|
Post by TrailDucker on Jul 13, 2016 8:38:23 GMT -5
This might actually be a good time to discuss a salary cap increase. We're starting a new 5-year re-sign period and that makes this off-season a prime time for some league wide adjustments. It is our best opportunity to hit the imaginary "reset" button. I've been saying for awhile that re-sign contracts should be a bit higher and with a higher salary cap, people might be able to get behind that. I have a couple proposals to get some feedback on. 1) Salary cap bump to $65,000,000. Nothing crazy, but gives teams near the cap limit a little extra cash to play with. 2) League wide notice that re-signs in this 5-year period will be higher than in the last one. No golden rule for how much higher, just a heads up that the market rate for re-signs will be closer to the market rate for free agents. Mods will still vote as they see appropriate, but we'll establish a clearer set of criteria for determining contract amounts. 3) Implement a "qualifying offer" rule. This doesn't count as a re-sign, but we would allow teams to extend a player's contract at 150% of the previous amount for 1 season. After that, the player would automatically become a free agent and not eligible for a re-sign. For example if Joe Basketball has contract of $6,000,000 (2017), I could bring him back for 2018 at $9,000,000 salary without using a re-sign. At the end of the 2018 season, he would automatically become a free agent. 4) One-time amnesty waiver. Use it or lose it this off-season only. That way people can clean up their bad contracts just a bit, just this once, before we start another fresh set of re-signs. I'm suggesting this "use it or lose it" to prevent people from signing one crazy contract this year with the knowledge that they can amnesty the player next year. (e.x. Pau Gasol for 4 years at $20 million) These are just ideas I've been kicking around to add a little excitement to this summer, as well as increase competition a bit, and make the league a bit more interesting. Typically I default to "keep it simple", but sometimes change is good. What do you guys think? FYI, this is exactly the type of conversation I'd normally bring up in the secret mod forum before asking for public input. Since there was a request for more transparency, I'm trying this out instead. I think I speak for all the mods when I say we want your feedback and your ideas. Please debate this respectfully and keep the bitching and whining out of here. Once we've had a thorough discussion, the mods will vote (in private) and make a rule change announcement (if there is going to be one). 1.) I don't see a need for it but I also am ok with the increase as well. I do think it will just lead to some higher contracts in the ridiculous category, but not an increase in the amount, those are based on the market and there's not too much I see we can do about them and I don't think they are THAT frequent that it's a huge problem here. There are a few bad ones (DeAndre Jordan, Goran Dragic), but I still think it's few and it relates real life NBA (Allen Crabbe, Tomofey Mozgov this offseason). 2.) I only see this as necessary if we up the cap personally. I don't think Re Signs can be overreactive to Free Agency because they are two different processes. I think our undesignated league max of $16 Mil is an appropriate amount of our can (just over 25%). We do our best to be fair in our assessment. Every now and then a player dramatically exceeded what we felt his value was at that time (Jimmy Butler) or a player regresses (remember Darrell Wright was our leagues first Re Sign). But for the most part our values our appropriate when relating it to the Max. 3.) This is a nifty Idea I don't mind implementing it if others want to. 4.) I don't think it's needed, but I'm also fine with either a one-time this offseason or a one-time every five years. Although saying that I realize it's another thing us Mods have to try and keep track of
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 10:58:09 GMT -5
3. Like this. It may dry up the FA in the short term, but then these guys have to become FAs the following year so it could balance out. Would make for a dry 1st year, but then improve the following year. It actually also does dry out the FA market in the long run. What this rule actually does is giving an extra year for players who are not quite resignworthy (players who would hit the FA market anyway). So it basically makes those contracts longer, which means the respective players will hit the FA market less frequently. That is drying out the FA market. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea, but one consequence of this rule change will be a smaller FA market. Another idea in this thread, is one I really like and I think it should be discussed. It's New Yorks idea of including team options and player options in Free Agency. While team options are easy to implement, I think New Yorks idea of player option is not optimal. Having a commitee to decide about it is a bit too complicated and subjective. To me, a better idea of the player option would be to make the player a RFA in the respective year. So every other team can offer the RFA a higher salary than his actual one for the remainder of his contract and in the end the original team has the chance to match the best offer.
