Updating the retention rules

[Tony]

Hey everyone,

It's SPL retention season and I figured I'd bring up a few thoughts here before it's too late. Let me immediately get out of the way that this thread is not about removing retention or supercharging it; I want to focus on a few aspects of retention that were left behind as we gradually improved the rules around it for the better over the years.

1. Retaining players that were traded

As of right now, you can only retain players that were drafted in the auction by the same team that's attempting to retain the player. Earlier tonight an exception was made for ima, given that he was traded before Week 1 had started, as well as extenuating circumstances being listed. This made me wonder why an exception even needed to be made in the first place. ima was drafted by the Tyrants and his contract, so to speak, was traded to the BIGs. The BIGs traded for the right to put ima in their lineup and ima ended the season as a BIGs player. Why wouldn't any team be allowed to retain any traded player? It's not like the price of retention is whatever terms the two teams involved in the trade came up with + 3k, right? You'd still be paying 3k on top of the price that was paid for the player in auction when all 10 teams had a chance to bid as much money as they deemed the player in question to be worth. If a player is displaying a bad attitude and tries to move to a different franchise in order to be retained there in the future, then the trade needs to meet a certain standard for it not to be vetoed by the hosts like any other trade. The community will police itself there, as seen with last year's trade for Ojama. I don't see any harm or any possible abuse in allowing retention for traded players; if a team acquires a player's contract, then that player is 100% a part of their new franchise, fair and square.

2. Retaining players purchased in the mid-season auction

It is not allowed to retain players purchased in the mid-season auction under the current rules. This rule, however, was put in place back when you could sign up for the mid-season auction even if you hadn't signed up for the auction at the start of the season. Obviously, if you're able to get someone like blunder for 6.5k, because he hadn't signed up until the mid-season, then you shouldn't be able to retain him for 10k the following year. This isn't possible anymore. Only players that went undrafted at the start of the season - and thus had already signed up originally - are able to sign up for the mid-season auction. Retaining a player bought during the mid-season is no longer something managers can abuse, because all 10 teams had a chance to buy such a player during the first auction. We should allow players bought during the mid-season to be retained the season after.

These are the two ideas I had in mind, but I might be forgetting some other details around retention that we forgot to touch on as we improved the retention rules bit my bit. Feel free to post any other suggestions in this thread if you have them.

 

[Finchinator]

I believe that allowing traded players to be retained like Tony alludes to in the first point is a step in the right direction. We should absolutely view trades like contracts and the original contracts allow for retentions in future editions, so there should be no fundamental difference. If there are clear abuses of the system, then the hosting team should have power to overrule things. Obviously potential overruling/vetos make it a bit imperfect, but I believe this is the best step competitively.

As for mid-season retains, I think that this is something that deserves a lengthier discussion. I like that it rewards managers for saving money and keeping an eye on how certain players progress or reevaluating prospects again, potentially landing a diamond in the rough. However, I also believe it incentivizes saving up money in hopes of buying more time to one of a number of prospects panning out in the near future rather than taking risks during the main auction. I view this (and other things increasing managerial strategy in the pre-tournament phases -- more on this in the last paragraph) as a positive, but others may not and I think getting more opinions would be a good thing.

Finally, I want to add that a common link in recent threads has been increasing the role of managerial strategy in the pre-tournament phases. For example, "new Snake" is likely to be an auction rather than a Snake draft. Auctions naturally allow for far more possibilities as they do not limit you to 1 pick each round. It is possible to spend big early and get multiple top end players or save up and get lots of above average players later on. If we were to expand on retention possibilities, which I am in favor of, then this would add another element of strategy to the current SPL for managers of the present and future; their trades would hold more weight and potentially how much they save for midseason can come into play here as well. I believe that this is a step in the right direction and I hope that others echo this sentiment. I think we will be seeing some of our most competitive tournaments as a result of this initiative.

 

[Wigglytuff]

(speaking as wigglytuff and not as spl host)

It's SPL retention season and I figured I'd bring up a few thoughts here before it's too late.

To preface this post, I understand from the wording here that you might want these proposed changes to take effect in this season of SPL, should they be approved. However, if accepted, these proposals should not apply until SPL XIII. All teams should have a full season to plan out their auction, midseason, and trades with the knowledge that players acquired from mids and trades are eligible for retain in the next season. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction from the lower tiers and old gens communities for the recent SPL tiers decision; most of it was directed towards each other but a universal gripe was that the change was made with short notice and significantly transformed the tournament only weeks before it was set to begin. I don't think this is something that should become habitual.

I don't see issues with the first proposal. The current application of retentions places critical importance on acquisition during preseason auction, but as pointed out, there aren't methods to abuse this and every team was given a fair shot at bidding on the player in auction. It makes sense conceptually as well: is the auction really so important compared to the happenings of the regular season? If a player is traded and thrives on their new team, that should be what really matters for team identity, and what counts for retain.

There might be more room for argument on the second proposal, but it follows the same thread of logic as the first (auction acquisition shouldn't be a requirement for retention) and I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed if the first is. Putting aside ~6k and having one less player for the first half of the season on the offchance that one of the undrafted players pops off in the meantime seems like a strategy that's not likely to pay off, and also relatively harmless if it does by virtue of how small that interaction is. It's also not likely to be bigger than one player given that teams are capped to three retains. I would be surprised if midseason pickups formed any significant part of a manager's season plan. It's certainly something for managers to consider, but it's not so overbearing that anything about the auction will fundamentally change for the worse.

 

[ABR]

I definitely agree with Tony’s proposed changes.

However, if accepted, these proposals should not apply until SPL XIII. All teams should have a full season to plan out their auction, midseason, and trades with the knowledge that players acquired from mids and trades are eligible for retain in the next season.

I normally dislike this type of thinking (and it’d be terrible if we had to wait until spl 13 for the all ou) but fair enough in this case.

That said, does this not literally apply to the ima retain as well? That too lacked the knowledge that players acquired from trades could be retained. An exception is one thing but at least be consistent with it. And please don’t cite the “ojama situation” as a special circumstance, that was over and done with, money returned and all, before the final iteration of the ima trade took place.

Allow all retains for past season trades or allow none of them.

Quickly, please.

 

[Wigglytuff]

I normally dislike this type of thinking (and it’d be terrible if we had to wait until spl 13 for the all ou) but fair enough in this case.

Even if you disagree with the principle of giving advance notice, waiting until SPL XIII for these retention updates (if they're approved) is the right move for fairness. A team that drafted focusing on lower tiers last SPL is getting shafted in comparison to a team that drafted focusing on old gens.

That said, does this not literally apply to the ima retain as well? That too lacked the knowledge that players acquired from trades could be retained. An exception is one thing but at least be consistent with it. And please don’t cite the “ojama situation” as a special circumstance, that was over and done with, money returned and all, before the final iteration of the ima trade took place.

Who else in SPL XI, other than the other players that were traded alongside ima, can claim that their trades had the same extenuating circumstances caused by the Ojama situation? If there was another trade motivated by a 23k hole in the budget, this exception would also be extended to them. There isn't and hasn't been one in recent memory, which should speak to the unusualness of the Ojama situation and is what merits the ima exception.

 

[1 True Lycan]

Posting to say that I also agree with the OP. Just to give my thoughts on the only point of disagreement so far in the thread:

Even if you disagree with the principle of giving advance notice, waiting until SPL XIII for these retention updates (if they're approved) is the right move for fairness. A team that drafted focusing on lower tiers last SPL is getting shafted in comparison to a team that drafted focusing on old gens.

To be honest, this feels a bit like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. Teams that drafted focusing on lower tiers last year have already been shafted and there is no fix for it unless we go back to having lower tiers in this SPL, which is not going to happen. All in all, allowing trade/mid-season retains is a much smaller change than changing the format of the entire tour. If there are no disagreements on the actual premise of allowing these types of retains, I see no issue with allowing them this year. The number of players this would affect is quite small, even smaller if you discount all of the BIGs trades which are currently being given an exception. I actually believe the right move for fairness is to have the same rules apply to everyone rather than having 'complex' rules with exceptions being granted to the BIGs.

 

[ABR]

Wigglytuff

Take this trade for example.

The Ever Grande BIGS trade soulgazer + Descending to the Cryonicles for Leftiez + 1.5k

Your reason for waiting a full year before implementing proper rules is “people deserve to know about the following year’s SPL ruleset in advance.” By extension, you’re saying that the BIGs may not have traded soulgazer if they knew the Cryos could retain him. If you’re giving away a player it is because you value them less the person at the other end of the trade does. This applies to every single mids trade. I don’t need to tell you how ridiculous of an argument this is.

Waiting a full year is overly pedantic and limiting for absolutely no gain.

 

[Wigglytuff]

Your reason for waiting a full year before implementing proper rules is “people deserve to know about the following year’s SPL ruleset in advance.” By extension, you’re saying that the BIGs may not have traded soulgazer if they knew the Cryos could retain him. If you’re giving away a player it is because you value them less the person at the other end of the trade does. This applies to every single mids trade. I don’t need to tell you how ridiculous of an argument this is.

That's not the main reason (see above), and the situation you've laid out is how a trade is supposed to work. This isn't at all the situation with the trade involving ima, where Ojama couldn't be traded midauction and hosts couldn't stop midauction to determine if he met the criteria for being soldback, so BIGs essentially drafted 23k short and needed to arrange a trade to recoup some of that lost value. It was an unideal situation so an unideal exception is being granted. I don't see what the point of bringing up a regular trade is.

 

[ABR]

“However, if accepted, these proposals should not apply until SPL XIII. All teams should have a full season to plan out their auction, midseason, and trades with the knowledge that players acquired from mids and trades are eligible for retain in the next season.”

The basis for delay, according to you, is that teams would have acted differently last season if they knew about these retain specifics.

I highlighted the normal soulgazer trade to make the point that, in fact, no team would have acted differently. This is so, so, so much less significant than tier changes. I can say with 100% certainty that every trade from last year would be the exact same with or without the knowledge of these “new” rules a year in advance.

 

[Chaitanya]

When trading, you trade your ‘rights' on X player to the other team. The team you traded to should get full rights on this player and should be able to do anything the original team could do with the player(retains) This should’ve been implemented from the beginning lol Waiting another season serves no purpose, people can always nitpick reasons it isn’t ‘fair.’ Completely agree with OP

 

[Tony]

It's been a full week since I posted this thread and the only concerns that were pointed out have been addressed promptly. Considering this is a time sensitive matter, can we get a response soon?

 

[reyscarface]

Hijacking this to also propose allowing mid auction trades (which apparently are not banned, just Hikari didn't wanna deal with the logistics when he was host?).

And bring back retain trades pleeeease.

 

[Luigi]

definitely do not bring back retain trades, retains are an inherent imbalance in the tournament that we allow exclusively for the sake of team continuity, which retain trades do nothing for. all they do is increase that imbalance and reward managers that had nothing to do with the previous edition of the team by giving them more money to start the draft with.

mid auction trades on the other hand should definitely happen though, can confirm they were removed by fiat cause hikari didn't want to deal with them, so if perry is cool with them, bring em back

also the things the op proposes are fine but should be put into practice only for spl XIII

 

[reyscarface]

Most people seem against bringing back retain trades on the basis of "changing things mid tournament", and are agreeing a discussion should be put in place for next SPL. This is totally fine, but if that is the situation, then the changes mentioned in the OP of this thread should also not be allowed this SPL, as to not change tournament rules midway, like Luigi mentions in his post.

So I just wanna talk about mid-auction trades, which aren't allowed for the reasons explained in the two posts above, and start a discussion on them. Mainly because some people think there would be some huge brain collusion between managers if you allow them, so I would like them to voice their opinion here.

 

[ABR]

definitely do not bring back retain trades, retains are an inherent imbalance in the tournament that we allow exclusively for the sake of team continuity, which retain trades do nothing for. all they do is increase that imbalance and reward managers that had nothing to do with the previous edition of the team by giving them more money to start the draft with.

this 1000%, nothing else to say

mid auction trades on the other hand should definitely happen though, can confirm they were removed by fiat cause hikari didn't want to deal with them, so if perry is cool with them, bring em back

fine with this but there should be dedicated time slots x times per auction so people have time to digest the info

also the things the op proposes are fine but should be put into practice only for spl XIII

still haven’t heard a specific reason why it can’t be this spl

Most people seem against bringing back retain trades on the basis of "changing things mid tournament", and are agreeing a discussion should be put in place for next SPL. This is totally fine, but if that is the situation, then the changes mentioned in the OP of this thread should also not be allowed this SPL, as to not change tournament rules midway, like Luigi mentions in his post.

people disagree with retain trades for the reasons luigi listed, which is exactly why they were axed. this vs next spl makes no difference re: retain trades and that topic should have no impact on the timing of the OP.

also can the tds take 5 minutes to respond over the course of a week? i’ve been there and it is truly not that difficult

 

[Eo Ut Mortus]

Having been there, you should know that whether to implement the suggested proposal for this current season is the hosts' decision, not the TDs', which is why I didn't feel compelled to respond publicly. But since it was asked, here is my opinion. As in this thread, I maintain that these types of rule revisions should be decided before relevant parties, especially TDs, begin to have any sort of stake in these decisions.

 

[Perry]

Hello everyone. I have not slept on this issue, and have actually talked at length with Tony about it. He knows where the hosting team stands on the issue, and it's time to make it public.

There are two battling issues here: one that lies within TD jurisprudence (whether or not the proposal should be in effect, no matter the edition) and the host jurisprudence (whether or not it should apply for SPL12). The TD team agrees that this is a fine proposal, and we believe we should move forward with it. The SPL12 hosting team agrees it should only apply for SPL13, and that is what we are going to do.

It should be noted that tournament hosts should always try to avoid changing rules mid-tour unless extremely necessary. ima's retain has been thrown around as an exception, but it's not actually 100% true: the ima retain was brought to the TD's attention back in November, and we as a team agreed that an exception was fine following the Ojama situation from last year. It was a decision agreed and discussed between TDs a whole month before the start of the season, and was not particularly a secret: it just wasn't announced anywhere because there were no places to post it yet.

ABR points out how the Ojama situation should not be used as an exception, and one might think so. It's okay, the money was returned and all. But even then, I should note that a situation like that does change a team's plans as they used a big part of their auction money to get Ojama, and that by itself could have made BIGs management not able to pursue ima or any other player, as the situation was only settled days after the auction. ABR also mentions how knowledge of said rule would not change plans from most managers, and that prior knowledge back in SPL11 would also likely not be of much effect. That is fine, but there's no way to be sure of it. It doesn't require a lot of imagination to find a scenario where you would trade a player that you want to retain in the next year.

One of the factors that was used in support of this decision is the huge popular support behind it. And we do like discussion on tournament rulings to gauge how the community stands on issues, and this is why I suggested Tony that he should create this very thread. But, even back then, we were pretty much set on only allowing it for the next edition. We do not want to start wrong precedents for the future editions, and even if it seems 'pedantic', we believe it's the best way forward.

Retain trades can be discussed further by TDs, but I personally think it should not come back and Luigi quite nicely pointed out why in his posts above. It should be noted that if it does return, it would also only apply for SPL 13. I will also discuss the return of midauction trades further with my co-hosts and we'll post an announcement when we reach a consensus.