Hmmmm...hard-to-stop multiplayer evil.

[Ben E Lou]

HFP just mentioned in a thread about changing guys' positions before cutting them, which we've all joked about doing, or have done in the past in single player. Is this tactic gonna be a potentially deal-breaking issue in multiplayer??? Consider the following scenarios: I've got a QB who is about to become a FA, and I know I can't afford to re-sign him. Why not switch him from QB to RB to WR to S, using up his three position switches, at the end of his final year under contract. He'll never be useful to anyone else then.
I've got a soon-to-be-unsigned RFA G. I want to make sure no one else could get the benefit if he breaks out in a few years. I do the triple-position-switch right before training camp and voila, he's a 1/5 defensive tackle for the rest of his (very short) career.
My veteran WR had a breakout season and is holding out for a new contract. Rather than pony up the big bucks, he gets the triple position switch, and ends up a pathetic free agent SS, never to catch another pass in his career.

How the heck do you draw up rules to prevent this sort of thing without voiding legit position switches???

[QuikSand]

When a team pays big money for a free agent player (at the price set by the competitive marketplace) do they really gain from that transaction?

If you remove these quality players from the FA market, you also free up the money they woul have occupied. Seems to me this is at least very close to a zero-sum game, in any kind of legitimate league (if you find one).

[Maple Leafs]

Not sure how you'd avoid this, other than having some league rules to the effect of "no position switches in the final year of a contact".

A bit of a pain, but I don't know of any online leagues that don't need some sort of additional rules.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
How the heck do you draw up rules to prevent this sort of thing without voiding legit position switches???

I think the intent will be pretty obvious in most cases. If someone pulled that stunt with the QB, they should just be booted from the league. If people aren't interested in legitemately competing, they gotta go.

Perhaps league members announcing position switches should be mandatory.

Moved FB Joe Blow to RB
Moved ILB Sky Dog to OLB
Moved DE Dick Tator to NT

Of course, the issue is really who is going to be policing the rosters to make sure everything was reported.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by QuikSand
When a team pays big money for a free agent player (at the price set by the competitive marketplace) do they really gain from that transaction?

If you remove these quality players from the FA market, you also free up the money they woul have occupied. Seems to me this is at least very close to a zero-sum game, in any kind of legitimate league (if you find one). Well, yes and no. My concern is that, if this were to become an accepted "strategy", that there would be VERY few quality players left in the FA pool each year to fight over.

Let me flesh out the QB example a little more. I drafted QB Lionel Forbes with the 1(32) pick in 2014. Vick was still my starter at that time, but starting to show signs of age, and getting much more injury prone. Forbes got to start 4 games in 2014, and 11 in 2015. Vick retired after 2016. Let's suppose for a minute, though, that Forbes, in his four starts in 2014, really lit things up, and that Vick was a 9th-year guy in the last year of his contract that year, rather than an aging QB. In a multiplayer league, I would lose nothing, and gain a lot, by making him useless to the rest of the league, would I not? In that scenario, I've got a good starting QB in Forbes (and young QB's rarely get injured in this game...) AND no one else in the league gets to use Vick.

Am I missing something?

[HornedFrog Purple]

heh see what I have done?

A rule such as "one position switch per player allowed period, must be in same subset (offensive linemen G, T, C, backfield with FB to TE allowed, receivers SE to FL) defensive linemen (DT, RE, LE, NT) linebackers (outside to inside) and secondary (CB, SS, FS)."

Changing players to a different subset isn't allowed.

QB are not allowed to be changed.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
How the heck do you draw up rules to prevent this sort of thing without voiding legit position switches???

Wouldn't

"No position switches after reg season week 1"

and

"No position switches of holdouts."

Cover most nefarious cases?

[Bonegavel]

might be a pain in the tuckus for the commish, but maybe jim could add a feature where the commish must approve all position switches before they occur?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Of course, the issue is really who is going to be policing the rosters to make sure everything was reported. Bingo. In the example I mentioned above, people would wonder what happened to Vick (unless of course he retired after the position switches...) No one wants to go through every single roster and figure out if people are doing this with their rookies though.

[Thomkal]

I would hope that anyone doing that in a league I'm in is immediately kicked out of the league. Stating that before the league begins should deter everyone but those who are fed up with the league anyway.

Like Cthomer though posting and getting commissioner approval before any such position changes seems the right way to go to me.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Samdari
Wouldn't

"No position switches after reg season week 1"

and

"No position switches of holdouts."

Cover most nefarious cases? Well, two problems:

1. It wouldn't cover the RFA potential breakout scenario. Those guys would be position-switched right before training camp, I would assume.

2. I know of at least one VERY legit reason to do a position switch (even to a "bad" position group) after week 1, because I've had to do it at least twice that I can remember in the <20 serious seasons I've played out. When in "cap hell," and going into the regular season with very little cap money available, injuries can make it so that it is impossible to field a roster without switching the fourth safety to RB, for example, to meet the roster requirements. As I said, I've had to do such a position switch at least twice.

[cuervo72]

I am intrigued by the having to officially announce position changes, this might be a good idea. Just post them in a position changes thread/forum.

I wonder if we could have a rule (for IHOF anyway) where the commish has to make all position changes? Might be hard though because of game planning issues.

As far as policing this goes, I know in FOF4 there was a change.txt file that documented position changes. I don't have FOF2004 licensed at work, but I'd be curious how this works in the new game, first if there is such a file, and second on which system(s) these changes are logged to.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cuervo72
As far as policing this goes, I know in FOF4 there was a change.txt file that documented position changes.Are you serious??? I never noticed that, and have uninstalled FOF4 now so I can't check it out. I don't see such a file in FOF2004, and I know I've made several position switches.

[sachmo71]

Maybe Jim could add code so that position changes appear in the transaction log in multiplayer?

In fact, I wouldn't mind that in the regular game...I've always been interested to see if/when the AI changes player positions.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Maybe Jim could add code so that position changes appear in the transaction log in multiplayer?

In fact, I wouldn't mind that in the regular game...I've always been interested to see if/when the AI changes player positions. That would be a pretty simple fix. No switches could fly under the radar screen, and a "challenge" system could be set up for position switches. A player would have to show just cause for a safety-to-running-back-type switch in the last year of a contract (cap hell is the only legit reason I can think of for doing this), or be kicked out of the league. Ultimately, if the switches were logged somewhere, that would probably act as enough of a deterrant by itself.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I just know that when we introduce this rule in the constitution I want credit for it like named after me. :D

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
I just know that when we introduce this rule in the constitution I want credit for it like named after me. :D I prefer the "If I Can't Have Her, Nobody Can!" rule. ;)

[Bonegavel]

I think people have me on their ignore lists again.

[cuervo72]

Sure am, it resides in the main program folder, not in the universe folder.

Here's the format (extra line between entries deleted):

CHANGE: Heath Lofton FL (SE)
CHANGE: Rod Dodge LG (RG)
CHANGE: Levon England RDT (LDT)
CHANGE: Kennedy Lane RT (LT)
CHANGE: Edgar Bordano RCB (LCB)
CHANGE: O.J. Patton SS (FS)
CHANGE: Skip Prescott SILB (WILB)
CHANGE: Julio Lake FL (SE)
CHANGE: Tracy Ekuban LT (RT)
CHANGE: Drew Bronson LDT (RDT)
CHANGE: Mack McCormick FL (SE)
CHANGE: Joey Mahoney LT (RT)
CHANGE: Andrew Lynch SLB (WLB)
CHANGE: Benjamin Chandler SS (FS)
CHANGE: Clay Glover SILB (WILB)
CHANGE: Al Hartzell FL (SE)
CHANGE: Norbert Thornton RDE (LDE)
CHANGE: Derek Covington WLB (SLB)
CHANGE: Horace Ackerman SS (FS)

I know some of these are from the GroupThink project, but I don't know when or how they occurred, I'm guessing likely the only time I ran part of the sim (off-season), but I'm not certain. Changes appear to be league-wide.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
I think people have me on their ignore lists again. Not at all. Your suggestion would slow things down. Having them posted in the transition log would allow an after-the-fact check, with serious consequences.