|
|
|
Post by Roar GM (Josh) on Jul 13, 2016 12:13:49 GMT -5
3. Like this. It may dry up the FA in the short term, but then these guys have to become FAs the following year so it could balance out. Would make for a dry 1st year, but then improve the following year. It actually also does dry out the FA market in the long run. What this rule actually does is giving an extra year for players who are not quite resignworthy (players who would hit the FA market anyway). So it basically makes those contracts longer, which means the respective players will hit the FA market less frequently. That is drying out the FA market. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea, but one consequence of this rule change will be a smaller FA market. Another idea in this thread, is one I really like and I think it should be discussed. It's New Yorks idea of including team options and player options in Free Agency. While team options are easy to implement, I think New Yorks idea of player option is not optimal. Having a commitee to decide about it is a bit too complicated and subjective. To me, a better idea of the player option would be to make the player a RFA in the respective year. So every other team can offer the RFA a higher salary than his actual one for the remainder of his contract and in the end the original team has the chance to match the best offer. I've long been a fan of RFA. I think Knicks is right that is should be negative .5 or 1 point in the initial offer. However, I think this could actually increase the amount of crazy contracts. Teams will be so desperate to decentivize a team from resigning an RFA that they'll make ridiculous offers so it doesnt make sense to match. Am i right or am i thinking too cynically?
|
|
|
Post by NAUHurdler on Jul 13, 2016 12:55:28 GMT -5
It actually also does dry out the FA market in the long run. What this rule actually does is giving an extra year for players who are not quite resignworthy (players who would hit the FA market anyway). So it basically makes those contracts longer, which means the respective players will hit the FA market less frequently. That is drying out the FA market. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea, but one consequence of this rule change will be a smaller FA market. Another idea in this thread, is one I really like and I think it should be discussed. It's New Yorks idea of including team options and player options in Free Agency. While team options are easy to implement, I think New Yorks idea of player option is not optimal. Having a commitee to decide about it is a bit too complicated and subjective. To me, a better idea of the player option would be to make the player a RFA in the respective year. So every other team can offer the RFA a higher salary than his actual one for the remainder of his contract and in the end the original team has the chance to match the best offer. I've long been a fan of RFA. I think Knicks is right that is should be negative .5 or 1 point in the initial offer. However, I think this could actually increase the amount of crazy contracts. Teams will be so desperate to decentivize a team from resigning an RFA that they'll make ridiculous offers so it doesnt make sense to match. Am i right or am i thinking too cynically? Agreed. Sent from my SPH-L720 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Mouse on Jul 13, 2016 16:43:16 GMT -5
Too many good responses to quote and respond directly, so I'm gonna try and sum up my thoughts like others did in some bullet points. - Cap Increase - I agree that there is no real "need" for this. $60 million has worked well so far and there are not many teams that are struggling with cap management. Additionally, you can always trade for more space on a year-to-year basis. I do feel strongly that re-sign contracts should be higher than in the past (close as possible to open market value), and maybe increasing the cap makes that an easier pill to swallow. Maybe not. I don't have strong feelings either way on this.
- Raising Re-Signs Contracts - This is probably the most important in terms of league wide balance. I hated the way re-signs have gone the last two years. Too much research, too many long essays to read, too much whining, complaining, and arguing. I don't know that there is a solution to ever prevent that, but I think a well documented set of criteria for what mods consider when determining re-sign values (age, career arc, similar contracts on the open market, etc.) is necessary. This would obviously be unnecessary if we decide to go with my crazy idea below (spolier alert!)
- Qualifying Offer - Some people have expressed concern that this would dry up the free agent market. I think it would actually have no actual effect in the long run. The first season, yes, the free agency market would be light. However, next year all of those players would be free agents. Every team still gets 3 re-signs, that's 90 players in the whole league over the course of 5 seasons. That number wouldn't change and so the number of available free agents on the open market wouldn't change either. I think the QO rule is a win-win. However, this too, is obviously unnecessary if we decide to go with my crazy idea below . . .
