no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / The TM Madness column Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 29 31 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
petef
|
posted: 2013-02-07 01:29:19 (ID: 81175) Report Abuse |
|
trying to come to terms with this move... it sucks
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2013-02-07 02:32:28 (ID: 81180) Report Abuse |
|
Well....I can see the thinking by those who posted here.
I can see a best case scenario that could play out that would be beneficial for all: Older teams buy these gems. I know for me, and I'm sure it is true with a lot of older teams, one of these guys would be great but it would mean a starter would have to go. I wouldn't want to hold on to some guy making a decent sized salary just to have on the bench. I'd end up selling one of my starters. Getting one of these players would improve my team for sure, but it isn't simply just adding on. It is adding on in a smaller way. My starter I'd have to let go would have numbers not far off of these guys. The ONLY thing about these guys that I am interested in is the HIGH physicals. Other than that, I'd take a hit on some of the other skills in some cases. So that starter I had? I'd probably sell him. Think of the domino effect in the long run where these other starters will be available for less than these guys for younger teams.. Which brings me to the other benefit. In the long term it will lower the value of these players faster. Our TM is based on Supply and Demand. I have all of my starters sorted out right now with no huge needs, so I'm not going to be bidding on players as much. I spent a ton recently to get my last pieces. A lot of older teams don't have huge holes. There is ONE position that I desperately want to upgrade but I will have to wait until after the draft. Right now it might suck some. However, drained accounts will lower some spending power. Combine that with the number needs of older teams, and volume of available good players lends to a buyers market, not a sellers market. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2013-02-07 02:34:33 (ID: 81181) Report Abuse |
|
Oh, and older teams are beginning to feel the squeeze of salaries which will lower their spending power. In a few seasons I have went from a cushion of over 100 million a season net to about 45 million. In another season I expect to lose a chunk of that in negotiations. In two season it will get pretty close.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
KevinM2
|
posted: 2013-02-07 02:38:27 (ID: 81182) Report Abuse |
|
I posted this reply in another thread on here, and I believe it is a better system and instantly helps ALL teams in ALL Divisions.
I thought it actually might be better suited posted in this thread... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/ And making those teams virtually invincible into the bargain by giving the top 30 or so teams unlimited, uncontested access to Mega players (due to them being able to outbid anyone). In essence, this will produce a natural "Premiere" Division within Division one, where all the (Premiere) teams players are ridiculously highly rated, and will be unbeatable by anyone outside of this "Premiere" Division. And obviously, this dominance will last for 5-10 seasons, depending on the age of the Mega players that they buy. I do see, and accept, the argument that there is too much wealth in a few teams hands and something needs to be done to reduce this wealth dominance, but I don't feel this is the answer. I feel it only benefits these wealthy teams in the short to medium term, and lesser teams wont see any benefit for a few seasons, at least. I'm sure there must be better ways of reducing (or effectively reducing) the coffers of these Hyper teams. For example (and this is purely off the top of my head). How does the NFL stop teams from simply "buying" the best players....Salary cap. Make it so a team can only spend a maximum amount per season on players. So not quite a salary cap, but a Purchase Cap. If they want to spend their whole season's purchase budget on one player, then that's fine, they can do that, but they then couldn't bid again on any more players all season. Give every team an annual season's (reasonable) spending limit on players. Once they have reached that limit, they can't bid on any more players. By doing this, money overnight becomes secondary to the game (as it should be) because it's no use having $1billion in the bank if you can't use it for bidding on players. At that point it then becomes all about the football, and managing and developing your team...Not simply buying your team. I also believe that this would effectively drive down players sale values, as ALL teams now have limited finite funds to spend to purchase players, so their value will naturally decrease. Just my thought off the top of my head for a league wide fairer system for all teams in all divisions, and would give all teams a more equal chance to bid on players. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lffvet
|
posted: 2013-02-07 22:37:18 (ID: 81611) Report Abuse |
|
Here are my thoughts (which I had posted on another forum earlier, but may be relevant here)
I must admit I like the idea of a 'purchase cap' each week/month/season. If you had a cap each month (for example) it would allows you to adapt it easily and also allows coaches some flexibility on when to buy and who to buy, dependent on salary negotiations, injuries, etc. A purchase cap would make coaches think long and hard before asking a purchase, adding a little extra dimension to their general management. Also, a purchase cap would go some way to balance the laying field between all teams, without knocking down the big teams too much, as I will explain. The issue appears to be - too much money out there at the moment. There are a couple of solutions that I see - 1. Try and claw all the money back to the league, by getting coaches to spend it now. 2. Devalue the effect of cash in the game, especially where players are concerned. 1. We have seen many arguments for and against this already, and I can certainly see the long term gain, but the issue is whether coaches will put up with the short term 'pain', which I think most of us will, as it will eventually balance out. 2. By having a purchase cap, it will devalue the vast bank accounts of teams, but only in player purchasing. This would mean that all the top teams have not wasted their time in getting to the financial position that they are in now. If a team has a larger bank account, then their money will not necessarily become useless, as this money would be used in paying salaries and employing better coaches. This is what most coaches I believe are after, the building of teams from planning and through the youth academy, making the teams that we have feeling personally ours. It would also reward the best planners, who develop their squads whilst keeping an eye on their salaries. Money would become secondary to good coaching and team building, and would be more of an 'aid' to coaching rather than a goal to try and achieve. Therefore having more money may allow you to do a few more things, like pay higher salaries, hire better coaches, scout more players, etc. but it will be very difficult to 'buy' a team. I can see this as having a benefit to newer teams, who can pick up some good/reasonably good players that the big teams don't want, and also to the bi teams, who will have a bit more of a challenge thinking about when and where to spend their money, rather than 'I want him, I'll buy him'! Less time on the TM may lead to more time in the coaches box, developing game plans, etc. This could lead to a quick balance now, and player salaries being increased within the game engine could be a long term solution to the masses of money out there. Dave |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Grzymisław
|
posted: 2013-07-23 12:28:08 (ID: 100001423) Report Abuse |
|
It seems that madness returns.
Over 80 millions for 24 year-old with 2*exp, with primary skills over 20, but below 30, secondary skills all below 20... That's true he has 49/50 physicals and high TW and intelligence, but still. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-07-23 14:57:35 (ID: 100001432) Report Abuse | |
|
Demand and offer...
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2013-07-23 15:17:08 (ID: 100001434) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
Demand and offer... 
I think you mean supply and demand plus strange bidding patterns  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
gtjohn
|
posted: 2013-07-23 16:08:42 (ID: 100001439) Report Abuse |
|
How about instead of extending by 2 mins for each bid at the end, bid in rounds....So when the time is up, each bidding player has a further 30 seconds to bid, each round one person is knocked out until the final pair who can drive the price as high as they want, also gets rid of the annoying gits who wait until the last second in the 2 minutes, so ill only have to wait 30 seconds!!!
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2013-07-23 20:33:11 (ID: 100001459) Report Abuse |
|
Before people jump ship and everything. Back in the height of TM madness 100 to 150 million was happening. I don't think we are there yet.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 29 31 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / The TM Madness column | |
