Page 38 of 48 FirstFirst ... 28 36 37 38 39 40 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 760 of 946

Thread: RR NBA Dynasty League - S2

  1. #741
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote DanH wrote: View Post
    First bold: ah, but those are contradictory statements. Naturally, the more players you have signed, typically the more years will be on the cap (and the less Dynasty cap space you will have). But at the same time, the less Dynasty cap space you have, the more money you have to offer a free agent, as you yourself outlined - 200 being greater than 199. There we address the second bold - if team A wants the biggest name free agent, and team B wants them too, team B gets them, not only in spite of, but BECAUSE of having LESS "cap space."

    If years in Dynasty = money in NBA, then the amount of "money" (years) you have to spend should impact your ability to sign free agents.

    I agree that we can't wine and dine the players, or use agent connections, or any of the rest, EXCEPT we CAN still horde cap space and offer the most money for free agents, just like in the NBA. Except we can't - not the way it is currently set up. The current system encourages the opposite - spend all your cap so that you'll be able to sign a big name free agent in the summer. It leaves teams with poor players stuck either losing out on their free agency targets, or locking up players they don't really want, just to keep their empty roster spots down. It discourages teams from letting players walk to free agency (as every player that walks actually effectively eats up cap space - in the context if signing free agents - instead of clearing it), thus also suppressing the free agent market, leaving very few good options out there - all of whom will be picked up by the nearly-capped-out teams, since they have effective veto over other bidders.

    If everyone is fine with the way it is, so am I. But right now it is NOT logically consistent with the "Cap = Money" mantra. Right now it is more like "Empty roster slots = Money deficit," which is about as far away as you can get from the approach in the NBA.
    Bold 1: The current system encourages wise allocation of your years.

    BOld 2: Teams with poor players put themselves in that position - consequences.

    Bold 3: Teams locking up poor players or players they don't want have done so at their own peril - again consequences.

    Bold 4: Of course teams discourage players walk to free agency when unrestricted. And while every player walking eats up cap space it gives another opportunity to assign the cap space to a more productive player.

    Bold 5: Free agency is always suppressed. It is very rare for a great player to be a free agent. That is why we see middle NBA guys paid ridiculous amounts of money = supply versus demand. Where you are going to see big names in free agency is when a team has more than 2 good players or they have signed a player over the cap during the previous season. The suppression of free agency is exactly why I don't want to see extensions unless you have a guy with "0" years. It is a loop hole out of bad planning and decisions and will ensure productive players rarely if ever make the free agent auction.

    Bold 6: Who cares if teams are capped out in terms of years? They are either going to be very good or very bad. IT is consequences for assigning your years. If you've taken risks signing young, unproven players, drafted wisely, allocated your years wisely - why should you be punished in free agency?

    Bold 7: When was the last time you saw a max free agent sign with a team other than his own to go to a crap or skeleton of a team? Same situation here. Top free agents are looking for money (years) and a chance to win (near full, productive roster).


    The reality is the top players in Dynasty are never going to be available because you get two resigns each year. Durant or LeBron will never see free agency in our league.


    Allocating a set amount of money per roster spot is about as far from the NBA as you can get. You don't see each player in the NBA making $5M. You see a team with a couple of players earning over $20M and over half the team earning less than $5M.

    To the comment: "But at the same time, the less Dynasty cap space you have, the more money you have to offer a free agent, as you yourself outlined - 200 being greater than 199. There we address the second bold - if team A wants the biggest name free agent, and team B wants them too, team B gets them, not only in spite of, but BECAUSE of having LESS "cap space."

    True but there are consequences to spending all $200. You can't hit the waiver wire. You're going to be stuck adding/dropping to the list of players everyone has already had a shot to sign. But your thinking is flawed to the number of years. You could have 14 players under contract and 14 years assigned to the cap. You could have 14 players under contract and 28 years assigned to the cap. You're making assumptions here. I have 14 players under contract and 30 years assigned in cap space.
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

    Basketball has clear winners every night --
    except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.

  2. #742
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, ON
    Posts
    1,683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Again, not a criticism of the current system, but another thing to think about.

    My other point was that our cap situation does not impact our free agency money.

    Why do our free agency bids not really affect our cap space? This ties into the last one, as it is easier to implement if we only have our cap space to offer (say, $1 for every year of cap room we have). Then whatever you bid on a player, you actually have to give them in years. So, say most people have about 10 years in cap room, but one player has 11, if he wants to automatically outbid everybody, he is then tied to a ridiculous 11 year deal sitting on his cap. This makes it so free agency is self contained in price-setting.

    As it stands, as time goes on and people get better at planning for free agency, more and more teams will put themselves in the position where they have only one or two free agency slots, and more and more free agents will go for $200 or close to it, putting a good chunk of the league out of the free agency race before it even begins. But if there was a significant consequence to placing high bids (like it directly impacting the cap), then it comes down to who is willing to risk the most salary (years) on a player, just like in the NBA (remember, these aren't max level guys - they all get re-signed). Bidding wars, with no real artificial cap except a member's actual cap room.

    Just pouring out my stream-of-consciousness for your thoughts.

  3. #743
    Raptors Republic Superstar Axel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    2,742
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Without providing a detailed response, I have to say I don't like the idea of tinkering along the lines of Dan's post above. $200 per auction is just fine. If you only have 1 spot to fill, good for you but there are still likely some deals on your books you don't want.

    Draft well, find bargains at the auction, make smart trades and get lucky with injuries and real life trades. That's how you build your team.

  4. Like Mack North liked this post
  5. #744
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, ON
    Posts
    1,683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    [QUOTE=mcHAPPY;364236]Bold 1: The current system encourages wise allocation of your years.[QUOTE]

    Yes. But also encourages using up your roster spots with non-expiring deals - I think an unforeseen consequence, that suppresses free agent pools.

    BOld 2: Teams with poor players put themselves in that position - consequences.
    Yes. Agreed.

    Bold 3: Teams locking up poor players or players they don't want have done so at their own peril - again consequences.
    What peril? As you noted real difference makers rarely make it to free agency.

    Bold 4: Of course teams discourage players walk to free agency when unrestricted. And while every player walking eats up cap space it gives another opportunity to assign the cap space to a more productive player.
    Does it though? It opens up the roster slot to be able to assign a better player - but if the best players are out of your reach due to having too many open roster spots, what's the benefit in that?

    Bold 5: Free agency is always suppressed. It is very rare for a great player to be a free agent. That is why we see middle NBA guys paid ridiculous amounts of money = supply versus demand. Where you are going to see big names in free agency is when a team has more than 2 good players or they have signed a player over the cap during the previous season. The suppression of free agency is exactly why I don't want to see extensions unless you have a guy with "0" years. It is a loop hole out of bad planning and decisions and will ensure productive players rarely if ever make the free agent auction.
    I agree about the lack of extensions, it is key to making sure the free agency market is vibrant. Of course, you still end up with only a few difference makers, and the teams that let the least free agents walk can take those guys no problem. So, you see, teams that let the most free agents go to free agency (thus making free agency more interesting) get punished but having their bidding ability suppressed.

    Bold 6: Who cares if teams are capped out in terms of years? They are either going to be very good or very bad. IT is consequences for assigning your years. If you've taken risks signing young, unproven players, drafted wisely, allocated your years wisely - why should you be punished in free agency?
    I agree that teams who are capped out in terms of years are either going to be very good or very bad. How would you be punished in free agency? You'd have just as much money, on average, per slot you need to fill, as everyone else. Right now, teams who let their free agents go and give the league more flexibility and fun in free agency are the ones being punished.

    Bold 7: When was the last time you saw a max free agent sign with a team other than his own to go to a crap or skeleton of a team? Same situation here. Top free agents are looking for money (years) and a chance to win (near full, productive roster).
    Agreed. Max free agents (and let's address this as the best available in free agency, since the top players will never hit free agency) will definitely be looking for the most money (years). So why do teams with the most money to give likely having their bidding ability suppressed?

    The reality is the top players in Dynasty are never going to be available because you get two resigns each year. Durant or LeBron will never see free agency in our league.
    Yes, of course. Unless someone plans poorly. Nonetheless, the top players available in free agency are significantly better than the guys that go for $1, and can make a big difference to a team.

    Allocating a set amount of money per roster spot is about as far from the NBA as you can get. You don't see each player in the NBA making $5M. You see a team with a couple of players earning over $20M and over half the team earning less than $5M.
    But I'm not allocating money per roster spot - cap space is determined based on salary (years) committed. Exactly as it is in the NBA. The current system is the one that allocates money based on available roster spots, effectively, as the "cap hold" ($1) for each empty spot decreases the team's ability to bid on the big name free agents.

    To the comment: "But at the same time, the less Dynasty cap space you have, the more money you have to offer a free agent, as you yourself outlined - 200 being greater than 199. There we address the second bold - if team A wants the biggest name free agent, and team B wants them too, team B gets them, not only in spite of, but BECAUSE of having LESS "cap space."

    True but there are consequences to spending all $200. You can't hit the waiver wire. You're going to be stuck adding/dropping to the list of players everyone has already had a shot to sign. But your thinking is flawed to the number of years. You could have 14 players under contract and 14 years assigned to the cap. You could have 14 players under contract and 28 years assigned to the cap. You're making assumptions here. I have 14 players under contract and 30 years assigned in cap space.
    There are consequences to spending the entire $200. So let's assume all players have the same reservations about not having waiver wire money, and keep back $10. Now Team B's $190 beats Team A's $189. Same situation. Reality is, all other things being equal, both teams being willing to take the same risks on waiver wire budget, whatever amount that may be, Team B has an unfair advantage in free agency.

    My thinking is not flawed. You are interpreting it incorrectly. I am not saying that teams will ALWAYS have cap proportional to their roster slots. I'm saying, in general, teams with more roster spots open will have more cap space available. There will obviously be exceptions. And that's the entire point - free agency should NOT be determined by roster spots available, since they are not explicitly tied to the cap (and if it were, it should be in the opposite way that it is now).



    That's this year as it stands, in non-dead salary (no waived players). See? There is clustering, and there are exceptions, but the general rule holds - more roster spots = more salary committed.

    You're a great example - you have 14 players and 30 years assigned - exactly in line with the trend line created.

    Anyway, see those two dots at the low end? They have very little salary or roster spots combined, and will have the least bidding power come Oct 26th. Why are those teams being punished?

    ---

    Consider the following, to address the point that teams locked into bad salary get what's coming to them. Team C has 15 mediocre players on their roster. Team D has 15 mediocre players on their roster. Team C has them all signed to short term deals, smart move. A couple of two year deals, and the rest 1 year deals, looking to upgrade over them in free agency the next summer. Team D signs all of their players to three year deals, except 6 (the 6 he feels are the worst) - he gives 3 of them 2 year deals and 3 of them 1 year deals.

    Next summer comes along. Both teams re-sign the two best performing expiring contracts. There are a few decent free agents, but not many. Which team gets rewarded with the top free agent? Team D has $200 to spend on the player of his choice. Team C has something like $190. Clearly Team D gets the top free agent. Of course there are other teams, probably having more to spend than Team C, who had a lot of expirings. So to get another of the top free agents, Team C needs to outbid the other teams, meaning that they will (read: might) get one top free agent, and then be stuck with mediocre pickups.

    Team D signs his top free agent long term. Done. Team C signs their second-tier top free agent long term, and their mediocre players for 1 year, looking to upgrade the following year. Flash forward a year. Once again, Team D has 3 expirings, of which he keeps the best two. Team C has a bunch of expirings, of which he keeps the best two. Once again, going to free agency, Team D gets to take their pick of the litter, and Team C is stuck with the leftovers.

    This pattern applies over the entire league - the players who are most foolhardy and tie up the most cap long term will TEND to have the least roster spots available, and thus the highest likelihood of landing a top free agent. It's a troubling pattern, and as teams notice it, you'll see more and more players aiming to have those situations come up where they have only 1 open spot, allowing them to pick up whoever they like in free agency. Of course, the side effect of this is an extremely suppressed free agency, since less and less players will be let go at the end of each year.

    That's just a side effect though - the main issue is the competitive advantage given to teams who will tend to be in the worse cap situation. It's fine, it's just not at all like the NBA, where the second tier free agents (max or near max guys who don't really deserve it, see Parsons, Hayward, etc, which aligns pretty well with our "best guys who don't get re-signed" in Dynasty) don't just go to winners - they go where the money is greatest.

  6. #745
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, ON
    Posts
    1,683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default My Proposal

    I feel like I am making this seem more convoluted than it is. So, a simple summary, and a simple proposal.

    1) In Dynasty, cap years are a replacement for salary. We have a "years" cap instead of a "salary" cap.

    2) In the current model, everyone has the same amount to spend in free agency, regardless of their "cap space". This is contrary to the way it works in the NBA.

    3) Further, players who have the least cap space will TEND to have the least roster spots to fill, thus giving them the advantage in getting the best the free agent market has to offer. This again is contrary to the way it tends to work in the NBA - rare is a team with 14 players on the roster already, or a high team salary, a real player in free agency.

    4) Teams who sign a player in free agency get to set the terms of their signing, regardless of what their bid was. This is different from the NBA in that if you outbid someone, you are stuck with the consequences of said bid.

    Conclusion: The current system works mostly fine (with a little bug where the more full your roster is, the better shot you have a top free agent), but if the intent is to replicate being an NBA manager as much as is feasible, the current system for free agency does not replicate the NBA free agency system. Trades, re-signings, restricted free agency - all of these systems have a smart and well-thought-out replication here in Dynasty which is both simpler and still in the spirit of the NBA approach. Free agency bidding does not.

    My proposal: After all re-signings are done, each team has leftover cap space. That cap space gets converted directly to free agency dollars. If a team has 10 years of cap space, they'll have $10 at the auction. Bidding works the same - whoever gets the highest bid gets the player. Instead of then assigning players years, the bid value is used as their signing amount - if you bid $6 to get a player, you've signed him to a 6 year contract. And vice versa, if you want to sign a player long term, it takes up your free agency dollars to do so.

    This aligns with the NBA where a) teams with cap space have the most money to offer free agents, and b) if a team wins a bidding war for a player, they actually have to pay the player the amount that won them the player.

    Other benefits of this... If teams are rewarded for having cap space, they will sign more short term deals, more players will go to free agency, and we will see more fluidity year to year in team structure. Signing long term deals will still have the negative consequence of hurting you long term, even more so really as it will restrict your free agency funds. Teams will not be able to bid wildly on players and not have any consequences for it. Nor will teams be able to lock up good players long term without giving other players an advantage in free agency.

    It also self-corrects for roster size AND cap space - if you go into the auction with three slots open and $12 in cap space, Yahoo will automatically only allow you to bid a max of $10 for a free agent, holding back enough for two 1 year deals. This means one less step rushing to set years in the few days between the free agency auction and the start of the season.

  7. #746
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote DanH wrote: View Post
    Again, not a criticism of the current system, but another thing to think about.

    My other point was that our cap situation does not impact our free agency money.

    Why do our free agency bids not really affect our cap space? This ties into the last one, as it is easier to implement if we only have our cap space to offer (say, $1 for every year of cap room we have). Then whatever you bid on a player, you actually have to give them in years. So, say most people have about 10 years in cap room, but one player has 11, if he wants to automatically outbid everybody, he is then tied to a ridiculous 11 year deal sitting on his cap. This makes it so free agency is self contained in price-setting.

    As it stands, as time goes on and people get better at planning for free agency, more and more teams will put themselves in the position where they have only one or two free agency slots, and more and more free agents will go for $200 or close to it, putting a good chunk of the league out of the free agency race before it even begins. But if there was a significant consequence to placing high bids (like it directly impacting the cap), then it comes down to who is willing to risk the most salary (years) on a player, just like in the NBA (remember, these aren't max level guys - they all get re-signed). Bidding wars, with no real artificial cap except a member's actual cap room.

    Just pouring out my stream-of-consciousness for your thoughts.

    Again Durant or a top player is never going to hit free agency unless you have an owner with 3 of those type players expiring in the same year.

    There already are significant consequences in place.

    If you load up on nonproductive players you're screwed because all your years are allocated and a simple waive doesn't remove the years. I took the risk of adding John Henson for 4 years and Larry sanders for 5 years last season. Sanders did not work out and Henson is still to be determined.

    If you sign all your players to shorter contracts/years you're going to end up losing some of them because you can only keep 2 per year.

    If you have all your roster spits filled it also limits you flexibility adding and dropping players. If you have all your years assigned when you pick up a player you can't keep ten the following year. Happening to jbml this year and it happened with Tobias Harris with me last year. Why do you think he went for $126?

    So far I've only heard positives for a person with 14 players heading into free agency. Above as some of the negatives in addition to not being able to tweak roster after auction and before season starts or possibly being frozen out of waiver wire.

    Also look through the player list. There are only going to be 2 top 100 (frye and jones) players available and neither are going to be major difference makers. The key to this league is finding or drafting guys before they are top 100 players.


    I disagree with such radical changes 3 years in. I especially disagree when rules are being changed to make things more 'fair' when we've all been operating under the same rules since the beginning.

    I still believe the situation Mack North and I are in is because we took advantage of the rules as we saw fit. But we both have risks. I have years tied up in questionable players like mcroberts and Thomas. Mack has a lot of very good players on 1 year deals right now. He won't be able to keep them all.

    The idea of an artificial value is exactly free agency. Teams have so much to spend and someone is going to spend it. Teams bidding against each other drives up prices. The $200 is an exception everyone has to use. Your planning and allocating will determine how much you have to spend on any one free agent.

  8. #747
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote DanH wrote: View Post
    I feel like I am making this seem more convoluted than it is. So, a simple summary, and a simple proposal.

    1) In Dynasty, cap years are a replacement for salary. We have a "years" cap instead of a "salary" cap.

    2) In the current model, everyone has the same amount to spend in free agency, regardless of their "cap space". This is contrary to the way it works in the NBA.

    3) Further, players who have the least cap space will TEND to have the least roster spots to fill, thus giving them the advantage in getting the best the free agent market has to offer. This again is contrary to the way it tends to work in the NBA - rare is a team with 14 players on the roster already, or a high team salary, a real player in free agency.

    4) Teams who sign a player in free agency get to set the terms of their signing, regardless of what their bid was. This is different from the NBA in that if you outbid someone, you are stuck with the consequences of said bid.

    Conclusion: The current system works mostly fine (with a little bug where the more full your roster is, the better shot you have a top free agent), but if the intent is to replicate being an NBA manager as much as is feasible, the current system for free agency does not replicate the NBA free agency system. Trades, re-signings, restricted free agency - all of these systems have a smart and well-thought-out replication here in Dynasty which is both simpler and still in the spirit of the NBA approach. Free agency bidding does not.

    My proposal: After all re-signings are done, each team has leftover cap space. That cap space gets converted directly to free agency dollars. If a team has 10 years of cap space, they'll have $10 at the auction. Bidding works the same - whoever gets the highest bid gets the player. Instead of then assigning players years, the bid value is used as their signing amount - if you bid $6 to get a player, you've signed him to a 6 year contract. And vice versa, if you want to sign a player long term, it takes up your free agency dollars to do so.

    This aligns with the NBA where a) teams with cap space have the most money to offer free agents, and b) if a team wins a bidding war for a player, they actually have to pay the player the amount that won them the player.

    Other benefits of this... If teams are rewarded for having cap space, they will sign more short term deals, more players will go to free agency, and we will see more fluidity year to year in team structure. Signing long term deals will still have the negative consequence of hurting you long term, even more so really as it will restrict your free agency funds. Teams will not be able to bid wildly on players and not have any consequences for it. Nor will teams be able to lock up good players long term without giving other players an advantage in free agency.

    It also self-corrects for roster size AND cap space - if you go into the auction with three slots open and $12 in cap space, Yahoo will automatically only allow you to bid a max of $10 for a free agent, holding back enough for two 1 year deals. This means one less step rushing to set years in the few days between the free agency auction and the start of the season.
    I would recommend starting your own league.

