nsink wrote: i hope u can see why i was confused though, because at No point wld my team have been over 75 Million. Gooden and Toney full Salary wld never had been active on the same day. therefore, id never exceed 75 million at any 1 pt in time.
I'm sorry you were confused and I get what you're trying to say, but the above is just plain wrong.
Say you currently have 72M in salary. Then say you make an auction bid of 3.1M. Your cap situation looks like this the moment you make the bid:
Salary: 72 Cap Hold: 3.1 Total: 75.1
In this case you have gone over the cap. Going over the cap is never, ever allowed. So you've broken the golden rule before you even know whether you would have won the player. Arguments about whether players would have been active on the same day are actually irrelevant because the rule is broken the moment you make the illegal bid.
I'm not trying to pick on anyone here. I just want us to all be clear.
ok cap holds make sense,
but i still dont see why its ok for 1 reason to have time to get into compliance, if i remember correctly the argument was i dont want to be locked into dropping a player until i know ive won a player. which seems to me as the same argument as I dont want to eat Toneys Contract unless i know i was getting Gooden. But tomato, tomatoe. i guess i got confused by the whole 24 hr thing. its unfortunate really because Gooden wld have been the final piece i needed to win a championship. Now Dvaturin can get him for dirt cheap because no one else has money to bid, and Ive been locked from bidding because of a rules misunderstanding. It is actually hurting the imaginary player because his worth is more than he will be getting paid - seems against american values to not let him negotiate the best deal for himself..
I can understand cap holds for offseason auctions, since it gets confusing. but in season it seems odd that id have to make a huge cut/financial decision just to bid, not knowing if id win, yet others dont have to make a cut decision until post bidding/winning. Especially since at no moment in time wld my team be liable for over 75 million, Douglas and gooden wld never exist on my team concurrently.
hopefully another gooden will show up, or z-bo will get healthy and i can still win the SHip.
As DV alluded to in an earlier post, there are practical reasons for not allowing bidding over the cap as well as ideological.
Ideological Reasons 1. Like I said before, it's in the name: Salary Cap League. The cap is the golden rule. We play in this league because we like the dynamic that results from the salary cap. Diluting the power of the cap changes this dynamic significantly, and for the worse in my opinion. 2. It just isn't realistic. In the NBA, a team never straight out drops 3 of its players so it can sign 1 free agent. I'd expect this to happen frequently if we could simply bid what ever we like, whenever we like and just sort it out latter. We don't have to follow the NBA strictly, but part of the fun of the league is that it's similar. What we do now is allow managers to drop 1 end of the bench guy in order to bring on a new player. This does happen in the NBA, and so is realistic.
Practical 1. Ease of commishing. What the new guys might not realise is that this league almost died during the offseason because the last set of rules was so much work to manage that nobody wanted to take over as commish. When we drafted up the new rules, we tried to remove a lot of this clutter. Allowing 'bid anything you like and fix it latter' might not seem like a big deal, but that's because nobody is currently trying to do it. If it was allowed in the rules, then everyone would be doing it all the time. Think about all the transactions that would need to be checked to ensure compliance under this scenario. Are the bids legal? Have the drops been made in time and does the salary meet the rules now? What if someone stuffs something up and we find out after the fact? I'm not saying this stuff can't be done, but it certainly increases the workload above where it is now. And would having this rule add value to the league? I'd have to say it does not.
Another proposal for next season: If you waive a player you can still bid for them again, however an opponent isn't obliged to beat your bid - they're allowed to simply match it, in which case they win the auction. The thinking behind the current rule, as its been explained to me, is that after waiving someone they wouldn't want to play for you again. However, if I was a FA I'd be keen for any chance to get back on the court. I wouldn't be saying "oh no they dropped me 2 months ago, I'd prefer to sit on my couch with no money than play for them again". If however it was an even choice money-wise between a team that waived you and one that didn't, you'd probably choose the one that didn't.
4ndrew wrote:Another proposal for next season: If you waive a player you can still bid for them again, however an opponent isn't obliged to beat your bid - they're allowed to simply match it, in which case they win the auction. The thinking behind the current rule, as its been explained to me, is that after waiving someone they wouldn't want to play for you again. However, if I was a FA I'd be keen for any chance to get back on the court. I wouldn't be saying "oh no they dropped me 2 months ago, I'd prefer to sit on my couch with no money than play for them again". If however it was an even choice money-wise between a team that waived you and one that didn't, you'd probably choose the one that didn't.
