2010-2011 Season Stuff - Fantasy Basketball Cafe 2014
Fantasy Basketball Cafe


Return to FBC Salary Cap

2010-2011 Season Stuff

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

Re: 163. Nenad Krstic (BIDDING CLOSED) - DEBATE STILL OPEN

Postby scully19 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:55 pm

The draft is a first come first serve bidding, but is only mostly evident on the smaller contracts or the max contract. The min bets being first come first server are self-explanatory, but there is also obvious times this draft where it has worked out that way as well, like Dwight Howard getting a jump up to 30M from like 24M first year offering so that he could have the mark of 30M and not many people would be willing to go over that amount and get only 2 years from him. He was the first to make that bid, and he recognized the significance of getting in that bid first, so he did it and won.

I guess the reason my thought that the teams bidding min can all tie regardless of cap is being ignored is because it is unfair to the team without a lot of players on it? This is why i think incorporating playing time avail for the player be a better way to solve it, then the mini-roto. This would more than likely make the team with the least players win by default anyways, but would allow all teams the same deal of bidding min if they don't want to bid anymore than that on a player.
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1367
(Past Year: 194)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 163. Nenad Krstic (BIDDING CLOSED) - DEBATE STILL OPEN

Postby KalElen » Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:53 pm

scully19 wrote:The draft is a first come first serve bidding, but is only mostly evident on the smaller contracts or the max contract. The min bets being first come first server are self-explanatory, but there is also obvious times this draft where it has worked out that way as well, like Dwight Howard getting a jump up to 30M from like 24M first year offering so that he could have the mark of 30M and not many people would be willing to go over that amount and get only 2 years from him. He was the first to make that bid, and he recognized the significance of getting in that bid first, so he did it and won.


if you're gonna look at it that way, every auction is fcfs because if there are 2 people who are ready to offer same max amount 1st one to do it wins. but point of the auction is that you always have the option to outbid. if anybody wanted d-how he could have posted another bid. players have gone on 2 year contracts before. with min offers that' not the case. you get no advantage posing 1st

scully19 wrote:I guess the reason my thought that the teams bidding min can all tie regardless of cap is being ignored is because it is unfair to the team without a lot of players on it? This is why i think incorporating playing time avail for the player be a better way to solve it, then the mini-roto. This would more than likely make the team with the least players win by default anyways, but would allow all teams the same deal of bidding min if they don't want to bid anymore than that on a player.


i don't like your idea for 2 reasons. as it has been pointed out, i have no one to blame for spending on all my money on just 4 players so there is no need to give me (and those like me) any kind of free pass in order to make things fair for us. also what happens if 2 teams with same amount of play time bid (2 teams with no centers for instance)? i will put it on vote though. at this point we are looking for alternatives so i am thankful for you coming up with the solution even if i don't like it too much
my kung fu is the best
KalElen
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders ChampionMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 4208
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Smederevo, Serbia

Re: 163. Nenad Krstic (BIDDING CLOSED) - DEBATE STILL OPEN

Postby scully19 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:06 pm

That's my point tho, first come does have it's advantages, whether we like to admit it or not, and being first in on a min bid should not mean that another min bid is somehow higher, regardless of cap space.
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1367
(Past Year: 194)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 163. Nenad Krstic (BIDDING CLOSED) - DEBATE STILL OPEN

Postby Fenris-77 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:51 pm

I don't need to show you a fault in your logic, because I already showed you the fault in your rules. It doesn't matter what you wanted the rules to say to say, or how you thought they should work. What we have is what they actually say and a reasonable expectation that since they're the official rules that things will actually work like that.

The rules don't support matching as you describe and they don't support capped teams auto-winning min level matched against non-capped teams. Since the rules don't support either I would reasonably expect to not have you tell me they somehow do. And so should everyone else. Lots of people have looked at the rules in question here, not just me, and not a single person here has read them and come up with your logic. That should suggest to you that the rules say something else besides what you'd like them too.

To be specific, what you have in the rules (well, the auction thread anyway, not the actual rules) is a single example, an example mind you, not a rule - an example - that seems to suggest that at some point you wanted the rules to work as you describe. The problem is that there isn't a rule for this to be an example of, since the actual rules (in both threads) say nothing at all like what your example describes. So, as I said, what we have is the rules as they are, and a reasonable expectation on the part of all the participants that they reflect how the league is going to be run.

