parsh wrote:
Congrats to those who found the work around for that .. you are the reason a lot of players just quit.
So if someone puts in the effort to construct a winning roster you're suggesting they what, don't re-sign any of their star players to maintain a competitive balance? There is no 'magic' work around that only a select few have discovered. The system currently uses a market based system to determine contract requests. So unless owners go out of their way to offer players MORE than what they request, there isn't really any fault you can lay at the feet of the other users.
I think the biggest issue right now is that in the allocation draft the AI puts way too little emphasis on young undeveloped players, resulting in a strict competition between human controlled teams for all the best young talent, which in several seasons of play after said players develop results in a handful of teams who deployed this strategy completely dominating their respective divisions. This is true of every one of the three allocation draft leagues I've partaken in.
That said, it is challenging but not impossible to pull a 'dregs' team into competitive shape in any of those leagues. It just takes some work and a little strategy. I can say this confidently because I've done this exact thing, despite a lot of mistakes along the way.
For my own $0.02 I don't think holdouts are a good idea. Players should increase their demands if their league-wide performance is significantly higher than their overall rating might indicate. Otherwise it should continue to be market based, but with a marked appreciation in value. That is, when the #2 WR in the league is coming up for a payday, he shouldn't look to the #1 WR and decide his contract should be a little less than that, he should expect to be the new highest paid WR in the league. This may be how it is now, in which case starting contracts in new leagues need to be commensurately higher to up the initial market 'cost' for players.