    This league does work fine.

    Starting our third year and people want to drastically change now when we have all been operating under same rules? That is bullshit....sorry

  9. #748
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, ON
    Posts
    1,683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
    The idea of an artificial value is exactly free agency. Teams have so much to spend and someone is going to spend it. Teams bidding against each other drives up prices. The $200 is an exception everyone has to use. Your planning and allocating will determine how much you have to spend on any one free agent.
    I understand how the current system works. I just find it lacking. Clearly I wouldn't suggest we change anything for this season.

    The current system is fine, it just ignores the concept of cap space as used in the NBA. That's fine if that's what everyone wants.

  10. #749
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, ON
    Posts
    1,683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
    I would recommend starting your own league.

    This league does work fine.

    Starting our third year and people want to drastically change now when we have all been operating under same rules? That is bullshit....sorry
    I don't WANT to change anything. Just wanted to get people's thoughts. Since people were discussing this anyway.

  11. #750
    Raptors Republic Starter skywalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Axel wrote: View Post
    I think far too much concern over fixing the current system when we don't actually know if it's broken. We need to run with it for a few years before we can really take a look and say, "this needs to be changed here and here" to allow for competitive balance.

    And while McHappy's team looks like he is nicely set, remember that he has players on his roster that are long shots to produce for a year or two (Bruno, took the same gamble with Giannis last year). He also hasn't won anything yet, so even if he is positioned pretty and manages to win it all this year, it's not like the system is broken and we've seen his team (or any team) dominate the league.
    I agree with you Axel. I don't think we want to devote too much time to drastic changes, especially if a system isn't broken.

    The league rules, that are already in place, states the following "Free agency will use a money system. Each team is given equal FA dollars which they can use to place secret bids on FA's who are currently on waivers. When a player is signed the team must immediately post on the league page or the league thread if it is a multi-season signing. If no mention is made within a one week window of the signing then the signing is deemed a one year deal regardless of cap space."

    Am i asking for anything different than what this rule states?

    According to this rule, if I want to sign player A in January, for whatever reason, don't i have to make a "secret bid?" but if he's simply available on the wire, and i can simply go pick him up, isn't that against the actual league rules?

    Maybe I am reading that wrong, but it seems that each player is available to be 'bid' on, and other teams have equal opportunity to also put in a secret bid. Therefore, i shouldn't be able to pick up a guy off the waiver in exactly the same way as leagues that don't have a waiver wire budget.

  12. #751
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, ON
    Posts
    1,683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote skywalker wrote: View Post
    Maybe I am reading that wrong, but it seems that each player is available to be 'bid' on, and other teams have equal opportunity to also put in a secret bid. Therefore, i shouldn't be able to pick up a guy off the waiver in exactly the same way as leagues that don't have a waiver wire budget.
    I believe players clear waivers after a few days. Then anyone can grab them. The rule seems to only apply to free agents who are still on waivers, which is everyone for the first few days of the season, then anyone who gets dropped during the season.

  13. #752
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, ON
    Posts
    1,683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I didn't mean to push any buttons - just wanted to share some thoughts since others were as well. If people don't want a change, I have no problem with that. Especially if the commissioners don't want it - I certainly don't want to seem ungrateful for all the work you guys do, or make your jobs any harder.

  14. #753
    Raptors Republic All-Star WJF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    1,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Just wanted to say thanks to everyone in the league for making it a pretty fun experience. A special thanks to the guys who take on most of the responsibility as well, I would never want to take on keeping the cap sheet up to date, tracking trades, updating rosters on Yahoo, finding replacement owners, and everything else that goes into this league.
    Twitter @WJ_FINDLAY

  15. Like skywalker liked this post
  16. #754
    Raptors Republic Starter skywalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote WJF wrote: View Post
    Just wanted to say thanks to everyone in the league for making it a pretty fun experience. A special thanks to the guys who take on most of the responsibility as well, I would never want to take on keeping the cap sheet up to date, tracking trades, updating rosters on Yahoo, finding replacement owners, and everything else that goes into this league.
    I second this motion! Huge thanks to the brave men who lead us!

  17. #755
    Raptors Republic Starter skywalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote DanH wrote: View Post
    I didn't mean to push any buttons - just wanted to share some thoughts since others were as well. If people don't want a change, I have no problem with that. Especially if the commissioners don't want it - I certainly don't want to seem ungrateful for all the work you guys do, or make your jobs any harder.
    I also didn't want to push any buttons. Just a thought. It is a joy and privileged to be a part of this league!

  18. #756
    Raptors Republic Superstar Axel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    2,742
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I have zero interest in making any changes except with the length of the waiver period for in season free agents. So while Dan writes interesting thoughts, they are simply 3 years too late.