I have sent an e-mail to Jim now.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Sure am, it resides in the main program folder, not in the universe folder.

Here's the format (extra line between entries deleted):

CHANGE: Heath Lofton FL (SE)
CHANGE: Rod Dodge LG (RG)
CHANGE: Levon England RDT (LDT)
CHANGE: Kennedy Lane RT (LT)
CHANGE: Edgar Bordano RCB (LCB)
CHANGE: O.J. Patton SS (FS)
CHANGE: Skip Prescott SILB (WILB)
CHANGE: Julio Lake FL (SE)
CHANGE: Tracy Ekuban LT (RT)
CHANGE: Drew Bronson LDT (RDT)
CHANGE: Mack McCormick FL (SE)
CHANGE: Joey Mahoney LT (RT)
CHANGE: Andrew Lynch SLB (WLB)
CHANGE: Benjamin Chandler SS (FS)
CHANGE: Clay Glover SILB (WILB)
CHANGE: Al Hartzell FL (SE)
CHANGE: Norbert Thornton RDE (LDE)
CHANGE: Derek Covington WLB (SLB)
CHANGE: Horace Ackerman SS (FS)

I know some of these are from the GroupThink project, but I don't know when or how they occurred, I'm guessing likely the only time I ran part of the sim (off-season), but I'm not certain. Changes appear to be league-wide. I just checked. The FOF4 uninstall left this file in place. It is actually change.log. Never noticed this sucker before. Unfortunately, there is no such file that I can find in FOF2004.

[Subby]

One feature of OOTP that would be nice here (and could incorporate position switches) is player histories.

Player history would catalogue injuries, awards, championships, milestones, trades, draft position, and position switches all in a player-specific text file that would get written to upon each instance previously mentioned.

[Honolulu Blue]

I'm pretty sure you can do more than three position switches now. I switched a useless scrub from G to T to G to T to G to T and totally eliminated whatever value he had. I'll have to try something like this again to be sure.

Frankly, I think it's a greater punishment to have some other team overpay for a free agent I didn't want than to switch his position around.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well, two problems:

1. It wouldn't cover the RFA potential breakout scenario. Those guys would be position-switched right before training camp, I would assume.

2. I know of at least one VERY legit reason to do a position switch (even to a "bad" position group) after week 1, because I've had to do it at least twice that I can remember in the <20 serious seasons I've played out. When in "cap hell," and going into the regular season with very little cap money available, injuries can make it so that it is impossible to field a roster without switching the fourth safety to RB, for example, to meet the roster requirements. As I said, I've had to do such a position switch at least twice.

Your 1 above is not an issue, as right before training camp is not after week 1. Am I not understanding your point?

I agree that there are legitimate reasons for position switches after week 1, and this is a serious weakness in my simple rule. I do think that position switches need to be outlawed on any unsigned player still showing up on a team's roster page (including UFA's RFA's etc.). I don't see any legitimate reasons to do that.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Samdari
Your 1 above is not an issue, as right before training camp is not after week 1. Am I not understanding your point?I wasn't very clear. Here is what I am concerned about with scenario #1, which WOULD be allowed, since this would all happen before week 1:

1. I have an FS who is an RFA in year 3. He has high volatility, and showed a slight increase in ratings from last year. He's a potential breakout, but for whatever reason, I don't want/can't afford to keep him around.
2. He is not under contract, so I can't position-switch him----YET.
3. I sign him to a one-year, no-bonus contract during the second free agency period.
4. Immediately after signing him, I keep changing his position between RB and FL until I get the "he won't accept another change" message. (This will work now that he's under contract.)
5. I cut him, either immediately, or after training camp.

Without some sort of mechanism for logging the position switch, this would either fly under the radar screen, or become a ridiculously adminsitrative nightmare for someone to track what guys were position-switched.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Not at all. Your suggestion would slow things down. Having them posted in the transition log would allow an after-the-fact check, with serious consequences.


I have sent an e-mail to Jim now.

Right, but once it is done, it can't be undone. Sure you could punish the person ex post facto, but because the players can't reject on their own (that would be an interesting piece of code for Jim) the commish would need to act on their behalf to keep it from happening in the first place.

Why give the person the wiggle room for being an ass? This Commish gets an email in the game that gives a reason for the switch and yes/no buttons.

I do agree, however, that it should be part of some log somewhere. I am a big fan of a weekly newspaper-type listing in the game to discuss the happenings (as opposed to the raw logs), but things like this should be easily available for all to see.

The ultimate solution is for the game not to penalize the player for the switch as much as it does or keep track of their abilities so they can be switched back at little to no penalty. You have players coming back into the league after not playing for years (tommy maddox) and they seem fine. You can't tell me that is more dibilitating that continuing to play the game, but at a different position.

I understand why Jim does the "player takes a hit in abilities" but I don't agree with it.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Right, but once it is done, it can't be undone. Sure you could punish the person ex post facto, but because the players can't reject on their own (that would be an interesting piece of code for Jim) the commish would need to act on their behalf to keep it from happening in the first place.

Why give the person the wiggle room for being an ass? This Commish gets an email in the game that gives a reason for the switch and yes/no buttons.

Well, bonegavel, while giving the commish veto power over position changes, I do think it would slow things down, and even hamper teams in making legitimate switches. The ones SkyDog mentions, i.e. moving a crappy player on a cap-strapped team during the season in order to fill position minimums need to happen in order for an owner to be able to submit a stage file. Those types of switches simply have to be available to owners. If every switch requires a commish approval in game, I don't see this as possible until after an owner submits the stage file. This seems to create a catch-22 situation. After a bit of thinking, I now think my no-switches after week 1 rule will not work.

You are also discounting the effects of deterence here. If position switches are logged, and the consequences are ex-post-facto, most leagues will pretty quickly be pared to ethical owners, if the consequences are harsh enough. If the penalty is immediate league expulsion for a first offense, you won't see too many people trying so see if they can get away with this. If the owner sees no potential competitive advantage for committing these acts (at least for him as an owner) I see attempts being rare.

[Bonegavel]

Well, all i can say is good luck with the free-for-all postition switch technology. To me, what is easier: policing every position switch anyway through a log file system or getting an email where I can click a button? Either way, you have to police. Seems easier to me to get an email and give it an up or down.

[Bonegavel]

dola,

if you agree that all position switches must be monitored (via a log file) how is this easier? The commish will need to cross check each player and determine without input from the Owner why the switch occured. That would probably entail the commish going to the player card and seeing if he is a stud, or not. If the guy is a stud and is in the last year of his contract, then there if probably monkey business. Or, a rookie being switched.

But, the switch has occured already. You won't be able to go back and see what his numbers were. All you will see are shoddy scores. There is no record of what the player used to look like. Now, the commish has to look at stats of the player. If they are good, is that a foul? I've seen mediocre rated WRs post some good numbers.

If you simply make hard and fast rules (like you can't switch a person in the last year of their contract) you are still denying that Owner that may need a legit switch.

Looks like this will just have to be left alone. Can you really punish an Owner for doing a smart thing that is allowed by the game? In real life, a player would just refuse to be switched, or it would be a natural switch T/G for e.g.

[Franklinnoble]

I just bought FOF2k4, but haven't played it yet. I wonder... is there a way to fine teams in a multiplayer league?

