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


Return to FBC Salary Cap

2010-2011 Season Stuff

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

Re: ***team direction rule***

Postby KalElen » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:25 pm

that is similar to what scully19 had in mind (i think). i guess that's not a bad solution, it beats the current one. i would have to take a closer look at the scale, but it sounds doable. one remark however, i think that pt should hold more value then team direction. team direction was instituted in order to make points system a little more complex then it originally was and for no other reason
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: ***next year free agency***

Postby KalElen » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:30 pm

Fenris-77 wrote:If we want to limit the number of players who can be bid on at the same time form one team it would also work to stipulate that no more than one FA from a given team can be be nominated by a different GM at the same time. So the Gm in question here can both address his most pressing FA in an order he wants to, but without limiting too much the ability of other GMs to target players form other teams that they want to bid on.

this might get a little messy with up to 32 players in the pool at the same time, but i like it. at this point we should all have enough experience with the auction to make it work
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: ***expansion***

Postby KalElen » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:41 pm

Fenris-77 wrote:I don't think 40M is enough personally, as a cap amount. Just because of the way the auction worked there are a lot of good players out there on 3-6M contracts, and a team losing two of them (as an example) is a huge hit. I think we need to look at the extremes - teams with two max guys, and teams with a very balanced contract load, and make sure the mechanism we're using works for everyone.

I think we need to provide more protection than that for the existing managers. I think we'd need to go to at least 50M to keep things fair considering how differently some of the teams are built (if we're going to use a salary figure at all). Having a total number of players a team can protect is also a good idea - it should be at least 5 and maybe more. We could easily just call it X number of players too, and forget about salary (still 5+ IMO in that case).


one thing we have to keep in mind: we have to give up some quality, otherwise no one is gonna want to do an expansion if they are not gonna be able to compete for next 3 years. going over 50M ensures that very little talent is left. we need to strike a balance between protecting old teams and allowing new ones to get some talent from the start and that is not gonna be easy. i don't want to handle numbers too much myself, because of what my team looks like. however i am losing one of my top 3 guys if we don't go over 50M and i still think that it's a terrible idea. expansion teams will miss out on top free agents because of the points system in year one, but they should be given enough talent to be able to compete for free agents after year 2 (assuming we do an expansion after year one). when you are talking about protection of cap you need to keep in mind two things. first expansion teams are probably gonna have reduced cap limit (both soft and hard) and second they can take no more then 1 or 2 players off your team (depending on number of expansion teams). teams with several ~10M contracts and 5-6 solid players in 3-6M range are gonna have to give up some of those players. maybe we can add a rule that 2nd player taken from the same roster (if we decide to allow that in the 1st place) has to be bellow 3M

Fenris-77 wrote:As for the number of teams, I'm ok with one or two, but I think things would get ugly if we try to expand too fast. The more teams we add the more the existing teams get hit all at once, and I doubt anyone wants to feel like they were just acting as placeholders for a bunch of players. If we keep the number of teams lower they have a better chance to build through the draft and free agency as well as expansion, and then when we add teams in future years, those teams that were added can help alleviate the individual cost of expansion by contributing players themselves. I am in favour of giving expansion teams a good shot in the lottery.


one is not an option, in h2h there has to be even number of teams. the choice is between 2 and 4 (or more :-B )

Fenris-77 wrote:
if we decide to do do an expansion we should probably hold expansion draft/auction after the rookie draft, but before free agency
I disagree. I think the expansion draft should be done before the rookie draft and before free agency. That way the teams losing players have the most opportunities to fill the resulting holes.

that makes sense

Fenris-77 wrote:
d) expansion teams start year one with reduced soft cap limit - yes, 45M and they have to draft at least half of that worth of contracts during auction
Sure, but I don't think the rookie scale contracts they draft should count against this total. A lower limit keeps the new teams from swinging too big a stick in free agency, but we also want them to be somewhat competitive.

i don't think that rookie scale should be too big of a problem. 4.5M for a 1st pick in year one is not too much. we can do the lottery before the expansion draft. that way they know how much they'll have to commit to their 1st rounders
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

il reminder!!!!!!!!!!!!