So do you want to change the rules to make them work as your example suggests they could? Or shall we continue as is?
Fenris-77
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 6325
(Past Year: 297)
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 177. Thabo Sefolosha

Postby Fenris-77 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:52 pm

That should keep everyone happy. :-D
Fenris-77
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 6325
(Past Year: 297)
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball

182. Mickael Pietrus

Postby RedHopeful » Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:00 pm

.
Image
RedHopeful
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse Team LeaderFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18252
(Past Year: 676)
Joined: 11 Jul 2007
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: http://twitter.com/Redhopeful

Re: 177. Thabo Sefolosha

Postby scully19 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:27 pm

no need to pause the whole draft, just don't officially close any thread if you are tied max bidder on a min until this is resolved.
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1367
(Past Year: 194)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 163. Nenad Krstic (BIDDING CLOSED) - DEBATE STILL OPEN

Postby KalElen » Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:03 am

as i said i'm not arguing any more. everything i had to say still stands and nobody is pointing out an error in my logic based on the rule i quoted. you can like or dislike the rule, but it is the rule in place at this time. until the rule is amended i hold the right to krstic, but the rule will be amended soon so that's not even important right now. i'll go through all the rules on tuseday when i'll have substantial amount of free time and try to gather them all into one post
my kung fu is the best
KalElen
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders ChampionMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 4208
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Smederevo, Serbia

Re: 163. Nenad Krstic (BIDDING CLOSED) - DEBATE STILL OPEN

Postby Fenris-77 » Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:42 am

No, actually your logic is dodgy and makes no sense. You say that I bid, and you match, and then we're somehow both 'matching'. I'm sorry, but not only isn't that what matching means, it makes no logical sense in english. There's no logical way to get from the rules as you wrote them to the conclusion you draw from them. No. Logical. Way.

[editors note - you can stop reading now if you feel like passing on the logic exercise]

In order to 'match' there has to be something to match. What are you 'matching' with the second bid? That's right, the first bid. The pre-exisiting bid. When you say 'to match' it means the act of matching, which implies there is something to match, which specifically implies that there is a pre-existing bid. You use 'match' as a verb, with all the lovely logical causality that entails, and you assume by using it that way that there's a bid in place. That first bid isn't 'matching' - it's being matched. See the following..
-team can't match other team's offer to unrestricted free agent in both average salary and contract length, if it's able to outbid it. only situation where repeating existing offer is permitted is if team can't outbid the current offer under cap rules. if 2 or more teams have same amount of cap free and bid it all on a player, that player is awarded to a team that comes out as a winner of a roto mini-league based on last year's numbers.

Those two highlighted phrases are the key ones. Here's the logic..
team can't match [existing bid to] ... if it's able to outbid [that existing bid]. You can't even make that statement without a bid in place, and it logically and inevitably only applies to bids make subsequently to the first one. There's no way to take that statement and make it apply, logically, to the first bid without completely re-writing it. In short, it does not logically apply.

The rule as written does allow capped out teams to make a min offer subsequent to an initial min offer, but doesn't say anything about how to resolve the tie, because the rules for tie breaks only apply to two capped out teams. So there's no remedy in the rules.

Here's the rest...
-when a free agent receives more then one contract offer, he is awarded to a team based on next 3 criteria
1) he is awarded to a team that offers the highest average salary
2) if he receives two or more offers with same average salaries, he is awarded to team depending on offered contract length
-if the average salary is between 25% and 100% of the maximum he is awarded to a team that offers the longest contract
-if the average salary is lower then 25% of the maximum he is awarded to a team that offers the shortest contract

-maximum salary increases/decreases during the auction are limited to 10%

examples:

team a has 4M free and bids 3M on a player x. team b has 3M free and bids it all on player x. in order to get the player team a now has outbid team b's offer, otherwise player x signs with team b.


This entire section refers to contracts of a different sort than those matching in both years and salary. It refers to contracts of unequal average salary, and contracts of equal average salary but unequal length. That's all it covers.

Then there's the example. That part says what you want, but it's not logically or grammatically connected to anything else in this section, or any other part of the rules. It might make sense if there was an entirely new "3" that the example could refer to, a "3" that deals with contracts matching in both average salary and length, but there isn't. So it's a completely wasted paragraph that means absolutely nothing. Logically means absolutely nothing.

If you like I can completely expand and parse this section of the rules for you. You can see it with full logical apparatus if you like. It still won't say what you want. It's not written clearly enough to do so. And since a whole league full of native English readers managed to miss your version of the facts, I'm kind of surprised you;re so adamant that it all makes perfect sense. Personally, I'm tired of typing about this - you're just wrong, get over it. Not only did no one read your facts as you see them, no one agreed with the intent either. Not a single person agreed that min bids from capped teams should auto-win. 13 managers replied, no one agreed, all but 2 specifically disagreed .

So no, you position does not stand.
Fenris-77
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 6325
(Past Year: 297)
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 163. Nenad Krstic (BIDDING CLOSED) - DEBATE STILL OPEN

Postby scully19 » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:16 am

I skipped most of what Fenris said, but I agree with him and that's why i have been piping in even though it does not make a diff to me likely. Fenris said enough tho, so i won't add to it.
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1367
(Past Year: 194)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

PreviousNext

Return to FBC Salary Cap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues



Get Ready...
The 2014 NBA season starts in 5:42 hours
(and 67 days)


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