- One-time Amnesty - Similar to the cap raise, I'm not sold on this being a necessity. I share other's concerns that it is a "reward" for teams carrying bad contracts, while not providing anything for teams that have no one to amnesty. In order to remedy this, I'd suggest that every team be given the option to a) amnesty a player or b) receive a $5 million cap bonus for this season. Cap reward for teams that aren't carrying a bad contract, cap relief for teams that are. Again, I could take it or leave it, but it might be nice at this point in the league's history to hit the reset on some dead weight out there.
5. Team-options, player-options - These have been brought up before. I'll go on the record and say that I'm against this particular rule change. It makes the bidding process unnecessarily complicated and creates more contract wrinkles for mods to keep track of. I can get on board if the rest of the league likes this idea, but I won't be voting for it. CRAZY IDEA (crazy good? or crazy bad?) Hear me out: Let's get rid of re-signs altogether. Instead of "using a re-sign", let's give owners an extra 2 "bonus points" when bidding on their own free agents on the open market. Defending champs get 3 bonus points. This means that every season every expiring contract is on the open market, but teams will always have a slight advantage to retain their own guys. Kind of like a hometown discount. Generally, re-signed players will be $2 mil cheaper or on a longer contract than any other high bid. Close to market value, and also just under. I guess it is kind of like every free agent being a restricted free agent where owners decide whether they want to match the high bid to retain their guys (at a slight discount). I know it sounds a little strange, but this would revolutionize our free agency process. Every single year big names would be hitting the open market. Never again would contracts be determined by a mod vote. No more tracking how many re-signs each team has used. This system would be a little more like the real NBA and also create more action in free agency. Cap management would be of the utmost importance, because you'd need to plan ahead and anticipate the market in order to keep your guys. If we were to implement this system, I'd also suggest that the "bonus points" only be available to players you've had on your team for a full season. Or maybe just 1 bonus point for players you've had less than a season? Details obviously can be ironed out. What do you guys think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Salary Cap
Jul 13, 2016 17:46:42 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 17:46:42 GMT -5
I like it.
However, I still feel our current scoring system favors big short term contracts, and if we get all crazy I'd say improve the scoring system too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 17:56:33 GMT -5
I like the bonus idea, but not as its own. I think a completely open market is a little too chaotic, I'd prefer some combination of the qualifying offer and the bonus, so basically restricted free agency
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 18:50:54 GMT -5
Perhaps creating a salary cap and a hard cap would be in our interest. Teams can only go over the salary cap if they're resigning a rookie (RFA) or a player with Bird Rights.
"Larry Bird exception allows teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents, at an amount up to the maximum salary. To qualify as a Bird free agent, a player must have played three seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent."
This would allow us to then create restrictions on those who want to offer 30 million for 1 year on player X.
Teams over the salary cap in free agency then can only offer a minimum contract or our version of a mid-level exception.
|
|
|
Post by NAUHurdler on Jul 13, 2016 19:21:00 GMT -5
That bonus idea is very nice. I would push for the points to be a little higher simply because of those dang $20 mill 1 year deals people throw out to jack up prices. If you put it at like 3 points of a bonus, it may prevent people pushing prices up just because as they run the risk of getting stuck with a massive contract.
Sent from the Office of the General Manager of the Phoenix Suns
|
|
|
Post by NAUHurdler on Jul 13, 2016 19:30:23 GMT -5
One thought on the idea of if we also like the "Amnesty one contract this year while other teams get a salary cap bonus." Instead of $5 million for example as the bonus I would think taking the average of the amenities contracts and making that the bonus. I could just see teams dumping $10 million contracts and how that is so much more of an advantage still. Maybe a way to balance it out?