    I know for another one of my leagues, players are always on waivers but there is no cost (not auction but standing priority) so I'm not sure that works either. Ideal may be that all players are on waivers each week, but by the weekend, all unclaimed players are UFA until the following week when the process starts again. This may not be possible within yahoo confines, but it would largely eliminate the "first come, first serve" aspects (which isn't a huge deal) and would be more incentive for people to keep some of their auction funds for the season (a tweak I support). A Monday to Friday waiver period would likely cover a large majority of the add/drops during the season and would allow for more people to get in on a player who may be benefitting from a player injury in-season. Weekend pickups would be "bargain bin" shopping for people who blew their auction funds. Again, might not even be a possible option though.

  19. #757
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    [QUOTE=DanH;364242][QUOTE=mcHAPPY;364236]Bold 1: The current system encourages wise allocation of your years.

    Yes. But also encourages using up your roster spots with non-expiring deals - I think an unforeseen consequence, that suppresses free agent pools.



    Yes. Agreed.



    What peril? As you noted real difference makers rarely make it to free agency.



    Does it though? It opens up the roster slot to be able to assign a better player - but if the best players are out of your reach due to having too many open roster spots, what's the benefit in that?



    I agree about the lack of extensions, it is key to making sure the free agency market is vibrant. Of course, you still end up with only a few difference makers, and the teams that let the least free agents walk can take those guys no problem. So, you see, teams that let the most free agents go to free agency (thus making free agency more interesting) get punished but having their bidding ability suppressed.



    I agree that teams who are capped out in terms of years are either going to be very good or very bad. How would you be punished in free agency? You'd have just as much money, on average, per slot you need to fill, as everyone else. Right now, teams who let their free agents go and give the league more flexibility and fun in free agency are the ones being punished.



    Agreed. Max free agents (and let's address this as the best available in free agency, since the top players will never hit free agency) will definitely be looking for the most money (years). So why do teams with the most money to give likely having their bidding ability suppressed?



    Yes, of course. Unless someone plans poorly. Nonetheless, the top players available in free agency are significantly better than the guys that go for $1, and can make a big difference to a team.



    But I'm not allocating money per roster spot - cap space is determined based on salary (years) committed. Exactly as it is in the NBA. The current system is the one that allocates money based on available roster spots, effectively, as the "cap hold" ($1) for each empty spot decreases the team's ability to bid on the big name free agents.



    There are consequences to spending the entire $200. So let's assume all players have the same reservations about not having waiver wire money, and keep back $10. Now Team B's $190 beats Team A's $189. Same situation. Reality is, all other things being equal, both teams being willing to take the same risks on waiver wire budget, whatever amount that may be, Team B has an unfair advantage in free agency.

    My thinking is not flawed. You are interpreting it incorrectly. I am not saying that teams will ALWAYS have cap proportional to their roster slots. I'm saying, in general, teams with more roster spots open will have more cap space available. There will obviously be exceptions. And that's the entire point - free agency should NOT be determined by roster spots available, since they are not explicitly tied to the cap (and if it were, it should be in the opposite way that it is now).



    That's this year as it stands, in non-dead salary (no waived players). See? There is clustering, and there are exceptions, but the general rule holds - more roster spots = more salary committed.

    You're a great example - you have 14 players and 30 years assigned - exactly in line with the trend line created.

    Anyway, see those two dots at the low end? They have very little salary or roster spots combined, and will have the least bidding power come Oct 26th. Why are those teams being punished?

    ---

    Consider the following, to address the point that teams locked into bad salary get what's coming to them. Team C has 15 mediocre players on their roster. Team D has 15 mediocre players on their roster. Team C has them all signed to short term deals, smart move. A couple of two year deals, and the rest 1 year deals, looking to upgrade over them in free agency the next summer. Team D signs all of their players to three year deals, except 6 (the 6 he feels are the worst) - he gives 3 of them 2 year deals and 3 of them 1 year deals.

    Next summer comes along. Both teams re-sign the two best performing expiring contracts. There are a few decent free agents, but not many. Which team gets rewarded with the top free agent? Team D has $200 to spend on the player of his choice. Team C has something like $190. Clearly Team D gets the top free agent. Of course there are other teams, probably having more to spend than Team C, who had a lot of expirings. So to get another of the top free agents, Team C needs to outbid the other teams, meaning that they will (read: might) get one top free agent, and then be stuck with mediocre pickups.

    Team D signs his top free agent long term. Done. Team C signs their second-tier top free agent long term, and their mediocre players for 1 year, looking to upgrade the following year. Flash forward a year. Once again, Team D has 3 expirings, of which he keeps the best two. Team C has a bunch of expirings, of which he keeps the best two. Once again, going to free agency, Team D gets to take their pick of the litter, and Team C is stuck with the leftovers.

    This pattern applies over the entire league - the players who are most foolhardy and tie up the most cap long term will TEND to have the least roster spots available, and thus the highest likelihood of landing a top free agent. It's a troubling pattern, and as teams notice it, you'll see more and more players aiming to have those situations come up where they have only 1 open spot, allowing them to pick up whoever they like in free agency. Of course, the side effect of this is an extremely suppressed free agency, since less and less players will be let go at the end of each year.

