Historical Player Rules

[CrazyEights]

The majority of the league wants to add an option to add historical players through the points system so I'm trying to work out the best way to do this. I'd like to hear your serious opinions on this. Please don't use this as a soap box to say why you don't want to add historical players. I'd like your serious opinions on this issue. I have thought about this a lot, and have a few ideas. What I want is for this to be an exciting option to encourage even more participation. What I don't want is for a great team to add a Hall of Fame player while the weaker teams can't add anybody.

Depending on the player added, the historical player could be one of the best players in the league. So here a few ideas to consider. Let me know if you have other ideas.

1) We can set a high point amount(possibly 150), and allow any team that reaches that goal to add any historical player that they want.

2) We can set a lower point amount (possibly 75), and allow any team that reaches that goal to add any player they want.

3) We can go with option 1 or 2, but the historical player will cost the team a draft pick.

4) We can go with option 1 or 2, but the historical player will cost the team one of their best players. After looking at some of the players available, I thought this might be a viable option. In most cases, the stronger teams would be forced to give up a better player than the weaker teams. So even though the stronger team would be adding a better player than they are giving up, the weaker teams could get even stronger. This would be the equalizer. For example...think of the players as if they were ranked on a scale of 1-10. The stronger team wants to add an 8, but they would be forced to give up a 6. The weaker team wants to add an 8 player, but they would have to give up a 4. The player that they lose would go into Free Agency during the offseason.

I am still undecided, so please let me know your thoughts.

[RockSports17]

I'm all for #1 and #3. A high point amount means that a manager would have to be very active to get to that point amount, and deserves to get that historical player.

For them to get that historical player, they should have to lose a draft pick (I prefer their 1st rounder).

[Raphictor]

Option 1 or 3.

[Slyder]

1 OR 3 for me too.

[Porter]

1 or 4

[Dam8610]

3.

[Jamoo]

I think we should have to give up a first round pick, and use the "franchise" player idea.

[brak60]

Historical players require a first round pick.

[CrazyEights]

Historical players could cost a 1st round pick in the draft for all teams. Or we could use this system.

top 10 teams to pick in the draft lose a 3rd round pick
11-20 teams to pick in the draft lose a 2nd round pick
21-30 teams to pick in the draft lose a 1st round pick

[brak60]

Crazy,
I was actually considering putting an addendum to mine that suggested in addition to a first round pick, those picking 11-20 lose a fourth round pick and those picking 21-30 lose a third round pick.

[Dam8610]

Historical players could cost a 1st round pick in the draft for all teams. Or we could use this system.

top 10 teams to pick in the draft lose a 3rd round pick
11-20 teams to pick in the draft lose a 2nd round pick
21-30 teams to pick in the draft lose a 1st round pick

I think that this system:

top 10 teams lose a 2nd round pick
11-30 lose a 1st round pick

would work better. I think the other system benefits the 11-20 teams most (they add 2 players that could make their team much better and are already not among the league's worst teams).

[Raphictor]

I don't know if we can lump the 11th worst team with the 20th worst, a team that just missed out on the playoffs. Maybe lump it 1-15 do a 3rd, 16-21 do a 2nd, and 22-30 (the playoff teams) do a 1st. Or just split down the middle 1-15 do 2nd, 16-30 a first. That just keeps the losers away from being lumped with ones who just missed the postseason.

[RockSports17]

nah. I prefer Dam's system more.

[Dam8610]

Or just split down the middle 1-15 do 2nd, 16-30 a first. That just keeps the losers away from being lumped with ones who just missed the postseason.

I was thinking about that. That's probably an even better idea. Maybe an even better idea would be:

sub .500 teams give up a 2nd round pick
.500+ teams give up a 1st round pick

[Dry1313]

Ok I like options 1 and 3. But for the draft pick, 1-8 give up 4th, 9-15 give up 3rd, 16-30 give up 2nd. And I have a points system question: Lets say you earn 150 points. Can you only use it on a historical player? Or can you couple that with moving your team or editing your stadium? Because I'd like to move, but not at the cost of an historical player. Are there two banks of points? Or just 1. Because teams who want to move would get gipped if the other teams got a player instead.