbmpmiEOZeIoV28Y/edit?usp=sharing

[TedLavie]

1 hour ago, bcb1213 said:

should work now

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntl-hnKTHvLQYApqtxab1TVcCTrhbmpmiEOZeIoV28Y/edit?usp=sharing

While my proposal isn't perfect in that regard, it does reflect better than yours the drop in salary between the top 3/5 picks and the rest - which is substantial IRL.

[bcb1213]

13 minutes ago, TedLavie said:

While my proposal isn't perfect in that regard, it does reflect better than yours the drop in salary between the top 3/5 picks and the rest - which is substantial IRL.

If that's what ya'll want to to do. But I won't vote for it.  Mine keeps it consistent, keeps it isimple

[TedLavie]

25 minutes ago, bcb1213 said:

If that's what ya'll want to to do. But I won't vote for it.  Mine keeps it consistent, keeps it isimple

I've included your proposal in the options

[Scoundrel]

4 minutes ago, TedLavie said:

I've included your proposal in the options

Put me yes there too I guess

[TedLavie]

12 minutes ago, Scoundrel said:

Put me yes there too I guess

I guess you can't? 

Rookie salaries are going up anyway basically, everyone is for it - except bcb if it isn't his proposed scale, so we have to choose between the method.

2B is an auto calculated scale so not compatible with bcb's proposal

2A and 2C are the same thing but with different figures. Guess you have to choose one of them only.

For the record, I wouldn't mind using bcb proposal should we do a one-time increase and revisit 3 years down the road - which I still find silly but that's me.

[Scoundrel]

1 minute ago, TedLavie said:

I guess you can't? 

Rookie salaries are going up anyway basically, everyone is for it - except bcb if it isn't his proposed scale, so we have to choose between the method.

2B is an auto calculated scale so not compatible with bcb's proposal

2A and 2C are the same thing but with different figures. Guess you have to choose one of them only.

For the record, I wouldn't mind using bcb proposal should we do a one-time increase and revisit 3 years down the road - which I still find silly but that's me.

I can be yes on all I am for whichever gets the most votes to pass

[PR]

16 hours ago, TedLavie said:

Reminder for votes. We still have 3 days to go so no urgency.

@PR - need your votes Prop 8 (yours), Prop 5 and Prop 2

@Whicker, @Pickle Rick and @RuskieTitan - need your votes on #2, #5, #8 and #9 but maybe we can start with #5 and #9

@MD4L - I think I need your votes on #2, #5 and #8

@Ragnarok - gonna need some precision on your vote for #2. Do you want it as a one shot increase (2A), or do you want to have an auto incrementation following the IRL salary of 1.01 (2B)?

@Scoundrel - I'm sure PR wouldn't mind your specification but 8B is never going to get 9 votes in so I would like you to confirm me you're NOT voting 8A. In which case I'll put you in 8B.

@WFLukic  - Need your vote on #2, #8 and #9

@EaglesPeteC - Need your vote on #2 and #8

@InjuredReserve @bcb1213 - Need your vote on #2 and #5

@rackcs - Need your votes on #2

@Blue, @RedGold, @SirA1 - You're all good

 

 

I already voted for Prop 8. I said I was good with A or B. 

[RedGold]

8 minutes ago, TedLavie said:

which I still find silly but that's me.

You could say it’s Bizzaro

I’m still on 2a.   One increase,  I don’t care which one.  And we can revisit later if the costs are out of whack.  The offseasons are long enough,  if it becomes an issue we have plenty of time to talk about it 

[Blue]

3 hours ago, SirA1 said:

For me it is simply a matter of uncertainty. The justification you and Blue are using is that since we do 3 Ups that way then the Rookie scale should be done that way as well. There were 41 3 Ups last year. Which is out of a max of 48. Most players go to FA where the min bids start at 50%. 

So using 3 Ups as an argument when you are going to apply that principle to 80 rookies every year seems a bit extreme. I would just rather revisit it as needed every few years in case something drastic happens in the NFL with their rookie scale.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here at all. The amount of 3 Ups per year has no relevance to what the 3 Up cap number is based on. The fact is that we aren’t following the rookie pay scale at all right now. Why revisit something again in a few years that we can fix going forward right now?

[TedLavie]

1 minute ago, Blue said:

I don’t understand what you’re saying here at all. The amount of 3 Ups per year has no relevance to what the 3 Up cap number is based on. The fact is that we aren’t following the rookie pay scale at all right now. Why revisit something again in a few years that we can fix going forward right now?

Yes

[TedLavie]

14 minutes ago, Scoundrel said:

I can be yes on all I am for whichever gets the most votes to pass

Let me rephrase what I said. If everyone says that, nothing gets done.

There are three proposals. All of which increase the rookie salaries - to which no one said no to except bcb unless we go with his proposal. Fair to assume rookie salaries are going up regardless.

2A - one shot proposal with a steep drop-off (but less steep than IRL) between 1.1 and 2.16

2B - structural change that gets applied every year. Same starting scale as 2A

2C - one shot proposal with a linear drop-off between 1.1 and 2.16

Please make a choice. 

If there aren't 9 votes on one proposal by the end of Saturday, we can start changing votes to get something passed

[Blue]

I want to revisit the different proposals on my own time, I may add a yes vote to another one but I want to check the scaling. Probably won't get to that until very late tonight.