Postby KalElen » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:55 pm

i just want to remind you guys that we have 10 pickups from the il per year restriction (voted on by the league). these pickups made before seasons starts don't count of course, but just want you to be aware of this. after first game starts tonight all further il requests will be counted towards cap so choose your starting active roster wisely
link to the vote:
viewtopic.php?t= 60097
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

IL list 2009/2010

Postby KalElen » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:13 pm

you need to post your il requests here

IL list

IL RedHopeful:
Leandro Barbosa
Thaddeus Young
used 5 times

IL scully19:
Wilson Chandler
Gilbert Arenas
used 8 times

IL ardilla:
Greg Oden
Mike Bibby
used 8 times

IL silentjim:
Hasheem Thabeet
Luc Richard Mbah a Moute
used 2 times

IL DVauthrin:
Andris Biedrins
Tony Parker
used 6 times

IL The Thrill:
Chris Paul
Josh Howard
used 4 times

IL porno4mumu:
Rasho Nesterovic
Francisco Garcia
used 2 times

IL greyone:
Mario Chalmers
Larry Hughes
used 0 times

IL cnote23:
Corey Maggette
used 5 times

IL Nene:
Mike Miller
Darko Milicic
used 3 times

IL KalElen:
Nazr Mohammed
used 6 times

IL coffeeman:
Louis Williams
Ty Lawson
used 8 times

IL nguy6280:
Yao Ming
used 0 times

IL snakehuynh:
Shane Battier
Michael Redd
used 5 times

IL TheRobSays:
Kenyon Martin
Jordan Hill
used 2 times

IL Fenris-77:
Donte Greene
Amir Johnson
used 7 times
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: ***min offers rule***

Postby KalElen » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:38 pm

Fenris-77 wrote:Gaaah, no. Why should a capped out team be allowed to get a min guy for less money? That makes no sense at all. This will work fine as is, now that we'll have rosters and results to work with. Min bids don't count against the cap, fine, and any team can make a min bid on a player, and any team can match that offer, with team's that have available cap obviously with the option to raise if they like. They should not, in any case, be forced to spend more money or lose that player simply because they have cap space and another team does not. Capped out teams do not need the helping hand there.


as usually you have completely missed the point :-D . teams over the cap are biding with non-existent money so to say. unlike teams with cap space they can only offer one year deals so whether it is 200k or 250k makes no difference beyond current season and it makes minimal difference during current season. only situation where smaller min bids can make a difference is if team is approaching hard cap so when he gets to 79M he can offer 5 mins in stead of 4 mins before he reaches hard cap. this however has no ramification on teams bellow cap because they will outbid these offers every time with their own mins that are 250k. i guess we can make them 240k in stead of 200k if it's too big of a deal for anybody but i just like nice round number like 200k. on the other hand by doing this teams with cap space have clear advantage when offering mins so there is no matching and then 10k outbidding which is a mess in itself. i don't think that anybody likes current system which was the best compromise during the auction, but was only needed because auction forced some limitations on us. those limitations are no longer in effect and i don't see any problem with this idea.

Fenris-77 wrote:Keep in mind that capped teams will also have the MLE to work with, so this whole min salary thing won't be as big an issue for those teams when it comes to team building - if they really want a guy they can spend a potion of the MLE.

and what happens when the mle is spent? mle is not a factor here, but it is a subject that needs addressing and that we will address here. no need to open another thread

Fenris-77 wrote:Speaking of that we do need ironclad rules about the MLE too. Personally, I think the easiest way to do it is to say that any team who comes within 250K of the soft cap (or goes over it) at any point during the free agency period is automatically awarded access to the MLE. That's not how the NBA works, but it has the virtue of simplicity.

i don't like it. say i have at the start of free agency 20M and i spend it. then i get additional 6M. why?

Fenris-77 wrote:We could also have the MLE count against the cap for the purposes of determining who gets it, but that's a little more work. A median approach looks like number one, but stipulates that a team that's within the MLE value of the soft cap can offer a contract up to the maximum value of the MLE and exceed the soft cap in doing so.

i thought of these two ideas as well but am still undecided

Fenris-77 wrote:My personal fav would be to give the MLE to teams over the cap, and have it count against the cap for teams under, with the option for them to renounce the MLE to clear the space if they wish. We can alter the size of the MLE as well, if we think that 5.8 or 6M is too much. It could be a flat 5 for example. It should also have years rules - say minimum 2 max 4 for any contract offered with any portion of the MLE.

size of the mle is open to discussion. i had no particular reason to set it at 6M except that it is nice round number close to what real nba was using, but i'm not sure i understand the concept of counting mle against the cap
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: ***min offers rule***

Postby Fenris-77 » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:41 pm

No I didn't miss the bloody point. Those capped out teams can be bidding with snotstacks or tiddly winks for all I care. Their min bids shouldn't be any different than anyone else's. There's no logical reason for them not to be. I don't want the capped out teams to be easily outbid every time either, especially not a good capped out team. If they're the better team then they should have a good chance to win the tiebreak and get their guy.

What the problem with cap space allowing teams to bid more than the minimum on players they want? We don't need to artifically lower the minimum, just let people with cap spend it if they like.

You don't need to make everything so complicated.

Having the MLE count against the cap provides a buffer and eliminates hair-splitting accountancy. The league doesn't want teams to carefully spend right up to the cap just to unlock the exception. The MLE is there to allow teams over the cap to function, not provide a double dip on either side of the cap.