It seems a bit harsh to kick someone out for doing a questionable position-switch on a first offense... maybe charge them a 1st round draft pick, or something?

Either that, or have them voluntarily accept the fine or be banned... I.E. - you pull a stunt like this, and you MUST draft (and sign) a low-grade punter with your first round pick next season or be kicked out of the league. This costs them the pick, and puts a salary cap bite on them for giving a big contract to a worthless player.

[Samdari]

An immediate first offense banning is harsh, Franklin, but I would want any rule needed to prevent this to be that harsh. In fact, since I consider it akin to Giloolying outgoing free agents, I don't even do this in single player. I would want a rule such that noone committed to remaining in a league would consider doing this.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Bingo. In the example I mentioned above, people would wonder what happened to Vick (unless of course he retired after the position switches...) No one wants to go through every single roster and figure out if people are doing this with their rookies though.

Especially if one were to switch him to WR and back to QB...

[mckerney]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Looks like this will just have to be left alone. Can you really punish an Owner for doing a smart thing that is allowed by the game? In real life, a player would just refuse to be switched, or it would be a natural switch T/G for e.g.

And they wouldn't lose anything in getting switched back in real life.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by mckerney
Especially if one were to switch him to WR and back to QB... Ouch. That opens a whole new can of worms. I just tested this. I switched a FL to SS, then RB, than back to WR. He was originally 87/87 as a WR. We went to 13/52 as a SS, 24/37 as a RB, and then 35/35 as a FL again. There is no way to stop this from happening without some sort of switch log, because he is still listed at his original position.

[HornedFrog Purple]

That's right 'Dog.... join the dark side!

Oh wait.... :D

[cuervo72]

I wonder what the contents of the stage file (export) are? In other words, are player attributes (stats) sent in this file, or are the position changes themselves? How is the information that the player underwent a change getting registered in the master game file?

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by mckerney
And they wouldn't lose anything in getting switched back in real life.

Well, I could see them losing a little, but they should retain their potentials and have to work a little extra to get back to where they were. I tend to think Jim doesn't track this because it would be a nightmare to track. Imagine the game tracks a player at every possible position... yikes.

So, the original problem is that an Owner may switch an expensive good/great player to another position to "ruin" him as a player so others won't be able to pick him up. How can this be stopped sans a house rule?

The only option right now is that it just has to be allowed. If player switching is ok for some, it is a slippery slope to start policing these as Hate Switches and trying to get into the mind of the switcher. So, a way has to be found to make sure it is in the Owners best interest to not do this.

Seems that Owners should begin their FA search while the player is still on the team and try trading for the guy to make it worth the Owners time to not HateSwitch.

What I see happening, is that the Owner may shop the player around and, if he doesn't get what he wants, he will pull the trigger.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
The only option right now is that it just has to be allowed. If player switching is ok for some, it is a slippery slope to start policing these as Hate Switches and trying to get into the mind of the switcher. So, a way has to be found to make sure it is in the Owners best interest to not do this.

Seems that Owners should begin their FA search while the player is still on the team and try trading for the guy to make it worth the Owners time to not HateSwitch.

What I see happening, is that the Owner may shop the player around and, if he doesn't get what he wants, he will pull the trigger. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would result in VERY few free agents being available at all. Who in the world would be willing to trade for someone AFTER the last year of their contract is up? They'd become a FA anyway, and you could get them at cost, rather than at cost PLUS a draft pick or player.

[cuervo72]

Maybe players above a certain rating threshold (or years of experience) can't be switched out of their position group?

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Taken to its logical conclusion, this would result in VERY few free agents being available at all. Who in the world would be willing to trade for someone AFTER the last year of their contract is up? They'd become a FA anyway, and you could get them at cost, rather than at cost PLUS a draft pick or player.

What Bonegavel is saying is that you could proactively trade for the FA BEFORE the HateSwitching occurs. Thus, you get the full talent FA at cost plus draft pick/player rather than diluted talent player at cost.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Wow I feel like I just destroyed multiplayer. Me and my big hands. :(

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
What Bonegavel is saying is that you could proactively trade for the FA BEFORE the HateSwitching occurs. Thus, you get the full talent FA at cost plus draft pick/player rather than diluted talent player at cost. You're not tracking with me. Logically, the "best" way to do this with a stud player is to use him all year long in the last year of his contract, and then make the switch after your season is over. No one is going to even be ABLE to trade for him at that point. The trading deadline is past.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Maybe players above a certain rating threshold (or years of experience) can't be switched out of their position group?

I don't think we'll be able to allow a wholesale rule preventing switching because it can be a legitimate way to fill roster requirements.

Perhaps a 3 switch per owner per year rule? Technically an owner could still "ruin" a soon to be free agent, but only one. It would also allow switching to fill roster requirements. It would still allow strategy since you could draft that so-so SS and switch him to OLB to see if he gets a bump. This may not be a perfect answer, but thought I'd toss it out as an alternative.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by SkyDog
You're not tracking with me. Logically, the "best" way to do this with a stud player is to use him all year long in the last year of his contract, and then make the switch after your season is over. No one is going to even be ABLE to trade for him at that point. The trading deadline is past.

I'm tracking with you, just was trying to explain his post. As you said, the trading deadline would kill this "strategy/alternative".

[sachmo71]

I don't think the league commish will have to police every single transaction switch. The log would be there if there was ever any question about what happened to a player.

I believe that in multiplayers, owners will get to know their opponents rosters pretty well, and most everyone will get an idea of who is good in the league and who isn't. If you see a team where all of their RFA's suddenly hit the market with very low ability scores, then you can look at the transaction log and see what happened. Only then would the "why" become really important. If someone feels the need to switch their players until they are unusuable for anyone else, then I think those that are interested in the player will know. The transaction log will just help to back up the other evidence, such as seeing that this crappy player started 16 games for their former team for three years, their salary demands, etc.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Taken to its logical conclusion, this would result in VERY few free agents being available at all. Who in the world would be willing to trade for someone AFTER the last year of their contract is up? They'd become a FA anyway, and you could get them at cost, rather than at cost PLUS a draft pick or player.

Personally, even with this new found knowledge, I will/would never do this to a player. It goes against the whole point of the game, IMHO. I just don't see how you will be able to efficiently police this with any success with FOF2K4's current build (5b). An honor system will only take you so far when you have HFPs out there discovering these little evil treats :D

Seems like it will be one of those things where you have to be very selective of the Owners you allow into the league so that an honor system will have any chance to survive and work.

Hypothetical: suppose each team switched 1 player position a week. That is 32 situations a week and 544 during the regular season. Yikes.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
What Bonegavel is saying is that you could proactively trade for the FA BEFORE the HateSwitching occurs. Thus, you get the full talent FA at cost plus draft pick/player rather than diluted talent player at cost.

That is exactly what I meant. Thanks.

I know skydog disagrees, but it would be in that players benefit, IHMO, to try and get whatever he can for the guy knowing that he will lose him anyway. Only a stubborn player wouldn't see that this works out best.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
I'm tracking with you, just was trying to explain his post. As you said, the trading deadline would kill this "strategy/alternative".

It would evolve into trading him earlier then. To use him all year and kill him and get NOTHING for him wouldn't help you in the long run (i'm guessing). But, trading him before the deadline for a draft pick and/or another player would be more beneficial than a Scorched Player policy.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Seems like it will be one of those things where you have to be very selective of the Owners you allow into the league so that an honor system will have any chance to survive and work.I agree, and I would hope that anyone in the league I'm in wouldn't do that. I'm just afraid of leaving it out there for temptation.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
That is exactly what I meant. Thanks.

I know skydog disagrees, but it would be in that players benefit, IHMO, to try and get whatever he can for the guy knowing that he will lose him anyway. Only a stubborn player wouldn't see that this works out best.

