Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

You can talk about all sim related stuff here.

Moderators: UOducksTK1, Zyme, lukeyrid13, Oregon Ownage

Post Reply
User avatar
dave
Sophomore
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 11:07 am
GM: Cleveland Cavaliers

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by dave »

dennocj wrote:
dave wrote:I'm still a firm believer in my fiscal plan of creating a max contract cap to avoid vets having ballooning salaries making them virtually untradable.

There should still be a distinct advantage for teams who have birds but either limit amount or years you can max players over the age of 30.
If a GM offers a player a ridiculous contract or one that balloons then it's their fault that they aren't able to trade them.
That is the only defense anyone has ever offered. If you own a player of the caliber of say Allen Iverson you're sure as hell not gonna offer him less than a max and let someone else scoop him. However you're gonna be on the hook for ridiculous salary on the back end of his deal.

Player declines, team declines, and no one in the league can even match up contracts to trade for them. I don't fault the GM for retaining their asset but it's a system failure. The only reason why someone offers the max is to retain or steal a player. So if we set a limit on that max the intent would be the same but it would allow for more liquidation and healthy player movement.
CLEVLAND CAVS
User avatar
Satah
Four Star Recruit
Posts: 694
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:52 pm
GM: Sacramento Kings

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by Satah »

What about this?

Every five season, GMs may use one amnesty clause

What about Restricted Free Agent for only former first round pick players? GMs are given 24-48 hours to match
Image
2009 DASL Champions - LeBron James named Finals MVP
Bullets Roster
User avatar
jibbajabba614
Senior
Posts: 2410
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 6:32 pm
GM: Milwaukee Bucks GM

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by jibbajabba614 »

I agree about not changing anything up at the moment. But having an expansion draft of greatest players once we hit the fake players mark sounds like a fun idea.
Brophdog88
Senior
Posts: 3126
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
GM: Denver Nuggets

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by Brophdog88 »

dave wrote:
dennocj wrote:
dave wrote:I'm still a firm believer in my fiscal plan of creating a max contract cap to avoid vets having ballooning salaries making them virtually untradable.

There should still be a distinct advantage for teams who have birds but either limit amount or years you can max players over the age of 30.
If a GM offers a player a ridiculous contract or one that balloons then it's their fault that they aren't able to trade them.
That is the only defense anyone has ever offered. If you own a player of the caliber of say Allen Iverson you're sure as hell not gonna offer him less than a max and let someone else scoop him. However you're gonna be on the hook for ridiculous salary on the back end of his deal.

Player declines, team declines, and no one in the league can even match up contracts to trade for them. I don't fault the GM for retaining their asset but it's a system failure. The only reason why someone offers the max is to retain or steal a player. So if we set a limit on that max the intent would be the same but it would allow for more liquidation and healthy player movement.
its funny you act like offering the max is the only option, in fact, thats the exact opposite of what you should do. In general at that level teams are going to be able to offer more in the first year....Which means they don't necessarily need to offer as long of a deal, or, any increases. I see Starbury and Tim Duncan (lol), you MIGHT try to argue Ray Allen, Vince Carter, but their problem is the 12.5% raises, not the starting number, and even then they are pretty low to start.

There is already a high end max offer limit the max any team who didn't have the player can offer in year one of the contract is 14 million dollars. The highest a team who had the player the previous year (obviously depending on having birds or cap space) is 120% of the last year in the previous contract. So if a guy is coming off a rookie max, thats 21 million (yikes). Offering a max at that point is not recognizing you have 7 million to play with. USE that region, offer more the first year, no raises, a shorter deal, and the guy is probably coming back, because more in the first year >
Denver Nuggets DASL GM
User avatar
dave
Sophomore
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 11:07 am
GM: Cleveland Cavaliers

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by dave »

Brophdog88 wrote:
dave wrote:
dennocj wrote:
dave wrote:I'm still a firm believer in my fiscal plan of creating a max contract cap to avoid vets having ballooning salaries making them virtually untradable.

There should still be a distinct advantage for teams who have birds but either limit amount or years you can max players over the age of 30.
If a GM offers a player a ridiculous contract or one that balloons then it's their fault that they aren't able to trade them.
That is the only defense anyone has ever offered. If you own a player of the caliber of say Allen Iverson you're sure as hell not gonna offer him less than a max and let someone else scoop him. However you're gonna be on the hook for ridiculous salary on the back end of his deal.

Player declines, team declines, and no one in the league can even match up contracts to trade for them. I don't fault the GM for retaining their asset but it's a system failure. The only reason why someone offers the max is to retain or steal a player. So if we set a limit on that max the intent would be the same but it would allow for more liquidation and healthy player movement.
its funny you act like offering the max is the only option, in fact, thats the exact opposite of what you should do. In general at that level teams are going to be able to offer more in the first year....Which means they don't necessarily need to offer as long of a deal, or, any increases. I see Starbury and Tim Duncan (lol), you MIGHT try to argue Ray Allen, Vince Carter, but their problem is the 12.5% raises, not the starting number, and even then they are pretty low to start.