This kind of thinking is something I alluded to before - that we really should take a hard look at making a set of rules which is more customized to OUR particular league, as opposed to mimicking the NBA as much as possible. I believe the current set of rules has gone a LONG way to doing just that (again, huge props to dasein and the rest of the committee for making that happen!). But there are still small nuances to the game, such as the one 4ndrew proposed here, which still need to be addressed.
I like the idea that this league tries to make the fantasy game more involving than it already is by using a budget and contracts and all. But because we can never have the human element as a factor (players making their own decisions as to who they would play for, how much they would want to get paid, etc.), we need to address these issues from a fantasy basketball perspective, not a "real life" perspective like we've been doing from time to time. By looking at things from the angle of how WE play the fantasy game, we can make better rules that would suit US, in THIS league, not just "what does the NBA do".
I know the spirit of the league is to mimic the NBA as much as possible, and I do admit, it's fun to do that at times. But there comes a point when it starts to be rather impractical to try and follow the NBA verbatim on certain issues, especially when it handcuffs managers like myself who inherit the basement of the league for most, if not all of the season.
I wouldn't be against what 4ndrew proposed. It addresses a pretty minor part of the game though, and in all likelihood would produce the same outcomes as the current rule so I don't see it having a major impact either way.
Linsanity reached a whole new level on Friday, as Jeremy Lin scored a career-high 38 points on 13-of-23 shooting (2-of-4 from deep, 10-of-13 from the foul line) with four rebounds, seven assists, six turnovers, and three steals in the Knicks' 92-85 win over the Lakers. Lin went toe to toe with Kobe late and didn't back down to a Lakers squad that regularly tried to rough him up. To say it was a scene at Madison Square Garden doesn't do it any justice, but let's get to the fantasy stuff. We've seen all types of offers for Lin over the last 48 hours, and if you want to sell while Linsanity is at an all-time high we wouldn't blame you. However, this is not a fluke and Baron Davis is not a threat. Carmelo Anthony bought into moving the ball around for over a week before his groin injury, and he will have to operate within the construct of Lin and Mike D'Antoni's vision -- not the other way around. Both he and Amare Stoudemire will keep Lin's scoring numbers in check, but they will virtually guarantee Lin is productive every night due to the weapons he will have. Trading Lin for anything but an early round value is probably a mistake, and yes, the Knicks are contenders now.
Anyone else think this is hilarious, or am I just a cynical grinch?
Maybe we sould consider getting rid of the 7 day contract altogether, and instead, amend the rules to state that any contract valued at under 1M dollars can be dropped without anything counting against a manager's salary cap.
Under the current rules, if you have a player signed for the year at, say .25M, and you decide to drop him later in the season, 75% of that .25M will count against your cap for the rest of the season. But, if you sign that player to a 7 day contract at .25M, it comes off your cap space as soon as the contract expires (if I remember correctly?).
With the change I propose, we would simply be able to sign a player using the same FA auction rules, BUT, if that contract came in under 1M dollars, it would not count against the manager's salary cap if he decided to drop that player later in the season. This way, all these piddly little point-something contracts wouldn't count against anyone's cap space for odd amounts (like .45, .38, .19, etc.). And to keep streaming in check, we simply adopt the same limit rule we have for 7 day contracts - 40 adds or drops during the regular season. And this would also allow those concerned to not have to worry about policing 7 day contracts (when a player was added, when he was dropped, etc.).
I'm just looking at my roster, and seeing things which really make little if any sense, especially when it comes to these small one or two year contracts for .25 to 1M dollars. I know it doesn't give anyone much in terms of cap space gained or anything like that. But, the same can be said in reverse - it doesn't mean much to have to count 75% of these particular deals. It just makes for more math and more spreadsheet work.
Again, I'm not making a crusade against 7 day contracts or anything like that. I myself don't use them, but I've got nothing in particular against them. Just trying to see if there's anything else we could do to streamline the whole process.