Sent from the Office of the General Manager of the Phoenix Suns
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Mouse on Jul 13, 2016 22:53:46 GMT -5
I still feel our current scoring system favors big short term contracts, and if we get all crazy I'd say improve the scoring system too. It does. It was designed that way because other leagues I'd been in favored big long term contracts. People are always going to spend their cap money if they have it, so I was hoping to cut down on the $20mil/4year deals and encourage $20mil/1yr deals as the lesser of two evils. If anyone has a good suggestion of how to fix the bidding system to encourage reasonable contracts for a reasonable length of time I'm all for it. Our current system is the best I've come up with, but I'd love something better. One thought on the idea of if we also like the "Amnesty one contract this year while other teams get a salary cap bonus." Instead of $5 million for example as the bonus I would think taking the average of the amnestied contracts and making that the bonus. I could just see teams dumping $10 million contracts and how that is so much more of an advantage still. Maybe a way to balance it out? I love this. Everyone could PM the Commish stating "I amnesty _______" or "I want to take the bonus". The more people who choose the contract dump, the more money is available for those who don't. It's a gamble... This sounds great. If we choose the amnesty route, I vote for doing it this way. I like the bonus idea, but not as its own. I think a completely open market is a little too chaotic, I'd prefer some combination of the qualifying offer and the bonus, so basically restricted free agency I could see this, but I think if you offer someone the QO, you don't get the bonus points on re-signing them the next year. One or the other. If you want to lock a player up long term, you've got to put him on the market and win the bid. If you just want to eek an extra season out of someone, you can pay the extra salary and let the guy go the following summer. This seems like a decent solution to me. Perhaps creating a salary cap and a hard cap would be in our interest. Teams can only go over the salary cap if they're resigning a rookie (RFA) or a player with Bird Rights. This strikes me as too complicated. Two caps, Bird rights, exceptions, etc. This crosses into "too much work for the mods" territory. It's a great solution in real life, but it is hard to execute here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 11:07:23 GMT -5
I still feel our current scoring system favors big short term contracts, and if we get all crazy I'd say improve the scoring system too. It does. It was designed that way because other leagues I'd been in favored big long term contracts. People are always going to spend their cap money if they have it, so I was hoping to cut down on the $20mil/4year deals and encourage $20mil/1yr deals as the lesser of two evils. If anyone has a good suggestion of how to fix the bidding system to encourage reasonable contracts for a reasonable length of time I'm all for it. Our current system is the best I've come up with, but I'd love something better. Exactly how I feel about it. The idea is great, but we have to change our FA scoring system before do this. We already had this discussion last year: pickandroll.proboards.com/thread/3384/free-agencyand I still think both systems (the formula/ the sliding scale) discussed there represent better FA scoring values than our current system.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Oaks on Jul 14, 2016 11:38:05 GMT -5
CRAZY IDEA (crazy good? or crazy bad?) Hear me out: Let's get rid of re-signs altogether. Instead of "using a re-sign", let's give owners an extra 2 "bonus points" when bidding on their own free agents on the open market. Defending champs get 3 bonus points. This means that every season every expiring contract is on the open market, but teams will always have a slight advantage to retain their own guys. Kind of like a hometown discount. Generally, re-signed players will be $2 mil cheaper or on a longer contract than any other high bid. Close to market value, and also just under. I guess it is kind of like every free agent being a restricted free agent where owners decide whether they want to match the high bid to retain their guys (at a slight discount). I know it sounds a little strange, but this would revolutionize our free agency process. Every single year big names would be hitting the open market. Never again would contracts be determined by a mod vote. No more tracking how many re-signs each team has used. This system would be a little more like the real NBA and also create more action in free agency. Cap management would be of the utmost importance, because you'd need to plan ahead and anticipate the market in order to keep your guys. If we were to implement this system, I'd also suggest that the "bonus points" only be available to players you've had on your team for a full season. Or maybe just 1 bonus point for players you've had less than a season? Details obviously can be ironed out. What do you guys think? Just craZY. That's all the idea is. Now to be fair, this thread had a few decent ideas but everyone, mostly Mighty, has moved far beyond the modest improvements and decided to blow up the very foundation of this league in having resigns. Why would all the reforms meant to lower free agent costs and make it easier to deal with (for the mods, i really don't care IF it were a good idea) ultimately end up in a system where there is bonus bidding? Not only "hometown" discounts (+1) but one that heavily rewards the best team (the champion of the previous season). No, this is a crazy bad idea. Think - what are you aiming to do? Really. Agree on that first. Do you guys want more free agents in the pool at the cost of abandoning a system of resigns in it's first new 5-year cycle? Why? Mismanagement is all i can see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Salary Cap