There is already a high end max offer limit the max any team who didn't have the player can offer in year one of the contract is 14 million dollars. The highest a team who had the player the previous year (obviously depending on having birds or cap space) is 120% of the last year in the previous contract. So if a guy is coming off a rookie max, thats 21 million (yikes). Offering a max at that point is not recognizing you have 7 million to play with. USE that region, offer more the first year, no raises, a shorter deal, and the guy is probably coming back, because more in the first year >

Sorry Broph not everyone gets Stephen Jackson who offers to re-up for pennies every time he is a free agent.

So GMs should roll the dice in free agency if their superstar offers to resign for the max? The Knicks would have been crippled if they let Muresan walk yet Zyme was paralyzed by resigning him for the max. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we had a system in place it would make a better environment to keep your guys but also have flexibility to be able to move them and change up direction. It still offers every advantage to GM with birds but doesn't balloon contracts. So why not?
CLEVLAND CAVS
Brophdog88
Senior
Posts: 3126
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
GM: Denver Nuggets

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by Brophdog88 »

dave wrote:
Brophdog88 wrote:
dave wrote:
dennocj wrote:
dave wrote:I'm still a firm believer in my fiscal plan of creating a max contract cap to avoid vets having ballooning salaries making them virtually untradable.

There should still be a distinct advantage for teams who have birds but either limit amount or years you can max players over the age of 30.
If a GM offers a player a ridiculous contract or one that balloons then it's their fault that they aren't able to trade them.
That is the only defense anyone has ever offered. If you own a player of the caliber of say Allen Iverson you're sure as hell not gonna offer him less than a max and let someone else scoop him. However you're gonna be on the hook for ridiculous salary on the back end of his deal.

Player declines, team declines, and no one in the league can even match up contracts to trade for them. I don't fault the GM for retaining their asset but it's a system failure. The only reason why someone offers the max is to retain or steal a player. So if we set a limit on that max the intent would be the same but it would allow for more liquidation and healthy player movement.
its funny you act like offering the max is the only option, in fact, thats the exact opposite of what you should do. In general at that level teams are going to be able to offer more in the first year....Which means they don't necessarily need to offer as long of a deal, or, any increases. I see Starbury and Tim Duncan (lol), you MIGHT try to argue Ray Allen, Vince Carter, but their problem is the 12.5% raises, not the starting number, and even then they are pretty low to start.

There is already a high end max offer limit the max any team who didn't have the player can offer in year one of the contract is 14 million dollars. The highest a team who had the player the previous year (obviously depending on having birds or cap space) is 120% of the last year in the previous contract. So if a guy is coming off a rookie max, thats 21 million (yikes). Offering a max at that point is not recognizing you have 7 million to play with. USE that region, offer more the first year, no raises, a shorter deal, and the guy is probably coming back, because more in the first year >

Sorry Broph not everyone gets Stephen Jackson who offers to re-up for pennies every time he is a free agent.

So GMs should roll the dice in free agency if their superstar offers to resign for the max? The Knicks would have been crippled if they let Muresan walk yet Zyme was paralyzed by resigning him for the max. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we had a system in place it would make a better environment to keep your guys but also have flexibility to be able to move them and change up direction. It still offers every advantage to GM with birds but doesn't balloon contracts. So why not?
YES...its not much of a gamble in FBB, if you have a gap of 7 million or more to offer in year one? Being able to offer 17 million flat for four years vs. an offer of 14 x 6 with 10% raises, yeah, FBB loves that first year, thats gonna be the offer taken, and you save yourself that bad contract. I named right now at most 4 players. Putting yourself in a position where you can be crippled by losing one guy in FA is typically a result of thinking way too short term, leave yourself with options.
Denver Nuggets DASL GM
Brophdog88
Senior
Posts: 3126
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
GM: Denver Nuggets

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by Brophdog88 »

I missed that the Bullets have two players, Starbury and Rahim, so that makes Rahim, Starbury, Duncan, Nash as the players who end up at more than 20 in the league, 4 players, two on one team. I don't see this being an issue in the slightest.

I mean, what if the old player doesn't resign, goes to FA, suddenly you have capped them to JUST offering more in increases and years, and the chance they lose the player becomes much, much higher than if they had non capped amounts. Its a terrible idea, it restricts a perfectly fine system to alter a very uncommon occurrence
Denver Nuggets DASL GM
Brophdog88
Senior
Posts: 3126
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
GM: Denver Nuggets

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by Brophdog88 »

In this case by the way, Starbury did not offer to resign at all, THAT is why he went to FA, in which case a limit would have made it more difficult for the Bullets to retain him, and he coulda just did the flat offer. Its not the starting salary that kills people contract wise, its the failure to realize that over a 7 year deal, 12.5% increases REALLY add up.
Denver Nuggets DASL GM
User avatar
dave
Sophomore
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 11:07 am
GM: Cleveland Cavaliers

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by dave »

Broph I really don't want to get into a pissing contest with you over this. I know where you stand on it and that's fine but I think its an area for improvement which is what this thread is about. It's not a perfect system.

