2012/13 season discussion - Fantasy Basketball Cafe 2014
Fantasy Basketball Cafe


Return to FBC Salary Cap

2012/13 season discussion

Moderators: RedHopeful, silentjim, Fenris-77, DVauthrin, dasein

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby silentjim » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:21 pm

Markos wrote:This was my concern too, it seems whoever's free agents auctions end early are going to get screwed, and whoever's drag on are going to win out. Simply put, it seems arbitrary who is going to do well in free agency, dependent upon which auctions are wrapped up early.

This is why I suggested when a GM wins an auction to retain their own player with bird rights, their new contract shouldn't immediately replace the cap hold. Rather, for the time being their cap hold would remain in place while the other auctions continue.

For example, I match bids on Jamal Crawford, whose auction ends before all other FA's. But rather than having to add his new $8m x 3 contract immediately to the books, putting me over the cap and therefore having to cancel or cease bidding in all the other still-live auctions, I carry on like before, only paying attention to how Jamal's $8m might effect my hard cap.

Or more simply, I reach an agreement with Jamal, sign the papers, but I don't hand them into the commisioner's office until I'm done pursuing other free agents.


Yeah, I'm down with this. I'm just not sure where all of the other stuff came from above since our points structure and contract rules seem to already account for what was being explained.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11486
(Past Year: 794)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby scully19 » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:23 pm

I'm not down with that because it gives an unfair advantage to anyone and everyone with a player on bird rights. You're basically reserving 15m to spend on any players rights you own, basically setting up your team to have a guaranteed 80m to spend on the year and any other team would only have 65m + mle. And frankly it is a pointless advantage to hand out because that isn't how it works in real life.
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1340
(Past Year: 198)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby silentjim » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:31 pm

scully19 wrote:I'm not down with that because it gives an unfair advantage to anyone and everyone with a player on bird rights. You're basically reserving 15m to spend on any players rights you own, basically setting up your team to have a guaranteed 80m to spend on the year and any other team would only have 65m + mle. And frankly it is a pointless advantage to hand out because that isn't how it works in real life.


Scully you have to remember that we have to do what's best for the league and most fair, not what's best for your team.

This rule would only apply to manager with players who's birds rights they own that are also under the cap. If you're over the cap you obviously can't sign free agents anyway.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11486
(Past Year: 794)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby silentjim » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:45 pm

We also have to take into account, that a) we aren't following the three year Bird's Rights criteria, b) are contracts aren't as realistic as the NBA, and c) that real life teams would do this exact same thing (IE not offer extensions or new deals to teams until free agency is finished thus maximizing the cap).

This is exactly why the Bulls for example are talking Extensions with Joakim Noah now, after signing all of their free agents.

Realistically this is what players would want as well.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11486
(Past Year: 794)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby scully19 » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:49 pm

Of course I know that it's what's best for the league, this isn't best for the league because it makes things UNFAIR for certain teams, hence not best for the league. Look at my team next year and I'll hold like 9 players with bird rights and have cap space, so if I was only concerned about my team I would go for it and set up next year when I would easily be able to spend 80m.

I'm also aware that it only affects those not close to the soft cap, which again is exactly why I think it is an unfair advantage to certain teams, since there are only 3 teams would be set up for that situation, those 3 teams would be able to go much closer to 80 while the rest can't.

I don't understand why we would change the rules further from NBA rules in order to do this?
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1340
(Past Year: 198)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby scully19 » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:54 pm

silentjim wrote:We also have to take into account, that a) we aren't following the three year Bird's Rights criteria, b) are contracts aren't as realistic as the NBA, and c) that real life teams would do this exact same thing (IE not offer extensions or new deals to teams until free agency is finished thus maximizing the cap).

This is exactly why the Bulls for example are talking Extensions with Joakim Noah now, after signing all of their free agents.

Realistically this is what players would want as well.

A) that is more reason not to give advantages to teams with bird rights.
B) Contracts are not that much different
C) Real life teams do of course try to do the same thing, but it doesn't always work that way because the other teams are allowed to talk to their players too.

