Markos wrote:Switching 1 utility slot for bench and adding a 15th slot, also bench, is only going to help marginally. Guys will still be pushed to use all their slots to rotate guys in/out of active service to maximize games played, any non lotto rooks or injured players will remain a heavy burden.
Don't forget, reducing the active slots is only going to make extra games played more important. We need either an inactive list of 2 or 3 guys, or to expand the bench to the point the last 2 or 3 guys are sitting most of the time before using the bench to bring along projects or stash injured players isn't punished in the number of games played. It's a big enough hit losing a key guy to injury and having to sub in a scrub in their place without also taking a hit in games played. Not to mention the burden it places on any team wishing to retain a guy for a season or two and see if they develop.
Really don't understand why guys are opposed to extra bench slots, they don't have to use them if they don't want to. For me bringing along a few young guns over the course of a season or two is half the fun, any fool can grab the flavor of the week off waivers.
As much as I don't like weekly lineups, I think that is the best solution. It allows owners to build the best 8-10 man teams, and use bench spots to stash injured guys or rookies. It's a simpler solution than having to keep track of an inactive list, and it mimics the real nba in that they only have 12 active players out of 15 possible roster spots.
The inactive list is a pain and I don't like it. More bench slots doen't really mean much by themselves without less active slots either since the churn on player games stays the same. Unless all you want to do is allow for injury stashes. If that's all you want to achieve then an extra couple make sense. That said, it puts a lot more players under team control on every team and severely depletes the FA pool, which I'm not a big fan of.
Honestly. I think I just don't agree with Markos here. I think removing the Utl slot and adding a bench slot is a pretty big shift by itself, and I think it's a more than fair nod in the direction of being able to keep injured and struggling players on your team. I'd even be ok dropping the G and F slots and adding two more bench slots instead, if that makes people feel better. Even just moving Utl to a bench slot means we'd have 8 active slots and 6 bench slots, which will severely curtail the ability of any team to churn their last couple of bench slots.
I'm really not interested in weekly lineups at all though, and I'll vote against the idea if it gets proposed. If the league votes it in that's fine, but won't support the idea.
As far as this season goes, pretty much every team is going to play every other night. It is going to be a stacked schedule so there are going to be a ton of DNPCD's for all of us. If we are going to test out a season of extra bench slots, this would be the one to do it.
Fenris-77 wrote:The inactive list is a pain and I don't like it.
You're entitled to your opinion. I think it could work, but I also think adding 4 bench slots is the smarter way to go
Fenris-77 wrote:More bench slots doen't really mean much by themselves without less active slots either since the churn on player games stays the same.
No, each extra slot you use to churn has diminishing returns. Aside that there are less vacant active slots as you work your way further down your bench, the quality of player drops off also. Simply put, as you look to your 5th or 6th bench slot, there is more value in holding a project or a quality guy out injured than there is some scrub ranked 200+ for an extra game or two a week.
Fenris-77 wrote:Unless all you want to do is allow for injury stashes. If that's all you want to achieve then an extra couple make sense. That said, it puts a lot more players under team control on every team and severely depletes the FA pool, which I'm not a big fan of.
I'm not a big fan of having to trade my injured all-star at 50c to the dollar or play a guy down the reat of the season, or flip my draft picks for peanuts because it's just too damaging to keep them on the bench and play yet another guy or two down. That is far and away a much bigger problem than having 40 or so less UFA's, mostly ranked 200+, half of which are out injured or not yet ready for court time.
Fenris-77 wrote:Honestly. I think I just don't agree with Markos here. I think removing the Utl slot and adding a bench slot is a pretty big shift by itself, and I think it's a more than fair nod in the direction of being able to keep injured and struggling players on your team.
You're entitled to your opinion, but what in your opinion is a fair nod or a big shift to me isn't near cutting the mustard. And I don't really see any need to adjust the active slots either, the active slots were never the problem. While cutting an active slot has an effect and leans in the right direction, it is still not going to get us close to being able to stash three players, ie. 2 projects and an injured guy, without taking a hit in games played vis-a-vis our direct competitor.
Fenris-77 wrote:I'd even be ok dropping the G and F slots and adding two more bench slots instead, if that makes people feel better. Even just moving Utl to a bench slot means we'd have 8 active slots and 6 bench slots, which will severely curtail the ability of any team to churn their last couple of bench slots.
Dropping the F and G slots would totally swing player values even further towards centers, I don't think anyone wants that. Moving the Util slot to bench will hel pa little, but again the problem isn't the active lineup, it's the bench, or lack of one for inactive guys. We don't need to tinker with the active lineup, particularly in a daily format I think the G, F and util slots allow for much needed flexibility, as you are constantly dealing with different mixes of active players on any given day. We need a bench to stash a couple of projects and 1 or 2 injured players, without getting burnt for it each week.
Fenris-77 wrote:I'm really not interested in weekly lineups at all though, and I'll vote against the idea if it gets proposed. If the league votes it in that's fine, but won't support the idea.
I'd vote for it, but I'm done campaigning for it. I'd rather work on getting the daily format workable for teams that wish to build through the draft, or have an injured player they'd prefer to retain. Weekly lineups would do the trick, but there is too much opposition. The inactive list would work, but so long as we don't have a commish I don't think it's a good idea to add to our workload, we're already under the pump and need to get this baby flying in the next week or so or it's gonna get crappy. The suggestions you've made just aren't workable, they don't adequately address the problem and changing the active lineups is another issue all in itself, I can see a number of GM's not liking even a dropping of the util slot yet alone cutting the G and F slots, which is a total transformation.
Adding bench slots gives all GM's more flexibility, and if some of you guys think we should go without slots for injured guys or rookie projects so your FA pool isn't deprived of 30 guys ranked 200+, you're dreaming.
Looking at the old "weekly lineups - INACTIVE ROSTER SLOTS" thread it seems like there was a consensus for using an inactive list.
Active Slots - PG, G, SG, SF, F, PF, C, C, U Bench slots x 3 Inactive slots x 3
That made 15 total
Inactive players would be kept track of in the smacktalk with changes allowed prior to each matchup. Pretty sure we'd have to make GM's police it themselves by keeping an eye on their opposite number each week, but that's easy enough.
If you want to keep rosters short, say down to 15, then the inactive list is the only way to go. Otherwise you have to extend the rosters out ie. 3 more slots to 18 to get past the effects of churning and actually start allowing GM's to stash players without getting burnt in games played.
I'm easy either way, but it's nice to know we have a fallback option if we can't agree on a system without an inactive list.
dasein wrote:Below is a summary of rules up for change. Add anything that I've missed out. I suggest a separate thread for each main topic to help keep things clear. A couple already exist and have been linked here.
The following change has pretty much been agreed on already.YES TO ALL
- Teams are ranked 1st to last based on regular season final standings (after tiebreaks are applied). - This ranking is used to determine which teams will enter the lottery, and what their odds shall be. - The lottery shall be the Australian ‘Powerball’ numbers drawn on a predetermined day, and accessed at http://www.ozlotteries.com/lotto-results/powerball. - The odds of the lottery teams are reflected in the number of balls assigned (out of 45), and shall be as follows: Rank ~ Ball Numbers ~ Odds of winning 16th ~ 1-11 ~ 0.244 15th ~ 12-20 ~ 0.200 14th ~ 21-27 ~ 0.156 13th ~ 28-33 ~ 0.133 12th ~ 34-37 ~ 0.089 11th ~ 38-40 ~ 0.067 10th ~ 41-43 ~ 0.067 9th ~ 44-45 ~ 0.044
- The remaining teams will draft in reverse order of regular season final standings (after tiebreaks are applied).
There is a feeling that the current roster rules do not offer sufficient incentive to carry ‘projects’. This is compounded by the need to maximise player-games played if a team is to be competitive. Another side effect is that draft picks do not seem to be valued in the league to the same extent they are in real life. No consensus has yet been reached on how to solve these issues, but a number of ideas proposed.
- If weekly game limits were possible, the second part of the problem would be resolved. Unfortunately, this is not currently possible in Yahoo!, but may be in the future. NO - Switch to weekly line-ups. NO - Increase the total number of roster spots and/or reduce the number of active roster spots. The purpose of this is to reduce the % of a team’s roster that can actively be played during the week. - Reduce the rookie salary scale salaries to make them less of a burden. YES - CONTRACTS FOR 2nd ROUND PICKS SHOULD NOT BE GUARANTEED
Free Agent Bidding Process
There is a feeling that the bidding process is too cumbersome and needs to be streamlined. There is also a related dissatisfaction with the current tie-break rules for free agent biding. No consensus has been reached, but much discussion has been recorded in the following threads:
There is a lot of content here, and I’m not going to try and condense it all. Some of the main questions are:
- Blind bidding or open bidding? OPEN - I PERSONALLY ENJOY THE COMPETITIVENESS AND THE STRATEGY INVOLVED; I THINK THE BLIND BIDDING PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IS TOO CUMBERSOME TO MANAGE; WOULD NOT OBJECT TO RE-OPENING DISCUSSIONS ON THIS NEXT OFF-SEASON BUT WE NEED TO GET GOING; FIX THE TIE-BREAKS THOUGH - New Tie break system? Fenris has outlined a system that seems to have broad support, but debate exists around the details. FINE WITH WHATEVER TIEBREAK - New bidding process? Fenris has outlined a system that seems to have broad support, but debate exists around the details. - Simplification of possible salary offers? - Non-guaranteed contracts? FOR 2nd ROUND PICKS
Some players are being penalised by hefty contracts that were either not given by them (new managers) or have been forced on them by bad luck, e.g. Brandon Roy. There has been discussion that some form of relief be offered. Of course if there is no season, this becomes moot as we will likely reset.
- Contract exemptions a one of for new teams only? - Annual exception for everyone? - Special once off for everyone? YES - Dollar limit on exemption? NO - Some form of non-guaranteed contract going forward?
Smaller bits and pieces A few things I picked up going through the rules that seem more trouble than they are worth, i.e. they add extra work for the commish but don’t add obvious value to the game.
- During the off-season, every player must have between 5 and 20 players under contract at every moment. If a team violates the rule, the commish will make the necessary add/drops to bring it back within limits. - When bidding, 10k increase is allowed only if another team uses its max offer to match original teams offer. - After a player is waived, he will be placed on the FA list, but the team that dropped him won’t be allowed to bid on him or sign him to a 1 week contract for the rest of the season. Inactive list can be used to activate a player up to 10 times per season. (New roster rules may render this moot anyway).
I just played around with setting up a league on ESPN and you can set weekly games played limits when you create the league. I don't like that it forces you to use a league structure with two divisions. Plus, ESPN tends to be very rigid eligibility wise.
But I figured it was worth mentioning. Anything revolving game limits on Yahoo is going to require leg work for someone to check at the end of each week and make sure they didn't go over their weekly allotment.
Even with a commish I wouldnt expect the legwork to be done. The divisions and eligibility probs in ESPN arent dealbreakers for me, but they arent making it any easier, my experience with ESPN was limited to one season, after which I happily returned to yahoo. Makes for another option if guys dont mind the switch.
Markos - adding 4 bench slots is abot a lot more than being able to keep an injured player. It's also about drafting another 45+ players because you know people will fill those slots (I don't know where you get 30 from). This league is already pretty deep without taking away that many more players that no one is even going to use. I have no problem in general with making it a little easier toi carry an injureed player or a rookie, but this is taking things too far.
No one's making you trade your stars or flip your picks either. Do you sometimes have to pick between long term building and in-season success? Of course you do, but that's part of the game. Every keeper league and salary cap league has issues with injuries and rookies too, it's just part of the game. Most leagues don't let you stash three players with no consequence on games played, but whatever.
If you want to go back to that clumsy inactive list you go ahead and suggest it. If people agree then it's fine. Personally I think it's clumsy as hell. It's a damn sight more workable than adding four more bench slots though, so if I had to pick one your ideas to ask people to tinker with it would be the inactive list. What we need to solve is all the issues we had last season with the same idea.
Fenriss, here's what you had to say a few months back about that "clumsy inactive list"
Fenris-77 wrote:.....I'd be ok with 'inactive slots' tracked via the team's smack window though. That should work just fine, and I'm sure people will be looking for infractions. Especially if the penalties for those infractions are stiff enough.
We could have people responsible for setting thier inactive slots by, say, Saturday and midnight for a league that starts scoring on Sundays. Then, whatever's in their smack box is what their bound by. That assumes we're all good using the honour system, since you can't tracj changes to the smack window, but I'm not worried about cheats and sneaks in this league, so I think it would be fine.
Markos wrote:When you say you're against going past 15, are you including the 3 inactive slots in that 15? If so it would have to be 9 active, 3 bench and 3 inactive. Otherwise we could keep the active bench slots at 5 like last season, or perhaps drop down to 4. I'm easy either way.
Fenris-77 wrote:Yeah, I'm including the 3 inactive slots, so 9-3-3 would be the likely model, given people's obvious interest in to carrying injuries and rooks without undue harm. Essentially, each team would have 12 guys per week to do what they want with. That answers a lot of the questions about carrying injuries and rooks, but leaves the hard-core daily subs guys the option to roll with daily matchups the way they want. I think it sounds like a decent compromise.
Along with yourself, Barrec, hi chi and Scully all expressed support for the idea, which I proposed on page 3 of the "weekly lineups - INACTIVE LIST" thread . Some of the other guys like theRobsays and Red chimed in earlier with a discussion on games limits and reducing active roster slots, but that was before the 9-3-3 proposal so it's a bit unclear where they stand. Noone had expressed opposition, not until you did your 180 anyhow
I'm not putting this to a vote, you can't push every change you don't like to a vote while letting others slide through. Right now, with the current level of activity, the lack of a commissioner, and a very tight timeframe unless we either come up with a better proposal us active guys can all agree on, perhaps using game limits like DV has suggested, then the 9-3-3 proposal has as much support as any other we are debating.