I wanted to write a little bit on player values vs trades. One of the great things I've seen recently are managers using the trade wire to move players off their rosters and to acquire players, rather than using only the UFA system. I know this trend is, in part, a limitation of UFA signings per season, per team currently 2.
Player values are formuled by individual skills and age. The per ball value is a secret, but generally each skill has a different weighted measure. Skills used more to create a player's performance have a greater influence on the Player Value. The younger the player (the more potential for development) the greater the player's value.
More importantly, a player's value is the basis for: SALARY. An 18 year old valued at 150k makes about 1500 per week, but that player could be in the 500k range, and demanding 5000 per week.
The Player's Value should be a guideline, not final judgement of the player's worth. As such the better way to approach selling or buying a player is to start with a lower initial offer. Managers buying a player obviously cannot bid lower than the initial asking price. But by not bidding tells the selling manager the offer is too high.
I've seen some players with low core skills (AVG, POWER, EYE) and (FB, CB, Control) go for some large trade prices. I think the bids were based on the player's value rather than their worth. It may also be there is a lot more money floating around BBZ than just a month ago so price is negligible. This also means inflation! Just some food for thought.
I'm looking for suggestions to improve the balance of trades and UFA signings. There are probably 100 ways to change it, but I need to hear from the managers as a whole to get a clear idea for a direction to go. Your thoughts can be posted here.
I like the idea of managers earning UFA signings, or paying a tariff, like 5% of the player value after the first 2 signings. So a team could sign 2 UFA's then the 3rd at a 5% premium, to be redistributed over the team's division, or league.
ReplyDelete