Bulls talking to Noah has absolutely nothing to do with this situation, because extensions start next year and don't affect the current contracts and would also be like signing a player that has bird rights at the start of the off season and have no money to spend on other players...kinda more an argument against than for.
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1340
(Past Year: 198)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby silentjim » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:57 pm

scully19 wrote:Of course I know that it's what's best for the league, this isn't best for the league because it makes things UNFAIR for certain teams, hence not best for the league. Look at my team next year and I'll hold like 9 players with bird rights and have cap space, so if I was only concerned about my team I would go for it and set up next year when I would easily be able to spend 80m.

I'm also aware that it only affects those not close to the soft cap, which again is exactly why I think it is an unfair advantage to certain teams, since there are only 3 teams would be set up for that situation, those 3 teams would be able to go much closer to 80 while the rest can't.

I don't understand why we would change the rules further from NBA rules in order to do this?


The problem with all of this is that there is no penalty for going over the soft cap and therefore everyone is going to do it. My team isn't going to be less profitable and I'm not going to pay a luxury tax. This is why so many teams are already over the softcap; spending more money makes the most sense. This would not make it unfair for certain teams IMO because those teams could complain about the opposite, that they think those ridiculously front loaded 2 year contracts to superstars was unfair.

In reality I don't think we should have bird rights to players. It's too complicated and there's no reason to have it.

I also want to know how non-rookies become RFAs? Did we discuss that ever? It makes sense to implement more RFA and an FA structure than Birds Rights.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11486
(Past Year: 794)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby silentjim » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:02 pm

scully19 wrote:
silentjim wrote:We also have to take into account, that a) we aren't following the three year Bird's Rights criteria, b) are contracts aren't as realistic as the NBA, and c) that real life teams would do this exact same thing (IE not offer extensions or new deals to teams until free agency is finished thus maximizing the cap).

This is exactly why the Bulls for example are talking Extensions with Joakim Noah now, after signing all of their free agents.

Realistically this is what players would want as well.

A) that is more reason not to give advantages to teams with bird rights.
B) Contracts are not that much different
C) Real life teams do of course try to do the same thing, but it doesn't always work that way because the other teams are allowed to talk to their players too.

Bulls talking to Noah has absolutely nothing to do with this situation, because extensions start next year and don't affect the current contracts and would also be like signing a player that has bird rights at the start of the off season and have no money to spend on other players...kinda more an argument against than for.


What I meant with A, is that in the real life, NBA Birds Rights aren't as common as we just made them. B is just insane. Our contract lengths are limited by how much is spent, which is why some crappy players ended up with huge deals and why we ended up with an insane amount of people on Birds Rights. I understand the reasoning for limiting contract lengths, but its not a fair representation of the NBA or real life signings at all.

For C, It has happened in the past multiple times and If I was player on a winning team, I would do the same thing knowing I was going to get mine and play with an even better team.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11486
(Past Year: 794)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby scully19 » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:16 pm

I agree with you about bird rights, thats why i wanted it to be a 2 year minimum, but now that it isn't we shouldn't give them advantages because they are much more of them.
Bad players get bloated contracts in the NBA too. No one is going to sign Drew Gooden, or Travis Outlaw to the contract they just signed this year.
I know it happens before, I think everyteam would try to sign free agents first if they can. It also gets limited by an increase in cap hold (so that you have a limited of cap space from the start and have to deal with your own guys first in most cases).
No non-rookies are RFA's.
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1340
(Past Year: 198)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby silentjim » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:20 pm

scully19 wrote:I agree with you about bird rights, thats why i wanted it to be a 2 year minimum, but now that it isn't we shouldn't give them advantages because they are much more of them.
Bad players get bloated contracts in the NBA too. No one is going to sign Drew Gooden, or Travis Outlaw to the contract they just signed this year.
I know it happens before, I think everyteam would try to sign free agents first if they can. It also gets limited by an increase in cap hold (so that you have a limited of cap space from the start and have to deal with your own guys first in most cases).
No non-rookies are RFA's.


Why do we even have birds rights if no one except rookies are RFAs?

When did we even start or mention birds rights for the first time? I don't think we should have them.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11486
(Past Year: 794)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

PreviousNext

Return to FBC Salary Cap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nykos and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues




  • Fantasy Basketball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact