Offseason Discussion/League Improvements

[Cellar-door]

Another rule I think we should add starting this offseason....

you can't make a trade with no benefit to your team.
If you want to tank you need to get back picks or clear future cap, or get young players or something.
Trades of good players for bad players where you get no benefit are not in keeping with how a real league should work, and we should ban them.

Trading to get worse is a benefit though. A better lottery position is better than a 2nd rounder.

It depends what we want the league to be nobody does that in the NBA, they trade for assets. One of the complaints in DASL 1.0 was that the top few teams consolidated all the talent because all the tanking teams traded good players for nothing.

I think if we want a good league you need to limit straight up dumps. You have to be able to provide an explanation beyond... I want to lose for trades, otherwise you don't incentivize good team building.


Edit- I mean if we're going to allow just totally unrealistic to real world levels of tanking, we should just allow teams to bench their best players. It's actually more accurate to the real world (see OKC benching Horford for being too good) and it has the added advantage that it doesn't enrich the top teams, so you need to make real moves not be lucky enough to have a tanking team gift you good players for nothing.

[Oregon Ownage]

Another rule I think we should add starting this offseason....

you can't make a trade with no benefit to your team.
If you want to tank you need to get back picks or clear future cap, or get young players or something.
Trades of good players for bad players where you get no benefit are not in keeping with how a real league should work, and we should ban them.

I understand where your coming from but this can be tricky. This could be a blind spot for me but I dont recall any trades that have fit into the above, if so please let me know and we can discuss

I would also not compare this "league" to a real league b/c we do not have the same tools and abilities to include in trades such as: cash considerations, storing players overseas, etc. With those limits, trading a player for better odds in the 1st is greater than accumulating a high number of 2nds (which can build up quickly for teams and hurt in the long term) is just another strategy.

If a team wants to trade away a player for nothing (within reason obviously) then they have that right, but, if it doesn't help them long term, then they are just hurting themselves. Then the question of whether a team gets enough value of a trade comes into question and that is not a fun position to be in for all involved. If both teams agree to a trade and think it will benefit them both (again, within reason) then we shouldnt restrict that.

One of the complaints in DASL 1.0 was that the top few teams consolidated all the talent because all the tanking teams traded good players for nothing..

Dont forget the hardcap was higher than it is now which allowed more wiggle room and stock talent. So far, we havent really had teams command players over multiple seasons and stock their teams. FA has been more open to movement but it is something I am watching.

In 1.0 the stock piling of talent created a huge gap between playoff teams and lottery but with that gap much smaller in 2.0, it has allowed for different types of trades for teams to stay competitive and allow for new teams to pop into the upper half

[FlDuckFan]

I'm not very good at GM but when I'm tanking and making a trade , I also value Cap space and how fast I can get someone off my books. I think future cap space is a bit more valuable than a 2nd rounder who may just get cut any way. teams in real life do trade away contracts they don't like anymore

[Cellar-door]

I'm not very good at GM but when I'm tanking and making a trade , I also value Cap space and how fast I can get someone off my books. I think future cap space is a bit more valuable than a 2nd rounder who may just get cut any way. teams in real life do trade away contracts they don't like anymore

I agree with this.
I only have issues with when teams make a trade with no future value, just the ability to lose more this year.

To me the solution for this (admittedly rare) occurence is we should have people briefly say why they did the deal in each trade post, and if you don't have one beyond "I want to tank" it gets rejected. So, "clears cap next year" valid reason, "I get a 2nd" valid reason "I want to lose more games and the player I traded was playing too well" not valid.

I think it's a minor issue, I think capping the amount you can pay on 1 year deals and firming up the hard cap are more pressing rule changes, but I think it makes sense to look at this as a minor tweak as well.

[Craig]

Yeah I think cellar just talking about the Trade GOOD expiring player(s) for BAD expiring player(s) and nothing else.

[UOducksTK1]

Yeah I think cellar just talking about the Trade GOOD expiring player(s) for BAD expiring player(s) and nothing else.

I still don’t understand what the problem is.

[jibbajabba614]

Just an idea, what if we get to like 2025 season, we can start drafting dead legends (from music, art and etc, men and women of course). I mean just for fun and keeps us from having to reset until maybe 2050 in 2.0.

I keep up with high school basketball, and most of the names from 2020-2030 will change anyways

[UOducksTK1]

Just an idea, what if we get to like 2025 season, we can start drafting dead legends (from music, art and etc, men and women of course). I mean just for fun and keeps us from having to reset until maybe 2050 in 2.0.

I keep up with high school basketball, and most of the names from 2020-2030 will change anyways

Or just dig deeper into the college and high school classes. I bet we could do 2 to 3 drafts per class. So college seniors through high school freshmen. That's about 16-24 drafts potentially. And by then, they'll be a new class of HS freshmen. So I think we could do 20 seasons easily of just college/HS names.

[jibbajabba614]

Yeah that’s what I did in 2.0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jibbajabba614]

Yeah that’s what I did in 2.0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.0*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Foxyg1396]

Just an idea, what if we get to like 2025 season, we can start drafting dead legends (from music, art and etc, men and women of course). I mean just for fun and keeps us from having to reset until maybe 2050 in 2.0.

I keep up with high school basketball, and most of the names from 2020-2030 will change anyways

Personally I think that’s a cool idea

[UOducksTK1]

Yeah that’s what I did in 2.0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.0*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sweet. So shouldn't that get us closer to 2040 without having to go a new direction?

[jibbajabba614]

Yeah that’s what I did in 2.0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.0*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sweet. So shouldn't that get us closer to 2040 without having to go a new direction?

Oh we will get to 2040 for sure. I had guys like Doncic going in 2020 drafts. Trey Young was like a 2nd pick and done but he really didn’t catch up until late in OU. High school players from Georgia especially I keep up with. But when you to New York, Texas, Cali i don’t have much attention for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cellar-door]

Yeah I think cellar just talking about the Trade GOOD expiring player(s) for BAD expiring player(s) and nothing else.

I still don’t understand what the problem is.

Because we have rules against certain types of tanking (can't bench good players for bad ones) that don't really make a difference to any team except the one tanking, but don't have a rule against something that has a negative impact on most of the league.

I think we need to have 1 of 2 things... either you need to get some minimum value in trades, or you should be allowed to bench good vets when you tank. Because the incentives on that are really dumb to me. Benching guys has no impact on the title race, but dumping players for nothing because they are too good for you to be allowed to sit them (by definition meaning they are good players) onto a random contender has a real impact.

Edit- the more I think about it, maybe that is the real rule change, because it will also eliminate the other type of massively lopsided deals like the Pierce one. If he could have been benched, it changes the entire outlook of the title race for multiple years.

[offtheheezy]

Was talking to duckyoubeavers since he made that awesome website, and TK's idea about a draft central. If we got a draft central up together, would we be able to sim like a rookie combine with some simulated stats? That could help provide some nice insights into rookies

DASL github?