But as SD pointed out you would have to TRADE for the upcoming FA BEFORE week 6. Not very likely to happen. Player A wouldn't want to give up his talented player for 10 or more weeks. Player B wouldn't want to search through 32 rosters to find players in the last year of their contract that Player B is going to want next offseason. NOT LIKELY!

[HornedFrog Purple]

The only guy I would do that to is Bucc in a trade who wants my one-legged pocket passer for his athletical QB.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
It would evolve into trading him earlier then. To use him all year and kill him and get NOTHING for him wouldn't help you in the long run (i'm guessing). But, trading him before the deadline for a draft pick and/or another player would be more beneficial than a Scorched Player policy.

It's not about getting nothing for him. It's about not letting anyone else have him.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
It's about not letting anyone else have him.

You mean not letting anyone else pay for him. That's really what this is about, right?

I still think this is much ado about nothing. Being a shithead in this fashion only accomplishes being a shithead - you don't really screw anyone in the process. I really don't see the incentive for a given team/manager to do this - it just creates some tiny distortion in the overall player market, it's very tough to see that inuring to his benefit in any way.

Of course the fact that the "sky is falling" crowd has found two pages of things to say about this already today tells me that even if I'm logically right, i'm practically wrong... and that's all that matters when playing against human opposition.

::spits:: humans, phooey!

[Subby]

Quik - there could be a direct impact on a re-building team that has been saving up for several seasons to target a particular player or position in free agency, only to have that guy destroyed by his former team.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by QuikSand
You mean not letting anyone else pay for him. That's really what this is about, right?

I still think this is much ado about nothing. Being a shithead in this fashion only accomplishes being a shithead - you don't really screw anyone in the process. I really don't see the incentive for a given team/manager to do this - it just creates some tiny distortion in the overall player market, it's very tough to see that inuring to his benefit in any way. You really don't think the scenario I presented is a problem? As we all know, there are very few maxed-out players in this version. If a very competitive person had a 95/95 QB, who is the very best on in the league by a good bit, and knew he couldn't afford to keep him, why not make sure that no one else will be able to have such a stud any time in the near future?

[Ben E Lou]

Dola---combine my scenario with Subby's point, and I think this is clearly a legit issue.

[Butter]

Hey, here's a thought...

maybe you could try playing the game for fun instead of being "shitheads" about it, as Quik so cogently points out.

Doing anything like this is clearly unethical. Any computer game is going to have AI holes like this that can be exploited for nefarious purposes. Just make a league ground rule against it. If you guys are this serious about the game, surely you'll notice if someone fucks around with any players like that, and the offending person could be booted.

Or whine enough so that Jim patches the game to eliminate a 3 position switch limit. I think a couple more pages of discussion should take care of that.

[Bee]

There's also the issue where a player is very good, but doesn't fit your "scheme". If I have a big power back and run a "Steve Spurrier offense" and I also know SkyDog is looking to pick up a back for his "3 yards and a cloud of dust" offense, wouldn't it benefit me to destroy the player before releasing him?

[QuikSand]

As I tried to articulate before... the reason I don't think this is much of an advantage is that I perceive a player's worth lies in his value, not just in his ability. You lat thet stud QB go into free agency, and yes - somebody else wil gethim for that team. But at a cost. If he's really a rare commodity, and really an impact player - then there ought to be healthy bidding for him, driving his price all the way to (and perhaps beyond) the point where he represents littl or no value. That is - this stud QB will end up on a team that can no longer afford to field a competent offensive line to protect its golden child, or pay for anyone to catch those glimmering spirals.

Remov the player, and you remove the consequence as well. Yes, this would alter the league - but I'm not convinced that it would really amount to much beyond increasing the urgency with which teams would want to re-sign their own players.

And Subby - yes, it would be a disruption to someone like that and to the league as a whole, I recognize that. My point is that there isn't much incentive for the releasing team to do this - he doesn't benefit in any waym nor does he really hurt anyone else, other than slightly shifting the value of current players in the whole league.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Doing anything like this is clearly unethical. Any computer game is going to have AI holes like this that can be exploited for nefarious purposes. Just make a league ground rule against it. If you guys are this serious about the game, surely you'll notice if someone fucks around with any players like that, and the offending person could be booted.I don't think anyone disagrees that this is unethical. The problem is that it may be very difficult to discover (with young RFA's) without a ridiculous amount of extra tracking work. Playing against 31 other humans opens up the possibility that one or more of them will do something like this.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bee
There's also the issue where a player is very good, but doesn't fit your "scheme". If I have a big power back and run a "Steve Spurrier offense" and I also know SkyDog is looking to pick up a back for his "3 yards and a cloud of dust" offense, wouldn't it benefit me to destroy the player before releasing him? Jerk.


:D

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by QuikSand
If he's really a rare commodity, and really an impact player - then there ought to be healthy bidding for him, driving his price all the way to (and perhaps beyond) the point where he represents littl or no value. That is - this stud QB will end up on a team that can no longer afford to field a competent offensive line to protect its golden child, or pay for anyone to catch those glimmering spirals.I can agree with that, but if Bee turns my coveted power back (who I might be one of only three or four teams to bid on) into a pitiful strong safety, there's gonna be HELL to pay! :mad:

[Godzilla Blitz]

I think it's clearly to an owner's advantage to nuke some guy before releasing them.

When you do this, you reducing the supply of good players at a particular position. If six good quarterbacks are supposed to go into free agency and three of them get turned into FS, the bidding on the three remaining good quarterbacks will go up. It is definitely to an owner's advantage to change every player to a bum before releasing them, because you force other owners to overpay for the remaining talent.

Another possibility is that everyone follows this strategy, and there are simply no good players in free agency. This makes the free agent market a non-factor in competition: there's nothing good to spend it on in the free agent market. In such a case, more teams should use cash to resign their own players, as that would give them the best value for their dollar.

Definitely seems like the problem should be addressed.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by QuikSand
As I tried to articulate before... the reason I don't think this is much of an advantage is that I perceive a player's worth lies in his value, not just in his ability. You lat thet stud QB go into free agency, and yes - somebody else wil gethim for that team. But at a cost. If he's really a rare commodity, and really an impact player - then there ought to be healthy bidding for him, driving his price all the way to (and perhaps beyond) the point where he represents littl or no value. That is - this stud QB will end up on a team that can no longer afford to field a competent offensive line to protect its golden child, or pay for anyone to catch those glimmering spirals.
Imagine you're controlling the Eagles, and after 2004 you can't afford to resign McNabb. Your opponent who controls the Cowboys has been stuck with Quincy Carter for two years, and has made enough cap room to take a run at a big name QB in the off-season. Would you let McNabb fall into his lap, or would you put a slug in him before it could happen?

I still think this is a non-issue, but for a different reason than Quik does. I think that league house rules are a part of online play, and this situation isn't any different than, say, having guys in OOTP who switch players positions in order to get better renegotiation value. It can happen, but you set the rules as best you can, trust the owners you have and you punish the ones who step out of line. It's all you can do.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Well really I don't think it would that difficult to track. Since everyone can grab a copy of the league file, and you are targeting a player for trade or FA, you will notice it pretty easily. The thing to do is for the commissioner to keep a copy of the previous weeks league file handy and if it is noticed by someone have the commissioner look into it.

At the worst, the guy is kicked out and we have to redo that particular week.

[Butter]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Playing against 31 other humans opens up the possibility that one or more of them will do something like this.

Like I said though, if you guys are that serious, I would think that someone of the other 31 owners is going to notice a guy suddenly switching from QB to DT.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
Well really I don't think it would that difficult to track. Since everyone can grab a copy of the league file, and you are targeting a player for trade or FA, you will notice it pretty easily. The thing to do is for the commissioner to keep a copy of the previous weeks league file handy and if it is noticed by someone have the commissioner look into it.