    That's just a side effect though - the main issue is the competitive advantage given to teams who will tend to be in the worse cap situation. It's fine, it's just not at all like the NBA, where the second tier free agents (max or near max guys who don't really deserve it, see Parsons, Hayward, etc, which aligns pretty well with our "best guys who don't get re-signed" in Dynasty) don't just go to winners - they go where the money is greatest.
    DanH: Your thinking is very much flawed based on the fact the nba doesn't operate under a hard salary cap system.

    Your allocation of cap space ignores exceptions. A team can be over the salary cap and still have over $5m to spend on MLE, a Bi-annual exception, and they can sign whoever they want to minimum contracts. It also ignores strategies with bird rights like Houston attempted with parsons.

    Tying roster spots available to cap space available (more roster spots free results in more cap space) does not capture the spirit of the NBA CBA.



    "How would you be punished in free agency? You'd have just as much money, on average, per slot you need to fill, as everyone else."

    You'd be punished by losing the benefits of staggering your years, finding diamonds in the rough, making smart trades, drafting wisely. Giving everyone the same ratio for free agency based on roster size is like assigning grades in school based on attendance.

    **Johnny You got all your answers wrong on your test but you've been here everyday....here is an A+!**

    **Now billy you aced this exam but you missed 2 weeks of school when you broke your leg. All that hard work you did to ensure you succeeded and didn't fall behind doesn't really matter. I'm sorry but you're only going to get a B.**



    "Right now, teams who let their free agents go and give the league more flexibility and fun in free agency are the ones being punished."

    The whole point is to not let your best players go to free agency! If you do that then you've screwed up!!!



    "There are consequences to spending the entire $200. So let's assume all players have the same reservations about not having waiver wire money, and keep back $10. Now Team B's $190 beats Team A's $189."

    You've missed point entirely or are choosing to ignore it: by spending all $200 you're giving up right to partake in waiver wire. The only players you can add are unrestricted. That means everyone has had an opportunity to sign the player before you do; you need to wait until they are unrestricted. That doesn't matter if you have 1 spot or 7 spots to fill in free agency.


    "Reality is, all other things being equal, both teams being willing to take the same risks on waiver wire budget, whatever amount that may be, Team B has an unfair advantage in free agency. "

    Where are the unfair advantages? This is not a one year league. All teams are operating under same rules for last 2-3 years.


    "That's this year as it stands, in non-dead salary (no waived players). See? There is clustering, and there are exceptions, but the general rule holds - more roster spots = more salary committed.

    You're a great example - you have 14 players and 30 years assigned - exactly in line with the trend line created."

    Your data ignores some teams either not declaring resigns, only doing 1 resign, signing and trading resigned players, unequal years traded between end of season, different number of years being assigned to players.

    For this to be accurate and "fair" you would need to do salary cap allocation before resigned players are added to total. If not you are once again punishing a team for good management of expiring players or finding diamonds in the rough and not only obtaining but finding means to keep those diamonds before they become desirable.


    "Anyway, see those two dots at the low end? They have very little salary or roster spots combined, and will have the least bidding power come Oct 26th. Why are those teams being punished?"

    Because ballswin hasn't given his resigns yet and koncept hasn't had his resigns updated to the current cap sheets.


    "This pattern applies over the entire league - the players who are most foolhardy and tie up the most cap long term will TEND to have the least roster spots available, and thus the highest likelihood of landing a top free agent."

    TEND being operative word. Not a given. If a team does that and are very good, shouldn't they be rewarded for shrewd player management? If a team does that and are bad, so what? They're going to be bad.


    "It's a troubling pattern, and as teams notice it, you'll see more and more players aiming to have those situations come up where they have only 1 open spot, allowing them to pick up whoever they like in free agency. "

    But you ignore the risk by the owner. They are either going to lose a lot of good players at some point going into free agency in a future year with a lot of roster spots to fill or they are going to be stuck with bad contracts or waived contracts counting against their cap for many years. If they are good there is nothing wrong with the system.


    "Of course, the side effect of this is an extremely suppressed free agency, since less and less players will be let go at the end of each year."

    I've yet to see a 100% success rate in free agency - fantasy or real like nba. That is what it would take to reach this state and it would take numerous years of 100% success among all teams.


    "That's just a side effect though - the main issue is the competitive advantage given to teams who will tend to be in the worse cap situation."

    Isn't that bird rights?
    And if this is all true why were the knicks so bad for so long?
    Again you're assuming every free agent signing will work out and that just isn't going to happen.
    Your conclusions also ignore our league only has 240 players out of 430-450 NBA players. You don't think during the course of a season those bottom half players will make it to the top half? As I said before, owners need to obtain players before they become known and then structure their roster to be able to keep them.


    "it's just not at all like the NBA, where the second tier free agents (max or near max guys who don't really deserve it, see Parsons, Hayward, etc, which aligns pretty well with our "best guys who don't get re-signed" in Dynasty) don't just go to winners - they go where the money is greatest."

    Not accurate. Parsons went to mavs who took champion spurs to 7 games in first round while Hayward would have gone to up and coming hornets except for RFA and were left to sign Stephenson. They went to most money and a chance to win.

  20. #758
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote DanH wrote: View Post
    I feel like I am making this seem more convoluted than it is. So, a simple summary, and a simple proposal.

