as far as min offers go we've got to the real root of the problem. contract matching. i'm against it whenever it can be avoided, you are more lenient. there is no way to avoid it in 3 situations: 2+ teams offering mle, 2+ teams offering max, 2+ capped out teams without mle at their disposal offering min. all of those 3 situations are caused by several teams being able to offer same maximum deal in certain situations (whether it is max, mle or min). in all other situations matching can be worked around. that's what i want to do. all other situations include teams that can offer different maximum deals so there should be no matching. teams that can pay more should decide to pay more or pass on players. that is one fundamental rule that i tried to work into this league from the start. that's why i wanted teams with cap to outbid matched min offers or lose players. that's why i want teams with cap to have to outbid mle offers of capped out teams or lose players
the more i think about counting mle against the cap, the more i like it. of course if team is less then value of mle under the hard cap that would not work, but we could agree to reduce value of mle for those teams. for instance if i had 76M committed i would be awarded 4M mle for that year. if i wanted to do a trade that brings in more salary then sending out i would have to renounce (what's left of that mle) to make it possible
currently teams get bird rights on all of their free agents (regardless of how long they spent with those teams). bird rights would include right to offer higher annual salary increases/decreases in long term contracts making front/backloading easier and ability to go over the cap when offering a new contract. let's say i have 50M committed and durant as a free agent. i would be allowed to offer him 4*20M even though it puts me over the soft cap because he is my free agent (as it stands in the rules currently) which in essence means that i own his bird rights
i was considering introducing cap holds, but all the comments about complicated rules discouraged me from doing so. without cap holds we can have somebody getting double benefit from his free agent coming off the books. he would be able to spend cap space acquired that way on somebody else's fa and then resign his own fa by going over the cap which isn't a scenario i like, but it is possible under current rules.
And I'm completely against forcing teams with cap to outbid, for two simple reasons. You don't want first-come first-serve to be the defining paradigm, but disallowing matching contracts makes that inevitable - no matching implies sequence, and sequence implies FCFS. Second, I can't get behind the notion that capped out teams should get a pass simply because they spent all their money. We have a set of tie break rules for a reason, and beyond that I think it's a completely unreasonable detriment to teams with cap space. They always have the option to outbid, but forcing them to do so isn't something I'm at all fond of.
I'm also not a huge fan of counting every FA as a bird FA. I think that makes it way to easy to keep players and will have a decidedly negative impact on player movement. I'd like to see some players as Bird players, but not all of them. That makes the cap largely irrelevant except for the bottom couple of rungs of players, since no one is likely to allow a top 20 or even 50 guy to get away if the cost is an extra 5% in raises.
Fenris-77 wrote:And I'm completely against forcing teams with cap to outbid, for two simple reasons. You don't want first-come first-serve to be the defining paradigm, but disallowing matching contracts makes that inevitable - no matching implies sequence, and sequence implies FCFS. Second, I can't get behind the notion that capped out teams should get a pass simply because they spent all their money. We have a set of tie break rules for a reason, and beyond that I think it's a completely unreasonable detriment to teams with cap space. They always have the option to outbid, but forcing them to do so isn't something I'm at all fond of.
what i'm saying is: if you can offer more then 6M and i can offer exactly 6M, you're not gonna get a player for 6M regardless of which one of us bids 6M first. that's exactly opposite of fcfs. it is completely irrelevant who posts first, same gm gets the player in both cases. tie break rules were instituted because they were unavoidable in some situations, not to be used whenever they fit to some degree. believe me, if there was any way of avoiding them, i wouldn't have included them into original set of rules. if you allow teams to match in some situations then you have to allow to match in all of them, on principle alone. also if a gm with more cap space has better points score he can just go on matching any opponent's offer without needing to outbid because he knows he'll win. i don't want that. on the other hand is 250k (or 100k) really such a big price to pay to get a player that you want? i think that i'm offering a perfectly simple solution (more $ => have to outbid) with which you might disagree in principle, but in reality it makes very little difference i really have nothing more to add if this doesn't help persuade you that my solution is better. i can agree to disagree here and let vote decide
Fenris-77 wrote:I'm also not a huge fan of counting every FA as a bird FA. I think that makes it way to easy to keep players and will have a decidedly negative impact on player movement. I'd like to see some players as Bird players, but not all of them. That makes the cap largely irrelevant except for the bottom couple of rungs of players, since no one is likely to allow a top 20 or even 50 guy to get away if the cost is an extra 5% in raises.
i think that raises will rarely come into play here. the key is gonna be outbidding. obviously some players are gonna get offered max from other teams, but those that don't will go to teams that are willing/able to offer more. raises are relevant only if two teams can offer similar starting salary. at the same time i don't see a viable alternative. tracking how long players play for certain teams requires huge amount of legwork, even if we keep it just to seasons (as in: teams gets bird rights if it holds player over 2 whole seasons). also it will negatively affect trading. teams will be more trigger shy which i guess isn't necessarily a bad thing, but isn't something i want either.
As far as FCFS goes your stance hasn't been that uniform. It matters a whole lot who posts the first bid under the current rules set, since you maintain that a team that's capped can match and thus force a team with cap to outbid (to outbid it's own bid essentially), but if the capped team bids first the other team may only outbid, with no option to match (MLE, min whatever). If you're not counting the order of offers then you must accept matching offers. I don't necessarily like it any more than you do, but half measures don't work, and I'm really not prepared to see capped teams with the advantage. I understand you don't want to over-use the tie break system, but it's either that or admit that the first bid though the gate counts for something.
As an example, lets posit a player who's worth about the MLE and is a FA for a team with cap space and no MLE. If the capped team bids first, using your current rules, then the home team cannot match that MLE offer, they have to outbid it (the amount isn't the issue). But if the home team bids cap equivalent to the MLE (call that what the players worth) then the capped can indeed match and force a tie break.
That's just not balanced. It's not about the amount that a team needs to outbid by either. I'd rather give the home team the right to match and win than give the same advantage to a capped out team. It might just be easiest to allow all teams to match offers for their FAs and disallow matching at all in other FA cases.
Fenris-77 wrote:As an example, lets posit a player who's worth about the MLE and is a FA for a team with cap space and no MLE. If the capped team bids first, using your current rules, then the home team cannot match that MLE offer, they have to outbid it (the amount isn't the issue). But if the home team bids cap equivalent to the MLE (call that what the players worth) then the capped can indeed match and force a tie break.
i said i won't comment further, but what you are saying is not correct. capped out teams doesn't force tie break by matching, it wins. thus no fcfs. if home team doesn't post another bid capped out team wins. no tie break in that situation is possible. story is same as with 250k bid that had to be raised to 260k.
why do i want to avoid tie break? because i think that it's a bad solution. it's a solution that took time and thought to create. it's by far the best solution that we have. none of that changes the fact that it's still a terrible solution. tie break relies completely on arbitrary system that we created. why do teams with no players at fa's position get 15 points and teams with 1 player 11? why not 3 and 2? why does resigning team gets 10 points. why not 2 or 25? why does a play-off winner get 5 points? because we agree on it. there is no empirical and objective data that provides us with those numbers. they are arbitrary, sloppy , complete opposite of the exact. that's why i want to use them only when it's absolutely necessary. on the other hand when you say team has to outbid if it can, team that can offer the most money and is willing to do it, gets the player. everything is fair, objective and exact, nothing is arbitrary. and even if you look at it like capped out teams getting some advantage, that advantage can be neutralized by bidding 250k more (or 100k more if bid is under 2.5M). who am i to say that you getting a player over red, for instance, because you have a pg less on your roster, or because you placed 2 spots higher then him last season is more fair then him having to outbid you by 250k? plus smart gm with cap space can often realize during the bidding process that a capped out team is willing to eventually offer it's full mle and he can save 240k by bidding 6.01M before capped out team gets to the full mle. 6.01M is legit offer if previous one was 5.76M or less. that was my last one on the subject
I'd much rather a tie break than auto wins for capped out teams. I don't think you understand just how much I dislike that rule - I think it's badly thought out and completely unbalanced. It's not fair or objective - it's arbitrary and ridiculous. I agree that the tie break system is arbitrary as well, but team success is a much better and fairer tie breaker than cap situation, and I'm not willing to take the easy road here when it means an unbalanced rule. You're pretending that the rules here aren't FCFS too, and they are - 100% percent, and they're also 100% in favour of the capped out team, since those are the only teams that benefit from it. Capped teams should not, under any circumstance, be the only teams allowed to match and further win all of those matching bids. When you're talking about both the MLE and min offers it's a huge advantage that capped out teams do not deserve. I don't think teams should have to peremptorily outbid a capped out team either (re your comment about the MLE). They can certainly do that, but shouldn't be forced to.
I'd be more than happy to examine other alternatives, and naturally what we end up going with will be what the majority of the league wants, but I think you should start thinking about alternatives. The league has already voted on capped out teams winning tie breaks and the answer there was no.
A tiered scoring sytem for tiebreaks is something that can be examined, tested, and made balanced. Your answer is none of those things.
I agree that that's probably enough form us on the subject though. I;d like to see some other opinions here, since neither of us appears even remotely likely to change our minds.
Nice read Kal. I mean, it was so good, I so can't believe it.
I think you and I fell into similar situations. I came out expecting to pay top dollar to get a top player. Valuating top players has always been tricky in H2H. But I knew as much that in fantasy basketball there are always top echelon players to the extent that it is imbalanced (meaning: the value of the top 3 players or "so" typically far exceeds players starting at a rank of 4 on down). Knowing this and knowing that this is a H2H league and I can manipulate my valuation (by focusing on specific cats), I decided to be aggressive in obtaining a top player.
Whoops, got Pau Gasol too. But at a pretty decent price IMHO.
After winning both Paul and Gasol I was left with a strategy of being very specific of which categories and players to target. Ron Artest was not on that list, but I felt he was going too cheaply, so I snatched him up anyway (his steals being a nice complement to Chris Paul). Players like David Lee, Antonio McDyess and Ryan Gomes were on that list, but they all went for more than I wanted to spend and/or more than I could afford at the time they were being drafted.
I was able to obtain Maurice Williams and Tony Parker who were also on my hitlist. But they were both PG's only, so I had to give serious consideration on whether I wanted them both due potential roster flexibility contraints. I knew I didn't want to lose Tony Parker and was pretty certain I would be able to get him. I went for Maurice Williams and paid less for him than I expected. That said, as some of you know, I'm willing to deal Maurice Williams for a PF or C because I have ended the draft dissatisfied with my PF situation and I wouldn't mind freeing up some roster flexibility.
I tried to pick up some players that have potential and also fit well with the rest of my team/category strategy. I was actually surprisingly pleased with who I was able to obtain (the exception being a surefire PF). I was pleased to get Mason and Collison at the price I got them at. Speights, White and Thorton are guys I'm waiting to see if they get a chance later in the season. I likely (I think anyway) won't be dropping them for quite a while unless I get in a bind or a player is on the wire that I simply can't pass up. I still have my IA/IL spots open, so I'm glad I have that option still available to me. Once I won both Paul and Gasol, I fully expected to draft only 12 players and not 14.
Bummed I didn't set my lineup on day 1. Williams and Artest had solid games. Grrrrr......