I think it would be interesting to allow a team to protect 1 player from their roster from the vote off. This would allow a team to be rewarded for getting a high quality player at a good price. The catch to this would be the same player could not be protected two years in a row, regardless of what team they are on the second year.
That’s the entire purpose of the $5 discount the original team gets at auction. The purpose of both arbitration systems is to help correct prices so teams have to continually work to find good value while still allowing existing values to degrade at a slower rate.
1 Like
I have not done an Ottoneu offseason yet so am wondering what this $5 discount is? I have not seen this in the rules anywhere, is it documented somewhere?
It is part of the vote-off arbitration system, NOT the allocations arbitration system.
See VII. d. ii.
Thank you for clarifying it is only the Vote Off method. I believe I read somewhere that allocation was the recommended arbitration method? It seems to me that allocation encourages more turnover with more players salary increasing, would that be accurate to say?
This is just my opinion; if you’re looking for more input, it may make sense to spin up a new topic.
I think the allocations method accomplishes the goal of bringing player salaries in line with their production better than the vote-off system. While the vote-off system does remove players from the roster, which is direct turnover, the allocations system makes less players easy keepers. The difference is that the allocations system lets the team owner make the choice, whereas the vote-off system removes the team owners choice.
So, it is preference, and my preference is allocations, but I know some owners like the vote off system.
2 Likes