Anyways guys like Chris Webber, Yao Ming, Antawn Jamison, Oscar Torres, Ray Allen, Jason Terry, Michael Finley, Jason Williams are all hard to move due to ballooning veteran salary and/or declining skill. Don't forget Mourning, Shaq, Divac, Muresan, and others in the past.
CLEVLAND CAVS
User avatar
pudgejeff
Senior
Posts: 4897
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:21 am
GM: Sacramento Kings GM

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by pudgejeff »

I'm with Broph here, limiting it is just rewarding people for there inability to navigate a pretty simple system. If you want the easy way out of offering the max, then you get the risk on the back end of being crippled. A system without risk is pointless.
User avatar
dave
Sophomore
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 11:07 am
GM: Cleveland Cavaliers

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by dave »

pudgejeff wrote:I'm with Broph here, limiting it is just rewarding people for there inability to navigate a pretty simple system. If you want the easy way out of offering the max, then you get the risk on the back end of being crippled. A system without risk is pointless.
It's not rewarding anyone. It's just simply scaling it and putting a ceiling on contracts.
CLEVLAND CAVS
User avatar
catch 922
Four Star Recruit
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:17 pm
GM: Washington Bullets GM
Location: Leesburg, VA

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by catch 922 »

I don't see a reason to change much, it's been running fairly smooth lately (aside from the draft I also apologize for my lengthy pick).

I am bad at FA and should not be given any handicap because of that, I just need to learn the system better. The cap is workable as it is and I don't feel like it should change.
User avatar
dennocj
Five Star Recruit
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:32 pm
GM: Indiana Pacers

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by dennocj »

dave wrote:
pudgejeff wrote:I'm with Broph here, limiting it is just rewarding people for there inability to navigate a pretty simple system. If you want the easy way out of offering the max, then you get the risk on the back end of being crippled. A system without risk is pointless.
It's not rewarding anyone. It's just simply scaling it and putting a ceiling on contracts.
You might not see it as a "reward", but capping it is just a way of essentially babysitting those who don't understand just how much they're offering with a max deal. I understand that your proposition would help, but I think instead it would help more if everyone learned exactly how the FA system works.
User avatar
pudgejeff
Senior
Posts: 4897
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:21 am
GM: Sacramento Kings GM

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by pudgejeff »

dennocj wrote:
dave wrote:
pudgejeff wrote:I'm with Broph here, limiting it is just rewarding people for there inability to navigate a pretty simple system. If you want the easy way out of offering the max, then you get the risk on the back end of being crippled. A system without risk is pointless.
It's not rewarding anyone. It's just simply scaling it and putting a ceiling on contracts.
You might not see it as a "reward", but capping it is just a way of essentially babysitting those who don't understand just how much they're offering with a max deal. I understand that your proposition would help, but I think instead it would help more if everyone learned exactly how the FA system works.
^^This
Brophdog88
Senior
Posts: 3126
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
GM: Denver Nuggets

Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

Post by Brophdog88 »

dave wrote:Broph I really don't want to get into a pissing contest with you over this. I know where you stand on it and that's fine but I think its an area for improvement which is what this thread is about. It's not a perfect system.

Anyways guys like Chris Webber, Yao Ming, Antawn Jamison, Oscar Torres, Ray Allen, Jason Terry, Michael Finley, Jason Williams are all hard to move due to ballooning veteran salary and/or declining skill. Don't forget Mourning, Shaq, Divac, Muresan, and others in the past.
dave, if you are going to try to make an argument, don't mislead

I had no problem moving Jason Williams when I signed him to that contract, it was quick and easy, if he has less value now its because he isn't as good, and because he more importantly is 33, same with Ray Allen, 34, his contract isn't a problem, its gms not valuing old players

Torres is on the last year of his deal, and his performance is terrible right now, 11 ppg this year, of course he has less value at 33 (even if my guess is he was treated poorly in his offense.) When he was on the block that first time his scoring explosion was somewhat out of nowhere, and as I recall his contract was expiring, so teams didnt trust him and keeping him.

Yao is probably the best, since he is on the end of ROOKIE MAX, yeah, not a vet max, its a rookie max, not sure how he is being affected by "ballooning veteran salary", especially since his deal is perfectly reasonable.

Teams shouldn't benefit by giving out long term deals to old players, your new system would do that.
Denver Nuggets DASL GM
Post Reply