Season 22 Changes w/ Poll

[JR]

no offense but the players that are gonna be drafted here are going to be drafted regardless cquse of the talent of the owners. adding 70 players in my op would water down available talent too much. wait until the first 70 u21s players are taken to see whose left and imagine that every window. see for yourself… https://www.dynastyliga.com/forums/topic/season-20-free-agent-signings-2/

windows are fun cause big targets are still on the board every time. i’d vote against anything that makes transfer windows less fun. sorry

surprised I;m the only one with a no

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by JR.

[Xavi4life]

I changed my vote. I see the merit of both ideas. However, I feel like the competitive nature of having roster limits forces owners to make better decisions on scouting instead of trying to cast a wide net and see what ends up working out. That approach sounds a bit too easy and if I’m being honest, a tiny bit player greedy. Look, I have a scout list of under 21 players that is over 80 players deep. I really want over 10 new prospects this window, but I’ll probably only have spots for 5-6. Making these tough decisions and choosing the right players and not as many players is what being a good owner is about. Also, increasing the player roster will just make more work for the administrators of the league, and I think they do an amazing job putting in their personal time for this league. I would hate to ask them to work more hours as is. I wouldn’t do it to my students, or my employees when I know their plates are already full.

Please understand this is just my opinion. I’m not taking anything personally or against anyone. I love the idea that we’re having this discussion and making the league evolve and being more competitive and exciting. Besides, I’m just one vote and I wouldn’t even be pissed if it passes.

Cheers!

[BLAUGRANA]

Full disclosure, but I voted yes.

I’m all for the rule changes that Zizou has made and I think he has demonstrated some sensible deliberation. I have two things about the U21/Academy piece:

-I don’t think the addition of players based on what Zizou has put forward is a lot. What I know I was looking for and probably others as I understand would have added notably more players. However, as I said, I think Zizou has deliberated and made a sensible proposal that makes incremental change at a rate that won’t explode or dilute the market and will allow for further reflection in a year.

-I do think the process change with regards to the U21 sides and Academy players is a bit convoluted. I would say just increase the U21 roster size, give everyone 2.5 million and use the current rule regarding players not in FM (change the number allowed if you so choose). You could also eliminate the stipulation as to which window any U21 players are picked up in and if you want you can say players not in FM can’t be traded until they are in FM. I just think the process and rules will be simplified as a result.

9690 wrote:

One can argue the league has never been more competitive than it is right now with the current rules in place.

Are you saying this because James won?

9690 wrote:

You can scroll up and see who’s opposed.

I know you’ve alluded to JR’s High School days before and I assumed he was just reliving those days with the group.

9691 wrote:

And again I don’t have a problem with people against it. But 4 blocking 8 seems harsh is all I’m saying.

I agree with this. Were this more something larger in scope such that it would greatly impact the league I would say something more than a simple majority would make more sense.

[evilo]

Xavi :
A few years back I picked up someone late in the window but cause I had some needs for my U21 team.
I was hesitant to pick Camavinga because he was unknown and 16.
I didn’t. The following window he had exploded to stardom and Mark sent 14M for him, money I didn’t have.
Did it force me to make a decision (bad)? Yes.
Did the player go to the guy who didn’t Follow him before he was a big name? Yes.
Sorry but that’s not better GMing to me.

[Kawai]

All excellent points made

Q for Z – if we change our votes to no could we then amend the proposal to a more simplified and incremental expansion say 2 additional players instead the academy and 5? that would reduce our feeling sus about the market changes and gives us a little more room to experiment with? Would that have more support?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by Kawai.

[james]

evilo wrote:

Xavi :
A few years back I picked up someone late in the window but cause I had some needs for my U21 team.
I was hesitant to pick Camavinga because he was unknown and 16.
I didn’t. The following window he had exploded to stardom and Mark sent 14M for him, money I didn’t have.
Did it force me to make a decision (bad)? Yes.
Did the player go to the guy who didn’t Follow him before he was a big name? Yes.
Sorry but that’s not better GMing to me.

it’s better GMing in that mark did what it took to have the cash available to spend on a player like camavinga.

[evilo]

So the whole point is that rich get richer?

[james]

evilo wrote:

So the whole point is that rich get richer?

the point is to be fiscally responsible with your club. personally, that has been the furthest thing from my mind. I had money, I spent it. but there have been GMs who were financially very smart like mark.

you’re gonna get your share of good prospects. it seems every time I find a good prospect and look at the complete rosters post, you already have the player. it took me 21 seasons to win the big one. hopefully you don’t have to wait that long.

[BLAUGRANA]

james wrote:

evilo wrote:

So the whole point is that rich get richer?

the point is to be fiscally responsible with your club.

See, now I interpret this as “don’t do business with James and his inflated transfer valuations.” 😉

Kawai wrote:

All excellent points made

Q for Z – if we change our votes to no could we then amend the proposal to a more simplified and incremental expansion say 2 additional players instead the academy and 5? that would reduce our feeling sus about the market changes and gives us a little more room to experiment with? Would that have more support?

I think this is kind of what I was saying, but with just fewer players. Again, I think simplification is better.

[james]

See, now I interpret this as “don’t do business with James and his inflated transfer valuations.”

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by james.

[Xavi4life]

Evilo, I agree with James. Smart GMing would have been you following your gut and taking the risk on Camavinga. I will say that I do have empathy because I have lost out on a handful of players because I decided to wait. And getting outbid by a wealthier owner SUUUUUUCKS.

Every bid has a risk/reward and an opportunity cost. Feel free to disagree of course. Again, that’s what makes the free agency window so exciting and nerve-wracking. It’s like deadline day for 2 weeks straight.

[evilo]

james wrote:

evilo wrote:

So the whole point is that rich get richer?

the point is to be fiscally responsible with your club. personally, that has been the furthest thing from my mind. I had money, I spent it. but there have been GMs who were financially very smart like mark.

you’re gonna get your share of good prospects. it seems every time I find a good prospect and look at the complete rosters post, you already have the player. it took me 21 seasons to win the big one. hopefully you don’t have to wait that long.

I’m responsible financially. Have been from the get go. But I couldn’t compete with Mark then because I was a little GM with few bucks and awful teams, while Mark had great teams and lots of money.
Well let me tell you that him adding Camavinga then was a bad thing for the league. I see we have two new GMs added. If one inherits a very poor team, I’d wish him to snatch the unknown prospects that he can sell a fortune two years later than those prospects going to me or even richer teams.

[evilo]

Xavi4life wrote:

Evilo, I agree with James. Smart GMing would have been you following your gut and taking the risk on Camavinga

But I had multiple roster holes to fill.

[Zizou]

Kawai wrote:

All excellent points made

Q for Z – if we change our votes to no could we then amend the proposal to a more simplified and incremental expansion say 2 additional players instead the academy and 5? that would reduce our feeling sus about the market changes and gives us a little more room to experiment with? Would that have more support?

I want whatever changes that pass to have overwhelming support, which is why I called for a vote of 9. I came up with this proposal myself though it took many initial concepts and alternatives. I felt this had a decent chance of passing so I put it to a vote. If it fails with 4 NOs, then we can re-assess to see if there’s an option GMs would be more in favor of.

I see both arguments. And I love that we can have this dialogue. I just want the actions that we take especially changes that we make to be supported and adopted by the vast majority, whatever they are.

[evilo]

Fingers crossed anyway…

Welcome to Ramer and Zooka !

[Author]

Posts