| Forum » Doubts and questions » Re-Sign abuse? | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Is re-signing players with low salaries, just to keep them from being hostile claused an exploit?
|
||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
" Since we know that extremely talented young players (Av 75+) do get paid well for their talents as soon as they are allowed by their chosen sport, and are not held back by their managers using restrictive league " also not true. All leagues have some form of salary cap/free agency restriction for new players (first 5 years). |
04/08/2011 07:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
ALSO - I still reject the assumption built into the question. Since the assumption is invalid, no matter how sound the argument, the conclusion will be incorrect. But, you have misconceptions about how the free agent markets work also, and are willing to rationalize anything to make this to seem as if Resigning youth is a bad thing. It's not. It's by design. The game is good because it's simple. You want poor teams to be forced to pay high salaries and not be able to train youth? Bad for the game. I can't afford a 70+ player, but I sure as hell can train them. |
04/08/2011 07:57 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
425 msgs.
First-team player
|
rebsiot said: also not true. All leagues have some form of salary cap/free agency restriction for new players (first 5 years). Reading through the MLS rules, as a counter example, i do see a salary cap, as well as a minimum salary requirement, but i do not see any free agency language at all. There are separate salary cap restrictions for the various classes of players, but there are no hard age requirements to be any particular classification of player (Generation Adidas, Senior, Developmental, etc) http://www.mlssoccer.com/2011-mls-roster-rules ALSO - I still reject the assumption built into the question. Since the assumption is invalid, no matter how sound the argument, the conclusion will be incorrect. Feel free to point out how the assumption built into the question is invalid. But, you have misconceptions about how the free agent markets work also, and are willing to rationalize anything to make this to seem as if Resigning youth is a bad thing. It's not. It's by design. Any concept of a free agent market inner workings are not relevant to using the Resigning mechanism as a method simply to keep other players from buying what they view as good players, youth or senior, while at the same time using it to keep a teams salary costs down. Resigning a youth player is not a bad thing, especially not when the contract is about to expire. There is certainly risk involved with not paying a player enough and having them purchased by another team, while at the same time, paying them too much puts an undue strain on a teams expenditures. Striking that balance seems like one of the core challenges to managing a Striker Manager team. The game is good because it's simple. This game has some points where it is indeed simpler than others, and in some cases, it is more complex. Having played other online team management games such as Manager Zone, and Hattrick, as well as offline management sims such as Football Manager, i can say that Striker Manager is much simpler when it comes to player statistics, simulation, training, and tactics. It is remarkably complex when it comes to financial management, stadium management, and schools management. I also think SM has a better calendar. Complexity is definitely a double edged sword, and the developers are always looking for that happy medium between complexity and simplicity when appealing to their audience. It seems as though the SM devs have indeed favored the Simplicity model. Whether this is good or not is purely subjective. You want poor teams to be forced to pay high salaries and not be able to train youth? Bad for the game. I do not see how paying higher/competitive salaries are related to training youth players. Clearly, forcing teams to pay more money while losing functionality such as the ability to train youth is bad for the game. But, since that is not a stated desire, i do not see how it is relevant to the discussion. (feel free to drop in a quote and interpretation of given quote if you feel otherwise). I can't afford a 70+ player, The ability to afford a 70+ player is generally the purview of upper tier teams, such as this one: http://uk.strikermanager.com/equipo.php?id=2708 It would seem that the above statement is speaking only to exercising the hostile clause of the contract of well paid high quality players, as opposed to being able to afford paying them each week. Supporting this theory are the RIM and RDF on the senior team, both over Av 70, as well as the Youth IM who is also over Av 70. The fact that they were each brought to the team on what appears to be $0 transfers looks to be taking advantage of what is this games version of the above mentioned 'free agent market', where players that have not been resigned are offered up on the market under a very narrow sales window for $0 fee. Most of the players that wind up on the market in this manner seem to be coming from retiring or careless managers as i can not fathom why anyone would want to let such high quality players go for free. but I sure as hell can train them. The ability to train a player to 70+ is an ability shared by all players. The ability to retain said players in a competitive manner really gets at the crux of this discussion. |
04/08/2011 10:16 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Wtf? Did all of that have a point? It looks like you agree. |
04/08/2011 13:51 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1848 msgs.
International
|
Mozleron said: As I'm digging through potential candidates to replace one of my top players that was sniped by a higher division team, I'm noticing a strong propensity for coaches to re-sign players very frequently, while still holding their hostile clauses well below market value. This seems like a way to get around actually paying your players what they are worth, to the point of being an exploit, and it does not make sense that such an artificial restriction should be in place. After reading through the help section, and the tutorials, FAQs, etc, it seems to me that the spirit of the game is to pay your players what they are worth, and if someone still wants to buy them out, or try to get you to trade them, then so be it. What are everyone else's thoughts on the matter? Are you talking about Junior players or Senior players? |
04/08/2011 13:59 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
I have an idea about all of this... http://youtu.be/rQGrQPZMLK8 The woman is gunnernic. Edited by rebsiot 04-08-2011 14:38 |
04/08/2011 14:37 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
78 msgs.
Rookie
|
rebsiot said: dominatord said: In US pro sports you're not allowed to sign anyone until they graduate college, so that's why you "don't make any really good money". Only true for football. Basketball - Lebron James went straight from high school Baseball - Kids sign right out of high school (only a couple make really good money, but they are headed for bigs) (A-Rod) Hockey - Jeff Skinner (Carolina) Soccer - Freddy Adu (signed at 14!?!) So, that is so not true. Basketball - They recently changed the rules so everyone has to play at least one year of college ball. Baseball - But they don't actually play until they're college age though Hockey - I'm not really that concerned with hockey Soccer - Good point So if US soccer can sign people at a young age for what they're worth, then to reflect this, in striker manager there should be no restriction on signing youth players. |
04/08/2011 15:26 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
78 msgs.
Rookie
|
rebsiot said: ALSO - I still reject the assumption built into the question. Since the assumption is invalid, no matter how sound the argument, the conclusion will be incorrect. But, you have misconceptions about how the free agent markets work also, and are willing to rationalize anything to make this to seem as if Resigning youth is a bad thing. It's not. It's by design. The game is good because it's simple. You want poor teams to be forced to pay high salaries and not be able to train youth? Bad for the game. I can't afford a 70+ player, but I sure as hell can train them. Yea, but once you train them and promote them to the senior team, then an older more experienced team could buy him before he gets to play a single game for your squad. |
04/08/2011 15:28 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
There is no restriction on signing youth players to senior squad....you can sign them to the senior squad early for the most part. you just hurt their development. Then they become exposed to hostile takeover. As long as they are youth, they are protected. So you crystallize my point. Don't conflate junior and senior squads. Sign youth to sr. squad without restriction - expose them to hostile take over and pay them like senior players. Protect youth programs for the individual clubs trying to develop high average players. Juniors don't get paid well unless they are signed to senior squads. |
04/08/2011 15:35 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
better pay him then. If you pay your entire 25 man staff 100k/week, that makes your entire payroll 2.5M No excuse for not paying them enough at the senior level. |
04/08/2011 15:36 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
3
