Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KEEPING IT REAL Wins!! RR NBA Dynasty League - S2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.
    twitter.com/dhackett1565

    Comment


    • 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.
      twitter.com/dhackett1565

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • 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!

          Comment


          • 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!

            Comment


            • 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.
              Heir, Prince of Cambridge

              If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

              Comment


              • [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.

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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

                    Comment


                    • 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 29, 2014, 10:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Before addressing these points, I just want to reiterate that I like the current system, and am by no means pushing for changes. I would however like to debate this academically, if that's alright. If not, please ignore the following.

                        mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                        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.
                        The current system does not allow those things either. If you have no cap space, you cannot sign free agents at auction or off waivers, except to one year deals where you lose their rights. The same mechanism could easily exist in my proposed system.

                        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.
                        Agreed. That is why I never suggested such a thing. I suggested literally using the cap room you have to determine your cap space available. Just like the NBA. The current system effectively ties roster slots available to cap space available in free agency - and I agree that it is not in 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.
                        The benefits of doing all that is that you get to keep your players without ever letting them go to free agency. Why do you get additional benefits of having best bid on free agents? Seems like that is a) a secondary benefit and b) an unintended consequence.

                        **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.**
                        See, it seems to me that that is a good description of the current system. Team B, you've allocated your cap space (well or terribly, doesn't matter) and almost filled your roster, so you get an A. Team A, you haven't filled it as much (whether you have good players or bad), so you get a B. Both teams are being rewarded/penalized based on their roster size, while the deciding factor (in the NBA) of actual cap space (read: test scores in your analogy) is ignored entirely.

                        "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!!!
                        Yes, and if YOU screw up, I want to be able to bid on your player you let slip, rather than be outbid by someone who happens to have a more full roster than me. If you take the approach where players are rewarded for letting middling talent go, you enrich the free agent pool. Obviously no one is letting LeBron James walk to get more cap room.

                        "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.
                        You've ignored my point entirely. I stated that even if everyone keeps money back for waivers (thus preventing the scenario you outline above where one has to wait for players to clear waivers) the team with a larger roster (and probable higher cap) has the inherent advantage. Hence the $190 number and not $200. In other words, the team with a smaller roster has to keep back less money for waivers for both teams to be on equal footing 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.
                        Perhaps unfair is the wrong word. Odd, I guess is the way I would describe it, and opposite to how it is in the NBA.

                        "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.
                        Err, how so? I'm not punishing them. They get to keep those diamonds in the rough, and that's great. Those diamonds in the rough are not available, to other teams, no matter how much cap space they have, because the shrewd teams already have them.

                        Just like Bird Rights free agents have cap holds, it only makes sense to count the re-signings before calculating cap space.

                        "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.
                        False. I used all the current rosters. Ballswin's team is low on both scales because of his re-signs not being posted, but I've incorporated all other transactions and announced re-signs, even if they are not in the cap sheet.

                        "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.
                        Yes, teams should be rewarded for shrewd management. They are rewarded with a) having good players and b) being able to re-sign them. Just like in the NBA. NBA teams don't get a nonsensical bonus advantage in free agency just because they have more players signed. In the NBA, teams are rewarded with long term stability if they sign long term deals, and real the benefits in internal growth (by keeping their players off the market). Or teams are rewarded with free agency advantages if they sign short term deals, freeing up cap room. Teams don't get the benefit of both. Here they can.

                        "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.
                        No, I don't. There's plenty of risk no matter which way you go. Risk is always there. That doesn't change the fact that the current system rewards roster allocation In a way the NBA does not.

                        "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.
                        Who said anything about 100% success rates? Less and less does not equal none. Already you have a system where Patrick Beverley gets bid on for $97. As good players get picked up and locked in, that effect is only going to become more extreme unless there is more incentive to sign players to shorter deals, like in the NBA. Anyway, that's a side note. I understand the current system works - my argument is the proposed one would be simpler and more like the NBA.

                        "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.
                        Getting players before they become known and structuring their roster to be able to keep them is a great strategy in the NBA as well. Of course, they don't do away with the idea of cap space based free agency, so why do we? I'm not assuming anything about whether signings will work out. I'm pointing out who is getting an advantage in this system (players with less open roster spots) and that it is odd to give an advantage that way, when the traditional NBA way is cap space.

                        "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.
                        Yes, the most money. I'd have no problem with two teams with lots of cap space outbidding each other for top free agents. But you didn't see Parsons sign with SAS. Why? Because SAS follow the great model of finding talent early and not letting other teams have it later by organizing their cap intelligently. And as a result, they do not have cap space to offer top free agents. It is not a punishment for them - it is the reality of the NBA system, and a reality that is not reflected in Dynasty.

                        mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                        "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.
                        Again, my proposal replicates a hard cap during free agency (which is what teams have to abide by for the best free agents). The soft cap feature of being able to go over the cap to sign guys in season would still remain. That feature is the only "soft cap" feature in the current iteration. Why is it not enough in my proposal but acceptable right now? Why is the current system free to operate mostly as a hard cap, but the new proposal is criticized for it?

                        Also, as you noted, the bottom 200 players won't be on any teams in this league, so the "bottom" players in our league getting paid slightly over league average salary doesn't seem crazy.

                        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.
                        This is a great example lot support moving to my proposed system. The Spurs do a great job by finding guys before anyone else (ie not having to bid for them in free agency) and keeping their team together by managing their cap well. And as a result, they never have much of a chance in free agency. But the current system would actually give the Spurs the pick of the free agency litter. In the NBA, they don't get that. They don't have the cap space for it.

                        Now, maybe it would be a better world if teams like the Spurs were rewarded for their vigilance with an advantage in free agency, and maybe that's what you are going for here. That's fine, but my point is that this system does not replicate the NBA system do punishing teams who have lots of talent already signed.

                        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.
                        When did I say every player had to be picked up on waivers? No one said that. I'd keep the ability to grab a free agent in-season for nothing, and to be able to re-sign them at the end of the year if you have cap space when you pick them up. Where did I ever even suggest I wanted to be rid of that feature - I think it's brilliant.
                        twitter.com/dhackett1565

                        Comment


                        • Socialism at work. You reward creativity and success when every one is playing by same rules.

                          There are going to be some teams set up to get who they want next year. Next year Mack and myself set some pretty good players into FA pool and neither one of us is likely to have near 14 players.

                          Your system totally ignores the MLE. The reality is that is the majority of players well be bidding on in FA. There are some exceptions but such is life.

                          Everyone loved the auction last year. No need yo change it.

                          And yet again the guy who won this year had 7 $1 free agents last year.

                          Comment


                          • Finding the bargain players and predicting the breakouts are definitely the key to success.
                            Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                            If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                            Comment


                            • mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                              Socialism at work. You reward creativity and success when every one is playing by same rules.

                              There are going to be some teams set up to get who they want next year. Next year Mack and myself set some pretty good players into FA pool and neither one of us is likely to have near 14 players.

                              Your system totally ignores the MLE. The reality is that is the majority of players well be bidding on in FA. There are some exceptions but such is life.

                              Everyone loved the auction last year. No need yo change it.

                              And yet again the guy who won this year had 7 $1 free agents last year.
                              I 100% agree there is no need to change it.

                              Your system ignores cap space in free agency. Mine ignores the MLE (as does yours, I would argue). Which is the greater transgression?

                              Again, to the socialism comment - if you like the system you have because it rewards creativity and success, I'm all on board. All I'm saying it that it doesn't fit with the mantra of years=salary and "emulating the NBA" that I've heard again and again. It's fine. I like it. Frankly, you can employ more leverage over the rules this way, which makes it interesting. Let's just drop the idea that we are emulating the NBA.

                              Everyone likes the system as is, so obviously there's no need to change it. I like it as is. I was just addressing a difference I saw, which it turns out is intentional, which I am fine with. Just wanted to point out the difference.
                              twitter.com/dhackett1565

                              Comment


                              • Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                                If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X