At the worst, the guy is kicked out and we have to redo that particular week.

I'd notice if It was someone I was targeting. Personally, I plan on having a couple lists of players I have my eye on. I'll probably have lists 25 deep of the best at each position (in my opinion), as well as probably a 10 best list for each position for players in their last year of contract/entering free agency.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Like I said though, if you guys are that serious, I would think that someone of the other 31 owners is going to notice a guy suddenly switching from QB to DT. Well, that can't be done (unless your QB is Lorenzen ;)), but look at the aforementioned example of switching a FL to SS, then RB, then back to FL. His ratings went from 87/87 to 35/35, but he is at the same position.

[Bee]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I can agree with that, but if Bee turns my coveted power back (who I might be one of only three or four teams to bid on) into a pitiful strong safety, there's gonna be HELL to pay! :mad:

That's ok, you can get me back by converting that deep threat WR that catches 8 passes a year in your offense into a TE. :D

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bee
That's ok, you can get me back by converting that deep threat WR that catches 8 passes a year in your offense into a TE. :D Q: Who is the only person to hold Randy Moss to 2 catches a game?
A: SkyDog, his head coach.

:D

[sachmo71]

My post was eaten...


Anyway, it won't be very difficult to track, and even less so if Jim put's the position changes into the transaction log. People are going to know who's coming out next year. If Jeeber is salivating over my 3rd year wunderkind OLB who suddenly enters the draft as a 3/10 FS, he's going to call me on it.

Well, in reality that would never happen. He would only want my guy if he were from Canadia.

[Buzzbee]

I think I agree with QS. If McNabb gets tanked, the owner who was going to spend the money on McNabb will spend it elsewhere. Instead of going after a superstar QB, he might go for a superstar DE.

Removing one player or even a dozen players isn't going to shift the balance of power significantly. Also, the benefit to the owner tanking the star FA is minimal. Ok, so the Cowgirls can't upgrade from Squincy Larder to Dunagain McFab. They'll get a different, less high powered QB and have money to spend elsewhere.

And if every owner does it, then there isn't any advantage gained either. The only place I see this being a concern is if 5 or 6 owners got together to intentionally undermine a specific position such as QB, where they were already strong.

I think the biggest thing is the malicious intent of an owner doing this, not necessarily the resulting effects.

[Butter]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well, (switching a QB to a DT) can't be done (unless your QB is Lorenzen ;)),

Is it that obvious I've never played FOF? :)

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Bee
There's also the issue where a player is very good, but doesn't fit your "scheme". If I have a big power back and run a "Steve Spurrier offense" and I also know SkyDog is looking to pick up a back for his "3 yards and a cloud of dust" offense, wouldn't it benefit me to destroy the player before releasing him?

So you're saying that before releasing Stephen Davis, Spurrier should have sent Michael Westbrook over to his house?

[Bee]

Originally posted by cuervo72
So you're saying that before releasing Stephen Davis, Spurrier should have sent Michael Westbrook over to his house?

:D Exactly!

[Daimyo]

I pretty much agree with Quiksand. It will suck if teams do this, but a rational human opponent would gain so little from this, that I can't imagine they would do this as a general practice.

Of course most people aren't exactly rational about things, so it could very well end up being a serious problem.

[Daimyo]

DOLA, I could see this happening not as a legitimate strategic move, but as a last ditch "fuck you" thrown out by a disgruntled owner about to quit the league. Of course, this isn't the only thing a disgruntled owner could do and you can't really defense against them anyway....

[Passacaglia]

I agree that this is a non-issue. If I have a starting QB about to leave, and I know that other teams are looking for a starting QB, I figure that if this guy isn't around, that will only make it harder for me to get a lesser QB.

Think about this year. What if there was no Jake Plummer? Then the Kordell probably would have attracted the same sort of money bids (or at least close). Once he signed, then the Panthers would have had stiffer competition for Delhomme, with either the Bears or the Broncos. If that were the case, one of either the Panthers, Bears, or Broncos would have to compete for Griese or Blake, along with the Dolphins and Cardinals. That means that either the Cardinals have to pay more to get their guy, or they have to go further down the totem pole (get me the phone number for Stoney Case's agent, STAT!).

That's the way I see it, at least. The league would be no fun if all 32 teams did this, sure, but individually, each team would be better off by not doing it.

[Bonegavel]

I still think the way to do it is to have the commish approve every position change. The Owner submits the player and the reason. This would take all factors out (excluding a corrupted commish which I won't cover) of the mix. Also, give the option to set limits on it. Make it a variable that can be set, e.g., this league allows X number of position switches a week/season. Make it 1, 10, no limit, whatever.

It could be a separate file from the others so it can be done apart from the normal MP file that is sent to/from.

[edit speeling mistrakes]

[cuervo72]

As a test in the IHOF dry run I'm going to see what happens if I change a player to a new position and then back to his old position, to see what exactly happens. I'm curious about this....

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by cuervo72
As a test in the IHOF dry run I'm going to see what happens if I change a player to a new position and then back to his old position, to see what exactly happens. I'm curious about this....

We haven't even mentioned changing a guys positions and changing his name.... let the chicanery begin!

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Buzzbee

Removing one player or even a dozen players isn't going to shift the balance of power significantly. Also, the benefit to the owner tanking the star FA is minimal. Ok, so the Cowgirls can't upgrade from Squincy Larder to Dunagain McFab. They'll get a different, less high powered QB and have money to spend elsewhere.




You are the king of crazy nicknames.

[Thomkal]

Originally posted by QuikSand
You mean not letting anyone else pay for him. That's really what this is about, right?

I still think this is much ado about nothing. Being a shithead in this fashion only accomplishes being a shithead - you don't really screw anyone in the process. I really don't see the incentive for a given team/manager to do this - it just creates some tiny distortion in the overall player market, it's very tough to see that inuring to his benefit in any way.

Of course the fact that the "sky is falling" crowd has found two pages of things to say about this already today tells me that even if I'm logically right, i'm practically wrong... and that's all that matters when playing against human opposition.

From second Quik post:

Remov the player, and you remove the consequence as well. Yes, this would alter the league - but I'm not convinced that it would really amount to much beyond increasing the urgency with which teams would want to re-sign their own players.


::spits:: humans, phooey!

You screw the league in the process if you do this and get away with it. It would alter the league by suddenly losing a player who has a history in the league-and not by losing them in a realistic state like a career ending injury or retirement, but by owner "evilness"-using a game function to keep anyone from getting a good player.

Let's use Donovan McNabb as an example here since he's been mentioned in this thread. It's his free agency year and do you really think his coach is going to ask/tell him to switch to Punter or Free Safety in the real NFL? Of course not. So why should this be allowable in the simulated version of the NFL?

These "fake players" in your leagues are going to become more real to you than you can believe. Several owners in the FOBL could roll off the lifetime stats of their favorite player I think and we are 10 seasons or so into the league. Changing a player's position in the scenarios brought up in this thread is nothing more than trying to screw over your league-not a legitimate strategy in FOF or any other football game.

[QuikSand]

Brings up a great example from real life, just a couple of years ago.

Elvis Grbac was cut by the Ravens, and would have been among the QBs looked at by other teams in fre agency. Maybe not the top of the list, but one of the handful of guys given a shot to be starters or legitimate backups.

Instead he decided to retire from football, right in his "prime" years.


Now, with that setting... getting away from all the hubbub about the shithead owners in a multiplayer FOF league... here's basically the same thing that we're talking about. Nobody, in the real life NFL, said "that's a real help to the Ravens, since nobody else gets to have Elvis Grbac."

(Yes, I realize that Grbac wasn't really a stellar impact player - but even if he were, it still wouldn't have made any sense for anyone to reach the conclusion that it really helps out the team the player departs if he no longer plays football)

[Bonegavel]

This is obviously one of the problems that occur by slapping MP on top of a single player game and I'm sure it will be looked at for FOF2K5.

An Owner should be able to move a player wherever he wants, but once the contract is up, he should be able to revert back to his primary position. Donovan wouldn't put himself into FA as a punter. He would enter as a QB.

The code just needs to catch up to MP.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Thomkal
You screw the league in the process if you do this and get away with it. It would alter the league by suddenly losing a player who has a history in the league-and not by losing them in a realistic state like a career ending injury or retirement, but by owner "evilness"-using a game function to keep anyone from getting a good player.

I think there are two argument being levied here. You are refuting a point that nobody is arguing.

Neither I nor anyone else is saying that this wouldn't have some effect of the sort that you are describing. Yes, it would stink to see player basically disappear like this.

The argument that I and some others are making is that there's no real motivation for anyone to do this. You don't gain anything by doing so, really. I stick by that argument.


Crappy, pissed-off, and malevolent owners are bad news for a multi-player league of any kind, any sport, and any software. I don't know how you debug that, or resolve it with a patch. In my mind, that's the only type that would engage in this kind of behavior - again, since there's no competitive edge in doing so, just the "shithead' effect.


(edited to remove petty parenthetical comment)

[Thomkal]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Brings up a great example from real life, just a couple of years ago.

Elvis Grbac was cut by the Ravens, and would have been among the QBs looked at by other teams in fre agency. Maybe not the top of the list, but one of the handful of guys given a shot to be starters or legitimate backups.

Instead he decided to retire from football, right in his "prime" years.


Now, with that setting... getting away from all the hubbub about the shithead owners in a multiplayer FOF league... here's basically the same thing that we're talking about. Nobody, in the real life NFL, said "that's a real help to the Ravens, since nobody else gets to have Elvis Grbac."

(Yes, I realize that Grbac wasn't really a stellar impact player - but even if he were, it still wouldn't have made any sense for anyone to reach the conclusion that it really helps out the team the player departs if he no longer plays football)

I don't think that's an good example of the case you are trying to build here Quik, unless I'm not understanding something.

The Ravens cut him yes, but they didn't "change his position" or do something to him so he couldn't play QB anymore. Grbac could have signed with any other team as a QB. Instead he chose to retire, it was a players decision, not a team ownership one. In an FOF league, it would be a team ownership decision if Grbac got changed to a Punter or whatever.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by Thomkal
I don't think that's an good example of the case you are trying to build here Quik, unless I'm not understanding something.

The Ravens cut him yes, but they didn't "change his position" or do something to him so he couldn't play QB anymore. Grbac could have signed with any other team as a QB. Instead he chose to retire, it was a players decision, not a team ownership one. In an FOF league, it would be a team ownership decision if Grbac got changed to a Punter or whatever.

Okay, suppose Tonya Harding, employed by the Falcons, hires a thug to whack Mike Vick's knee with an iron bar at the end of the final year of his contract. Also suppose this significantly reduces Mike Vick's ability to play QB. Also suppose that because Mike Vick has had three MVP type years he will command a salary that the Falcons simply cannot afford. Have the Falcon's lost anything? Have the Falcons gained anything?

I think this is the point QS is trying to make.

[Buzzbee]

DOLA - To answer my questions:

The Falcons haven't lost anything. The couldn't afford Vick anyway, so him having reduced talent doesn't affect them in this regard.

Have the Falcons gained anything? Some might say they gained a competitive advantage over whatever team WOULD have signed Vick. However, if that team signs a "full talent" Vick, they would have to pay full price. Without the full price of Vick they have money to spend in other areas so the net effect is a wash (assuming they don't spend 10 million on a backup punter).

[Thomkal]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I think there are two argument being levied here. You are refuting a point that nobody is arguing.

Neither I nor anyone else is saying that this wouldn't have some effect of the sort that you are describing. Yes, it would stink to see player basically disappear like this.

The argument that I and some others are making is that there's no real motivation for anyone to do this. You don't gain anything by doing so, really. I stick by that argument (but am getting rather tired of re-explaining it).


Crappy, pissed-off, and malevolent owners are bad news for a multi-player league of any kind, any sport, and any software. I don't know how you debug that, or resolve it with a patch. In my mind, that's the only type that would engage in this kind of behavior - again, since there's no competitive edge in doing so, just the "shithead' effect.

Quik,


To me it seemed like you were saying in your earlier posts that it would be okay for someone to change a player's position, that it would have little overall effect on the league in terms of value and finances. That may be true. You didn't really mention anything like I brought up and I thought it important to do so. My point is as valid as yours and I was addressing your comments not anyone else's in this thread.

I agree with you on the only type of people who would try such a thing. Sadly those people exist and get into leagues. Better to prevent said players from accomplishing their goal of being a shit head now, than having to redo five weeks of a league because it wasn't caught until now.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Thomkal
I don't think that's an good example of the case you are trying to build here Quik, unless I'm not understanding something.

The Ravens cut him yes, but they didn't "change his position" or do something to him so he couldn't play QB anymore. Grbac could have signed with any other team as a QB. Instead he chose to retire, it was a players decision, not a team ownership one. In an FOF league, it would be a team ownership decision if Grbac got changed to a Punter or whatever.

Of course the Ravens didn't do anything malevolent here equivalent to the kind of position-shifting we're discussing. I didn't think that needed to be said.

What is a practically perfect parallel is that a player who was about to hit the free agent market (and actually did for a brief while) was unexpectedly removed from that market. (This, as I think you might agree, is essentiallythe same thing as the practical effect of the shithead who jerks around his future FA player, ruining his value -- there's one fewer quality free agent in the pool)

Because in practical effect (motivations aside) Grbac is an exact parallel to what we're talking about here, I use Grbac to try to illuminate my argument that this doesn't really help the team the player just left -- the Raves weren't any better off because he suddenly dropped out of the potential free agent pool.

I, again, apologize if my message has not been articulated sufficiently clearly.

[Thomkal]

My post is thusly edited as well Quiksand, and that is why I went to PM's myself. To prevent myself from saying anything more like it.

I get where you are coming from where with your argument now and I bow out of any more discussion of it outside of PM's.

[Bonegavel]

An interesting side-effect of this could be as follows.

Given an untainted FA pool, when a good veteran player that costs more than the team can afford and is dropped, he is a good pick for another team that can afford him. He is a sure thing, relatively speaking, and you know what you are paying for.

Now, suppose the tanking of players is allowed and the FA pool is tainted with what would have been the top players in their respective positions, but the "talent" is now gone from the FA pool. Doesn't the game add to the FA pool based on an algorithm? I think Jim had a series of percentages of the distribution of players in the game.

Wouldn't this now potentially pollute the FA market with more players that are going to be superstars, but at rock bottom prices? The game needs to maintain a balance of talent in the FA pool.

Just a thought.

[Buzzbee]

BG - I think the incoming draft may adjust based on the FA pool. If this is the case then I would expect you would see a larger percentage of quality players coming in through the draft.

Again, if one owner is doing this, the effect is going to be insignificant. If everybody does it, the effect will be so much that it becomes irrelevant, as the playing field will be level, just a lot lower.

The only area where I see the potential for significant effect is if several owners get together to "corner the market" for a particular position.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by QuikSand
The argument that I and some others are making is that there's no real motivation for anyone to do this. You don't gain anything by doing so, really. I stick by that argument.


I agree with this point to an extent.

But, the fact that you have had to explain it 3-4 times and people still don't understand (or agree) is an indication that there will be people out there who will THINK that it is a good strategy and may try it. Which would suck.

[cuervo72]

Hmm, I'm playing with the IHOF test league setup and have found a couple of interesting things.

1. You *can't* change a player's name. At least I can't - the option is greyed out.

2. I moved few players to a new position and then immediately back to their original position, and their ratings were identical to what they were when they started. Now, the 3rd position change would leave them screwed, but the first two did nothing. They could go into single digits and spring right back. So this is apparently different from single-player.

3. This might have been obvious before, but QB's can be switched, but can't be switched back to QB (at least not the one I tried). My 15th year QB actually had pretty good running stats, he just couldn't catch the ball. But I bet he'd run a mean halfback option pass.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by KWhit
But, the fact that you have had to explain it 3-4 times and people still don't understand (or agree) is an indication that there will be people out there who will THINK that it is a good strategy and may try it. Which would suck.

Yup. Agreed. And, in practice, whether the advantage is real or just perceived doesn't matter. If I can't easily convince the bright people here that there's nothing there, there's no hope for the shithead who would actually do something like this. Sold.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Cuervo,

Your test is good news. Without the name change and with the ability to switch back with no ratings drop means the "Gilloolying" of a player (I forget who used that above in the post, but I love that expression) should be relatively easy to spot, resulting in the D&%K being dropped off on the street corner and out of the league.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
I think I agree with QS. If McNabb gets tanked, the owner who was going to spend the money on McNabb will spend it elsewhere. Instead of going after a superstar QB, he might go for a superstar DE.


This is not necessarily true. I think Godzilla Blitz has it right. If there are 8 teams in need of a starting QB, they will be in a bidding war after the top 8 FA QB's in the league. Say three of the top ones are tanked in this manner. Those three will be replaced by three of lesser talent. There will still be 8 teams needing a starter, and they will still have the same amount of money to spend, and they will still battle each other to get the top (remaining) guys at the position. The demand stays constant, supply decreases, obviously then the price goes up on the remaining supply. That means all these teams will be paying more for less. Assuming you are not shopping the free agent market at that position yourself, there will always be a substantive advantage in wrecking any good guys you are sending into the market to force your competitors to overpay for what's left. They still need to fill out their rosters after all.

In the end, simply having position changes listed in the transaction log should be an easy and effective solution, and I don't think many players will stoop to this level anyway. So I don't see this as a huge problem, however, the point is that there is a motivation to do it.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by -Mojo Jojo-
This is not necessarily true. I think Godzilla Blitz has it right. If there are 8 teams in need of a starting QB, they will be in a bidding war after the top 8 FA QB's in the league. Say three of the top ones are tanked in this manner. Those three will be replaced by three of lesser talent. There will still be 8 teams needing a starter, and they will still have the same amount of money to spend, and they will still battle each other to get the top (remaining) guys at the position. The demand stays constant, supply decreases, obviously then the price goes up on the remaining supply. That means all these teams will be paying more for less. Assuming you are not shopping the free agent market at that position yourself, there will always be a substantive advantage in wrecking any good guys you are sending into the market to force your competitors to overpay for what's left. They still need to fill out their rosters after all.

In the end, simply having position changes listed in the transaction log should be an easy and effective solution, and I don't think many players will stoop to this level anyway. So I don't see this as a huge problem, however, the point is that there is a motivation to do it.

I'm not sure your economic theory holds. As the price increases, the demand will tend to decrease. Demand will NOT be constant. It may be relatively flat but at some point the "bidding war" would result in people determining that the cost is just too great. Will you see people perhaps pay a million or so more? Probably. Will you see those 8 owners bid up the contracts by 5 or so million a year? Probably not. Therefore I contend that you won't get a SUBSTANTIVE advangtage. Are you going to cause others to pay a little more? Perhaps. Are you going to totally screw somebody's salary cap? Perhaps not.

One thing that I think some people are forgetting is that owners are going to want to get the most player for the least money. Just because there are 5 QB's instead of 8 doesn't necessarily mean that people are going to overspend. Doesn't mean they won't, but the number of good QB's available probably won't be the sole deciding factor on an owner overspending.

[mckerney]

I'm not so concerned whether or not it would be a good strategy for a team or not, I think it's bad for a league if a team is ruining star (or even just average) players.

[Godzilla Blitz]

Originally posted by -Mojo Jojo-
This is not necessarily true. I think Godzilla Blitz has it right. If there are 8 teams in need of a starting QB, they will be in a bidding war after the top 8 FA QB's in the league. Say three of the top ones are tanked in this manner. Those three will be replaced by three of lesser talent. There will still be 8 teams needing a starter, and they will still have the same amount of money to spend, and they will still battle each other to get the top (remaining) guys at the position. The demand stays constant, supply decreases, obviously then the price goes up on the remaining supply. That means all these teams will be paying more for less. Assuming you are not shopping the free agent market at that position yourself, there will always be a substantive advantage in wrecking any good guys you are sending into the market to force your competitors to overpay for what's left. They still need to fill out their rosters after all.

In the end, simply having position changes listed in the transaction log should be an easy and effective solution, and I don't think many players will stoop to this level anyway. So I don't see this as a huge problem, however, the point is that there is a motivation to do it.

I think the key qualifier is "assuming you are not shopping the free agent at the position yourself". There would be no advantage to nuking a QB if you need a QB in free agency.

The competitive advantage gained is that the money that other teams overpay to get a quarterback drives down the available cash they have to spend on free agents at other positions, thereby decreasing their cost to you. They overpay; you underpay. Advantage gained. It would be very subtle if only one or two people nuke their ex-players, but whoever does gains a small edge over anyone who doesn’t.

Another caveat here is that not everyone does it. If everyone does it, there is no competitive advantage. But economically, it makes sense individually to do it as long as there is one person who doesn’t do it. Therefore, I think it would be wise to put stops in a league to prevent it from happening.

I’m not saying that such behavior is ethical, but if it makes sense economically, someone will eventually do it. Trusting in ethics won’t stop them.

[cuervo72]

And I think if it happens that owner would be asked to leave. So we should just discourage (outlaw) this in the constitution and leave it at that.

[Daimyo]

Originally posted by Vinatieri for Prez
Cuervo,

Your test is good news. Without the name change and with the ability to switch back with no ratings drop means the "Gilloolying" of a player (I forget who used that above in the post, but I love that expression) should be relatively easy to spot, resulting in the D&%K being dropped off on the street corner and out of the league.
Actually I think this is much worse. If you can nuke a player no one wins at all as has been demonstrated. But if you can temporarily disguise a pretty good player as a pretty crappy one and then switch him back to being the same pretty good player at will (say right after you sign him dirt cheap in FA) that is a hugely exploitable hole.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by QuikSand

Crappy owners are bad news for a multi-player league of any kind, any sport, and any software.

I guess we won't join one then!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Daimyo,

I see your point, but if you cannot change the guy's name, it will be so obvious in the transaction log when the GM releases and then resigns the same player. I am not saying it won't happen, but you won't be able to disguise it. If I am playing a team and I see he has a good WR when I am scouting him and then see he re-signed him for next to nothing at a different position -- Red Flag -- and then bang the GM's out of the league.

Plus, if it turns out you can switch him back to his real position with no loss in ratings after another team signs him, then there will be no motivation to "Gillooly" him.

[Bonegavel]

Quik is right in that there is no advantage to an Owner for doing this to a player. In fact, it most likely will hurt them. If you have a star QB that you don't think you can afford and you whack him, you are now in need of a QB in FA. But, guess what? You just nuked one and others will now be forced to bid for one that you need. If you had left him alone, the others would most likely grab your ex-QB and leave better, cheaper players for you.

This still won't stop the Assmunch from being an assmunch.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
In fact, it most likely will hurt them. If you have a star QB that you don't think you can afford and you whack him, you are now in need of a QB in FA. But, guess what? You just nuked one and others will now be forced to bid for one that you need. If you had left him alone, the others would most likely grab your ex-QB and leave better, cheaper players for you.Now I'm feeling like people have me on ignore. Not picking on your bonegavel, but several people have posted that theory, which totally discounts this scenario:Let me flesh out the QB example a little more. I drafted QB Lionel Forbes with the 1(32) pick in 2014. Vick was still my starter at that time, but starting to show signs of age, and getting much more injury prone. Forbes got to start 4 games in 2014, and 11 in 2015. Vick retired after 2016. Let's suppose for a minute, though, that Forbes, in his four starts in 2014, really lit things up, and that Vick was a 9th-year guy in the last year of his contract that year, rather than an aging QB. In a multiplayer league, I would lose nothing, and gain a lot, by making him useless to the rest of the league, would I not? In that scenario, I've got a good starting QB in Forbes (and young QB's rarely get injured in this game...) AND no one else in the league gets to use Vick.Let's take this scenario one step further, but COMPLETELY within the realm of believability. You have a 9th-year QB in the last year of a contract, who is clearly the best QB in the league, and your backup, an undrafted free agent 5th-year guy, shows breakout ratings in training camp that year. Your 9th-year guy is a mentor, and gets a non-ratings-reducing injury, but an injury bad enough that your backup gets to start 5 or 6 games and performs very well. He gets playing time, and the benefit of the mentor QB. The backup has a 95.0 rating in his 6 starts, and the starter comes back and performs up to his superstar abilities the rest of the season. He's about to become a free agent and someone else is going to benefit from his services. You notice that there's a team in your division who has two very good, young, cheap wide receivers, and a decent offensive line, but no good QB, and lots of cap room. He's clearly getting ready to sign a big-time FA QB. It is CLEARLY to your benefit to nuke your starter after the season is over.

Here is the result of such a move:

1. You have a solid starting QB.
2. No one else (especially that team who can afford him and has the WR's for him to throw to) gets to sign your starting QB.
3. People overbid on less-stellar QB's.

I'm speaking theoretically here, as I don't believe this will be an issue in my league, but to say there is no advantage for an Owner just isn't true. In this scenario, there is a significant advantage gained.

[QuikSand]

Again - every time someone makes up another argument for why the shithead "wins" by doing this sort of thing, then end up revealing why it doesn't matter who is right in this whole theoretical argument about market demand and whole-market effects and so forth.

As long as many people believe this is something that miht give them an advantage (including the shitheads who aren't as smart as you all) then it's a potential problem, even if I'm correct and it doesn't really give them an advantage. As long as they think it would give them an advantage, there is incentive for them to do it - which makes it self-fulfilling.

(Ah, I keep hearing about the perfect world of human opposition, where we don't have to worry about our rival teams doing illogical things... I can't wait)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by QuikSand
(Ah, I keep hearing about the perfect world of human opposition, where we don't have to worry about our rival teams doing illogical things... I can't wait) ;)

[Samdari]

I like the supply/demand theory. It makes the most sense. Like real life economists though, we are only guessing as to what the effects of changing the system are (and also like real life economists, we don't all agree on the effects).

But, two things I think we should all agree on are:

(1) that the system is changed when this happens

(2) that someone doing this thinks they are gaining an advantage.

Personally, I think that #1 is enough to take whatever steps necesary to prevent this. I want whatever multiplayer leagues I am in to play with the 'natural' progression of things. I am curious to see how the 32 varying personalities react to superstars. Having them Giloolied (I am proud of that, I feel I have now made two real contributions to the board in 1500+ posts) will prevent that.

And I am also competitive enough that I want to do whatever I can to prevent opponents from attaining the feeling described in #2.

[cuervo72]

Again, all we need is a rule about it in the constitution, with harsh consequences if anyone is caught doing this.

[Bee]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Again, all we need is a rule about it in the constitution, with harsh consequences if anyone is caught doing this.

Actually, I think we should have a rule that requires you to change a player's position 3 times before releasing them. :D

[Honolulu Blue]

This discussion has been useful in one sense: we have uncovered one way to cheat. Commissioners and players will be vigilant for signs of this happening, and now no reputable player will try it.

Having said that, I'm firmly in the "I don't see the advantage" camp. Destroying a star player, or two, or even ten would have a minimal impact on the free agent pool and even less on the other teams.

The thought that one player can win - or lose - the Front Office Bowl for you is one that real life GMs in all sports cling to. They're wrong. It takes 46 (or more) players to win, each contributing a little bit. For example, if some idiot destroys a "95" QB that I had been eyeing, I'll take my "30" QB, my RB by committee, and my O-line, and dink-n-dunk everyone to the trophy. Or go to a power running game. Or just leave it in the hands of my defense and special teams.

There are many paths to glory in real life, as there are in FOF, and to assume that one player influences a whole league makes no sense.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Now I'm feeling like people have me on ignore. Not picking on your bonegavel, but several people have posted that theory, which totally discounts this scenario:Let's take this scenario one step further, but COMPLETELY within the realm of believability. You have a 9th-year QB in the last year of a contract, who is clearly the best QB in the league, and your backup, an undrafted free agent 5th-year guy, shows breakout ratings in training camp that year. Your 9th-year guy is a mentor, and gets a non-ratings-reducing injury, but an injury bad enough that your backup gets to start 5 or 6 games and performs very well. He gets playing time, and the benefit of the mentor QB. The backup has a 95.0 rating in his 6 starts, and the starter comes back and performs up to his superstar abilities the rest of the season. He's about to become a free agent and someone else is going to benefit from his services. You notice that there's a team in your division who has two very good, young, cheap wide receivers, and a decent offensive line, but no good QB, and lots of cap room. He's clearly getting ready to sign a big-time FA QB. It is CLEARLY to your benefit to nuke your starter after the season is over.

Here is the result of such a move:

1. You have a solid starting QB.
2. No one else (especially that team who can afford him and has the WR's for him to throw to) gets to sign your starting QB.
3. People overbid on less-stellar QB's.

I'm speaking theoretically here, as I don't believe this will be an issue in my league, but to say there is no advantage for an Owner just isn't true. In this scenario, there is a significant advantage gained.

Agreed and I don't see any of this as picking on anyone. Personally, and your mileage may vary, I think this thread has been a worthwhile discussion.

I was going to add the "I have a great backup, so nuking my starter won't hurt me looking for a FA" option, but didn't.

This is obviously an area that Jim needs to look at in the future (patch 5c or FOF2K5) if only because it would be nice to not have to police this at all. It would seem that a player only carries ratings for the position he is in and is not rated in all X number of attributes a player can have. I'm sure that shrinks a player file size, but it would be nice to have the players rated in every category for which they could play. That way they could maintain all their pertinent ratings no matter how much they shifted.

And, my post was really just a summation of the facts (as I see them) that I've compiled from this thread and I wanted to plink them out on the table.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

[i]

The thought that one player can win - or lose - the Front Office Bowl for you is one that real life GMs in all sports cling to. They're wrong. It takes 46 (or more) players to win, each contributing a little bit. For example, if some idiot destroys a "95" QB that I had been eyeing, I'll take my "30" QB, my RB by committee, and my O-line, and dink-n-dunk everyone to the trophy. Or go to a power running game. Or just leave it in the hands of my defense and special teams.

There are many paths to glory in real life, as there are in FOF, and to assume that one player influences a whole league makes no sense. [/B]

Well put. While it is cheating (and screws up player histories) and should be stopped, I think in general, the competitive impact will be minimal. Remember for every offense, humans always come up with a defense, whether its war of FOF.