Jul 14, 2016 13:33:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 13:33:36 GMT -5
I think by favoring big 1-year deals over big 4-year deals makes it easier to do it without feeling any pain, because if you cant sign a FA to a reasonable multi year contract you have no use for your remaining cap and just get one for 1 year. If people would overpay on long contract their money is off the market for a longer time so next FA will be better. Now it's a recurring problem.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Mouse on Jul 14, 2016 18:48:09 GMT -5
CRAZY IDEA (crazy good? or crazy bad?) Hear me out: Let's get rid of re-signs altogether. Instead of "using a re-sign", let's give owners an extra 2 "bonus points" when bidding on their own free agents on the open market. Defending champs get 3 bonus points. This means that every season every expiring contract is on the open market, but teams will always have a slight advantage to retain their own guys. Kind of like a hometown discount. Generally, re-signed players will be $2 mil cheaper or on a longer contract than any other high bid. Close to market value, and also just under. I guess it is kind of like every free agent being a restricted free agent where owners decide whether they want to match the high bid to retain their guys (at a slight discount). I know it sounds a little strange, but this would revolutionize our free agency process. Every single year big names would be hitting the open market. Never again would contracts be determined by a mod vote. No more tracking how many re-signs each team has used. This system would be a little more like the real NBA and also create more action in free agency. Cap management would be of the utmost importance, because you'd need to plan ahead and anticipate the market in order to keep your guys. If we were to implement this system, I'd also suggest that the "bonus points" only be available to players you've had on your team for a full season. Or maybe just 1 bonus point for players you've had less than a season? Details obviously can be ironed out. What do you guys think? Just craZY. That's all the idea is. Now to be fair, this thread had a few decent ideas but everyone, mostly Mighty, has moved far beyond the modest improvements and decided to blow up the very foundation of this league in having resigns. Why would all the reforms meant to lower free agent costs and make it easier to deal with (for the mods, i really don't care IF it were a good idea) ultimately end up in a system where there is bonus bidding? Not only "hometown" discounts (+1) but one that heavily rewards the best team (the champion of the previous season). No, this is a crazy bad idea. Think - what are you aiming to do? Really. Agree on that first. Do you guys want more free agents in the pool at the cost of abandoning a system of resigns in it's first new 5-year cycle? Why? Mismanagement is all i can see. Our current system performed pretty well the past five years. I don't think it is perfect, and if there is a better system out there I think we should look at it. I dislike having contracts decided by a committee of mods. It creates animosity between owners, as well as too much complaining, bickering, and whining, and in the end it is purely subjective. I think that the whining will go down at least a little, now that a certain pair of owners are no longer here, but that doesn't make the actual system better. This other system has three major advantages: 1) Removes mods and their opinions from the contract negotiation process. Lets the market decide. 2) Brings an extra element of strategy into the free agent market, while allowing teams to re-sign as many of their own guys as they want (within the cap). How far will you go to poach KD or LeBron from someone? How far will you go to keep a top level player? 3) Simplifies our off-season. No re-sign period anymore. First we draft, then we go to free agency. Mods have less to organize. Your hear the concerns about the "hometown discount" and rewarding the best team in the league, but those are things that we already do. Champions get an extra re-sign. Re-signs up until now have been significantly lower than market value would dictate (which leads to an inflated market because teams have more money to spend as a result), that's your hometown discount. The goal isn't to lower contract prices. It's to get better contract prices, determined by GMs (not the mod committee). Goran Dragic and DeMarre Carroll would not be getting more money than Harden and Westbrook if they were all being offered contracts in the same negotiating pool.
|
|