Maybe the easiest thing to do is to have it determined at the start of FA, but that idea has some real issues too (i.e. that I think it limits the teams just under the cap far too much)

i don't like it. say i have at the start of free agency 20M and i spend it. then i get additional 6M. why?
Because it's easy, and low on paperwork. NBA teams have a lot of options when it comes to creative cap management, but we're only going to have the MLE, so I;m ok making it more flexible. The opposite of your argument is to say that you have 4M under the cap - if youI don't get the MLE somehow you have 4M to spend and another completely capped out team has a 6M exception. That doesn't work for me either.
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: 6300
(Past Year: 410)
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: ***expansion***

Postby Fenris-77 » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:06 pm

Or we could force expansion teams to take a player from every roster before they double dip. I'll be honest, I'm more interested in protecting the interests of the current managers than I am of helping along expansion teams. Really, since we have 16 teams, I don;t see why they;d be allowed to take more than one guy from any one team anyway.

Lets say, just for the sake of experiment, that we roll with you 40M in salary (which I still completely disagree with. What would those two expansion teams likely look like (with a rough guess at who's get protected) some combination of...

Red - Barbosa, Beasley
scully - Chandler, S-Jax
ardilla - Rudy Gay, Antawn Jamison
Sj - Bogut, Jennings
Dv - Shawn Marion, Andre Miller
Thrill - Tony Parker, Ron Artest
p4m - Ray Allen, Hedo
G1 - Chalmers, Salmons
Cnote - Jameer, J Thompson
Nene - Okafor, Ariza
Kal -JJ, Ben Gordon
coffee - Baron, Paul Pierce
nguy - Anthony Randolph, Eric Gordon
snake - Mike Redd, Carter
ROb - Elton Brand (and another guy who wouldn;t matter
Fen-77 - Jason Terry, Spencer Hawes

That looks way, waaaaay to good. Even if they just get pick 8 guys each, they both start off with excellent teams. Obviously some teams might go the route of protecting all their youngsters instead of one older guy, but the list is close to what we'd see. Essentially it's two expansion teams made up of everyone's third or fourth best player. When they get 8 guys that caliber I call foul.

There needs to be more protection.
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: 6300
(Past Year: 410)
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: ***team direction rule***

Postby Fenris-77 » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:08 pm

Yeah, upping the value of PT is fine. I think the system might need some adjustment, but I'm fine with it being worth more.
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: 6300
(Past Year: 410)
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: ***min offers rule***

Postby KalElen » Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:11 pm

Fenris-77 wrote:No I didn't miss the bloody point. Those capped out teams can be bidding with snotstacks or tiddly winks for all I care. Their min bids shouldn't be any different than anyone else's. There's no logical reason for them not to be. I don't want the capped out teams to be easily outbid every time either, especially not a good capped out team. If they're the better team then they should have a good chance to win the tiebreak and get their guy.

What the problem with cap space allowing teams to bid more than the minimum on players they want? We don't need to artifically lower the minimum, just let people with cap spend it if they like.

You don't need to make everything so complicated.

actually i'm trying to simplify. having different mins means that there can not be matching by capped out teams. and that was the main problem in the 1st place and the main cause of the complications. i really don't see why it's so important for those 2 numbers to be equal. i don't want 10k increases so the best thing is to eliminate matching is to change min amounts. if you don't you can get matching from capped out teams again and i will not allow teams with cap space to win those based on posting the bid 1st if i can stop it in any way. i'm asleep when most nba action happens so that puts me (and you btw) at disadvantage. and as i said i don't want 10k increases

Fenris-77 wrote:Having the MLE count against the cap provides a buffer and eliminates hair-splitting accountancy. The league doesn't want teams to carefully spend right up to the cap just to unlock the exception. The MLE is there to allow teams over the cap to function, not provide a double dip on either side of the cap.

Maybe the easiest thing to do is to have it determined at the start of FA, but that idea has some real issues too (i.e. that I think it limits the teams just under the cap far too much)

i don't like it. say i have at the start of free agency 20M and i spend it. then i get additional 6M. why?
Because it's easy, and low on paperwork. NBA teams have a lot of options when it comes to creative cap management, but we're only going to have the MLE, so I;m ok making it more flexible. The opposite of your argument is to say that you have 4M under the cap - if youI don't get the MLE somehow you have 4M to spend and another completely capped out team has a 6M exception. That doesn't work for me either.

that's why i'm mauling over the other idea. the one where teams within mle value of cap limit getting mle too. everyone with 59M+ cap gets mle (6M) that can't be combined with remaining cap space. or just do it as real nba does it: don't give teams with any cap space mle. we can award mle after rookie draft. that way teams get enough time to manipulate their cap via trade and earn mle or get under the cap if they want to
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

PreviousNext

Return to FBC Salary Cap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues




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