    1) In Dynasty, cap years are a replacement for salary. We have a "years" cap instead of a "salary" cap.

    2) In the current model, everyone has the same amount to spend in free agency, regardless of their "cap space". This is contrary to the way it works in the NBA.

    3) Further, players who have the least cap space will TEND to have the least roster spots to fill, thus giving them the advantage in getting the best the free agent market has to offer. This again is contrary to the way it tends to work in the NBA - rare is a team with 14 players on the roster already, or a high team salary, a real player in free agency.

    4) Teams who sign a player in free agency get to set the terms of their signing, regardless of what their bid was. This is different from the NBA in that if you outbid someone, you are stuck with the consequences of said bid.

    Conclusion: The current system works mostly fine (with a little bug where the more full your roster is, the better shot you have a top free agent), but if the intent is to replicate being an NBA manager as much as is feasible, the current system for free agency does not replicate the NBA free agency system. Trades, re-signings, restricted free agency - all of these systems have a smart and well-thought-out replication here in Dynasty which is both simpler and still in the spirit of the NBA approach. Free agency bidding does not.

    My proposal: After all re-signings are done, each team has leftover cap space. That cap space gets converted directly to free agency dollars. If a team has 10 years of cap space, they'll have $10 at the auction. Bidding works the same - whoever gets the highest bid gets the player. Instead of then assigning players years, the bid value is used as their signing amount - if you bid $6 to get a player, you've signed him to a 6 year contract. And vice versa, if you want to sign a player long term, it takes up your free agency dollars to do so.

    This aligns with the NBA where a) teams with cap space have the most money to offer free agents, and b) if a team wins a bidding war for a player, they actually have to pay the player the amount that won them the player.

    Other benefits of this... If teams are rewarded for having cap space, they will sign more short term deals, more players will go to free agency, and we will see more fluidity year to year in team structure. Signing long term deals will still have the negative consequence of hurting you long term, even more so really as it will restrict your free agency funds. Teams will not be able to bid wildly on players and not have any consequences for it. Nor will teams be able to lock up good players long term without giving other players an advantage in free agency.

    It also self-corrects for roster size AND cap space - if you go into the auction with three slots open and $12 in cap space, Yahoo will automatically only allow you to bid a max of $10 for a free agent, holding back enough for two 1 year deals. This means one less step rushing to set years in the few days between the free agency auction and the start of the season.
    "I understand how the current system works. I just find it lacking. Clearly I wouldn't suggest we change anything for this season.

    The current system is fine, it just ignores the concept of cap space as used in the NBA. That's fine if that's what everyone wants."

    If the nba was a hard cap it would be very easy to replicate. Unfortunately it isn't. Your proposal replicates a hard cap in a soft cap world. The changes you're suggesting are going to lead to bottom half of league players being paid equivalent of $6-7m. Sure that happens sometimes but it is not the norm. Over half the league makes less than $2.5m. Also as previously stated it does nothing to adjust for Bird Rights, exceptions, and teams who operate over the salary cap.

    I believe the current system strikes a fine balance. As to the argument earlier about most teams not carrying near full rosters, well, there is one team who routinely does - the spurs. They keep all their main pieces under contract and tinker on the edges. They grow from within and are conservative in their contract extensions. They are a franchise of stability. The current rules allow for such stability if you too find players before they become known.

    The issue I have with the discussion is by having every player needing to picked up on waivers you're creating a hard cap. That is not how the nba operates. You can always pick up an unrestricted free agent....but you might not always be able to keep them. Our league mimics this pretty good if you ask me.

  21. #759
    Raptors Republic Starter skywalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Axel wrote: View Post
    Ideal may be that all players are on waivers each week, but by the weekend, all unclaimed players are UFA until the following week when the process starts again. This may not be possible within yahoo confines, but it would largely eliminate the "first come, first serve" aspects (which isn't a huge deal) and would be more incentive for people to keep some of their auction funds for the season (a tweak I support). A Monday to Friday waiver period would likely cover a large majority of the add/drops during the season and would allow for more people to get in on a player who may be benefitting from a player injury in-season. Weekend pickups would be "bargain bin" shopping for people who blew their auction funds. Again, might not even be a possible option though.
    I also support this minor tweak, or a similar tweak in that direction. #tweak

  22. #760
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    433
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote skywalker wrote: View Post
    I also support this minor tweak, or a similar tweak in that direction. #tweak
    I do understand the points made by Dan H

    However I too would only be in favor of incremental changes

    In response to Axel's suggestion I do not believe that Yahoo would allow this. After a quick review I think the biggest step in that direction would be to extend the waiver period to its maximum (7 days)

    There may be a way to change the waiver period(s) manually but would take an extreme amount of time

    https://help.yahoo.com/kb/fantasy-ba...pressions=true

    https://help.yahoo.com/kb/fantasy-ba...s-sln6931.html

    https://help.yahoo.com/kb/fantasy-ba...s-sln6118.html
    Last edited by jbml; Fri Aug 29th, 2014 at 10:31 PM.

Page 38 of 48 FirstFirst ... 28 36 37 38 39 40 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •