Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2015 15:16:44 GMT -5
I'd like to make a suggestion to renew free agency a little. Might be to late for this season, but this is maybe something to think about for next year.
In my opinion our system right now favours 1 year contracts too much. (I also saw simmilar complains on other boards). For example I think it's no rational behavior to take a 1 year 15 Mil contract over a 4 year 10 Mil contract.
I'd propose to value the offers by a formula like this: Sumof all n{S/106*[1-0.25*(n-1)]} S= salary n=respective year
Examples: 8 Mil for 4 year The value would be: 8+8*0.75+8*0.5+8*0.25=20 I'd say this states the value of a high 4 year deal better than our recent system.
Another plus is that low salary longterm contract deals aren't favoured by this system: 1 Mil 4 year Deal: 1+0.75+0.5+0.25= 2.5 which is less than 5 (the value in our recent system)
I know this formula probably has it's flaws as well, but I think it represents risk of contracts better than our actual formula.
|
|
|
Post by TrailDucker on Aug 10, 2015 16:11:03 GMT -5
I'd like to make a suggestion to renew free agency a little. Might be to late for this season, but this is maybe something to think about for next year. In my opinion our system right now favours 1 year contracts too much. (I also saw simmilar complains on other boards). For example I think it's no rational behavior to take a 1 year 15 Mil contract over a 4 year 10 Mil contract. I'd propose to value the offers by a formula like this: Sum of all n{S/10 6*[1-0.25*(n-1)]} S= salary n=respective year Examples: 8 Mil for 4 year The value would be: 8+8*0.75+8*0.5+8*0.25=20 I'd say this states the value of a high 4 year deal better than our recent system. Another plus is that low salary longterm contract deals aren't favoured by this system: 1 Mil 4 year Deal: 1+0.75+0.5+0.25= 2.5 which is less than 5 (the value in our recent system) I know this formula probably has it's flaws as well, but I think it represents risk of contracts better than our actual formula. Thanks for the input! We did modify adjust Free Agency rules starting this season as seen here: pickandroll.proboards.com/thread/3296/rule-changes-2015-seasonMaking years twice as expensive hopefully will help the issue you speak of. We also added the NTC for high contracts. My concern with a formula like yours is its too complicated and there will be a lot of errors by both people bidding and the mods awarding free agents. Free Agency here is a cluster fuck the first couple weeks and people have math mistakes all the time with our current formula. With something more complex I worry about overworking our Mods trying to check everyone's math as well as the other things they need to verify. We discussed a sliding scale where years value increased every $5 mil and even that we were concerned was too complex.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2015 17:13:49 GMT -5
Yeah, I saw the rule change and it's great that you try to attack the problem, but I'm afraid it doesn't help a lot, because it could only raise the offers value by a maximum of 1,5 points...
I understand your reasons. Maybe assigning each Mod to a group of FA's, could help, because then not every Mod has to monitor every bid. And we could encourage all team owners to check the bids of others, since it should be in their own interest.
|
|
|
Post by TrailDucker on Aug 11, 2015 1:40:57 GMT -5
Yeah, I saw the rule change and it's great that you try to attack the problem, but I'm afraid it doesn't help a lot, because it could only raise the offers value by a maximum of 1,5 points... I understand your reasons. Maybe assigning each Mod to a group of FA's, could help, because then not every Mod has to monitor every bid. And we could encourage all team owners to check the bids of others, since it should be in their own interest. Well I think we will see how the years increases and NTC affect things the next season or two. The sliding scale we proposed is one I liked. Basically every $5 Mil added to the bid, the years go up .5 in value. So $1-$5 Mil years are 1 point. $6 Mil-$10 Mil years are 1.5. $11 Mil-$15 Mil years are 2 points New System: $12 Mil @ 1 year = 14 points = $9.5 Mil @ 3 years = $8 Mil @ 4 years $12 Mil @ 4 years = 20 points = $14 Mil @ 3 years = $16 Mil @ 2 years = $18 Mil @ 1 year Seems more realistic and it's not too complex of a change. We might implement this as soon as next year but we want to see how this year goes first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 3:19:54 GMT -5
Alright. You're right that we should wait and see how this years free agency pans out. Just wanted to express some concerns.
The system, you stated above seems fairer to me, but really does make things more complicated, because you have a lot "if...,then..."s.
Just my opinion: I'd say a formula (like the one I proposed) may seem complex on the first look, but really makes things simpler when applied, because you determine the bid value the same way for every bid regardless of salary and years.
|
|
|
Post by Hollywood Lakers on Aug 11, 2015 4:19:02 GMT -5
I like the idea of the sliding scale, but I agree with thungaria that it's actually a little more complicated than his suggestion, even though it's more similar to what we use now. Its simpler to thknk of his idea as the number of years serving as a multiplayer to the salary so 1yr(*1) 2yrs(*1.75) 3yrs(*2.25) 4yrs(*2.5)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 5:28:45 GMT -5
While the idea might be simple, the computation is harder. I can't do that easily if I want to make a FA bid from my phone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 5:46:18 GMT -5
As Hollywood pointed out, it is basically just multiplying two numbers. Because your mobile phone probably has a calculator, I don't why you couldn't do that easily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 6:50:45 GMT -5
How do you determine which multiplication you have to use? Isn't that the same problem as the one you point out in Trailducker's suggestion for next season?
A multiplication could be an option too, but you need to carefully determine what factors you use in order to correctly compute value. At the same time it would need to be in a way that you can get easily computable numbers and not too many decimals. Feel free to work that out and show us with examples.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 8:54:21 GMT -5
I'd like to make a suggestion to renew free agency a little. Might be to late for this season, but this is maybe something to think about for next year. In my opinion our system right now favours 1 year contracts too much. (I also saw simmilar complains on other boards). For example I think it's no rational behavior to take a 1 year 15 Mil contract over a 4 year 10 Mil contract. I'd propose to value the offers by a formula like this: Sum of all n{S/10 6*[1-0.25*(n-1)]} S= salary n=respective year Examples: 8 Mil for 4 year The value would be: 8+8*0.75+8*0.5+8*0.25=20 I'd say this states the value of a high 4 year deal better than our recent system. Another plus is that low salary longterm contract deals aren't favoured by this system: 1 Mil 4 year Deal: 1+0.75+0.5+0.25= 2.5 which is less than 5 (the value in our recent system) I know this formula probably has it's flaws as well, but I think it represents risk of contracts better than our actual formula. According to this formula, $8 mil/4 years is more valuable than $19 mil for one year. Even if its more years and more money, I still think a player would be inclined to take the $19 million.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 11:10:35 GMT -5
The factor I used in the formula a just linear decreasing factor over the time of the contract, which is probably the simplest way to determine the present value of future cash flows.
My question would be: how many decimals are too many? The usual contracts in free agency go in $ 100,000-steps. So with the suggested formula we'd have a maximum of three decimals.
You could argue that it is the same problem. I think it's simpler to keep in mind this one formula (or the three (four if you count in the 1) different factors), than thinking about the value each year has depending on the amount of the salary. Thats just how I see it, but you could easily argue that it is the other way around.
This would very much depend on the situation of the player in reality. I'd also say the 12,5 Mil / 1 year bid, that beats out the 8 Mil/ 4 year bid on the sliding scale, is little bit too low. We're trying to put a complex problem into a simple solution, which never leads to perfect results. I think the sliding scale and the suggested formula, determine contract values better than our actual system. The question is just: what method gives the better results and takes lesser effort? I never claimed that the formula is the best solution, it was just meant to be food for thought.
Maybe this years rule change already makes another adjustment (as well as this discussion) unnacessary, even though I doubt that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 11:26:05 GMT -5
I like the enthusiasm and input -- I am a numbers guy, so I appreciate the approach here.
However, as a moderator who sees mistakes made with the current big equations we use, when you try to reinvent the wheel (I hate using corporate catchphrases, but it works here), you can confuse the system.
I think our answer is that there is no perfect answer to solve FA. Inevitably, teams are going to bid through the roof for the biggest names on one year deals no matter what system you have in place. Smart owners know what to do with those high bid, one year deals (see Tim Duncan). In many cases though, the Tim Duncan's and Joe Johnson's of the league are on the open market year in and year out.
The sliding scale approach was discussed, but even then, as simple as the idea is, monitoring that is quite cumbersome. We've been proactively trying to improve the FA system year after year. We've got to see if our current modifications have an impact on the market. If they don't we look at alternatives.
|
|