1. 2nd round picks - Implemented already 2. No in season bidding on injured bros - a two sides of the coin thing that doesn't seem to have enough support. I'd call it dead. 3. Fenris' annual FA process protest - Beaten back into it's hole until next year 4. Raising/eliminating max salary - still in discussion.
I'd be ok with eliminating max salary from a hypothetical standpoint, I just think it creates problems now trying to in the middle of the draft. But maybe it won't be as bad as I think I don't know. I don't necessarily think Lebron and Durant owners should be able to hang onto them forever, but it would be a little weird for them to not have a chance at them if guys like me were able to offer 30M and they only had 20-ish million available because of a full roster or whatever. Some discussion would be nice. A new thread?
(Past Year: 927)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.
I like raising (to $25M or $30M) or eliminating the max salary - reduces the advantage derived from historical ownership of LBJ and KD. And I agree with doing it well in advance of when they come up for auction to allow their (and other max contract owners) time to prepare for it.
I think silentjim has a very good point about the injured thing being hard as guys sometimes come back, or don't come back, in the same season unexpectedly. That tips me over the edge against it. I guess similar to the trade deadline you could have an add deadline or a waiver deadline, which would help this, but that feels to me like a far more sweeping change.
hi chi wrote:I also have no real issues with the current FA process. I think it is a fair way to go about things and rather unique. I would like to think that minimum salary increases at the start and midway through an auction become less and less of an issue over time as guys get used to the system. I also think the 24 hour window isn't all that bad, but wouldn't mind a 12 hour window. NOthing wrong with forcing guys to be more active and on the ball (I don't like the 48 hour window during the season and think it should be shorter). I do enjoy our bidding process and the time it takes. It is a fun start to the fantasy season.
As for the issue of over lapping bids, I don't see it as a huge issue if you are on the ball. It will happen from time to time no matter what you do and that is annoying, but it is a simple fix and doesn't require a completely new system. A new rule stating that if a GM is bidding on two players at once and wins both within a 24 hour window they have the right to pull the last bid submitted (they do not get to choose which bid, it must be the last bid put forth). In that case the auction then reopens with the next highest bid as the starting point.
I have been saddled with crap contracts since joining the league and this is the first year that I have been able to really participate in bidding for players. However, I have watched closely each year on almost every player being bid on. I like how our system works. I think it is different from all other leagues and that is what makes this league fun. If it were the usual process for salary cap leagues I think it would take some of the fun out this league. Just my 2 cents.
Ah the killer 48 hr clock. Made me go from paying SANDERS! something like 1.5 per too 3.6 mil per year. 46 hrs he went on a 2 year 1.5 before the bids started rolling in.
silentjim wrote: I'd be ok with eliminating max salary from a hypothetical standpoint, I just think it creates problems now trying to in the middle of the draft. But maybe it won't be as bad as I think I don't know. I don't necessarily think Lebron and Durant owners should be able to hang onto them forever, but it would be a little weird for them to not have a chance at them if guys like me were able to offer 30M and they only had 20-ish million available because of a full roster or whatever. Some discussion would be nice. A new thread?
Another bonus of no max that I think I mentioned earlier - no need for tie breakers!
I don't think it needs to be instituted for this coming FA period as there are no FAs that warrant even 20M let alone more. Having said that, I think we could change it now and not impact anything, there just isn't a need to do it that soon except maybe to give everyone another offseason of notice before they start loading up on long term money The LBJ/Durant summer isn't until the 2015 offseason, so everyone will have plenty of notice to manage their cap.
Hey fellas...boy, I've been trying to catch up with all my reading!
Ok, caught the "no-max" issue here, but know it's being discussed in the other thread.
As far as the picking up injured players, I'm with Jim in that there should be no restrictions other than the rules we have currently in place. I'm one of those who has picked up an injured player or two on a whim, hoping those contracts will pan out in the next season. The idea that we can't offer more than two years on one of those min contract deals is good enough for me to take a chance on a guy who won't be coming back until next season. Especially if I can get that guy for .25, .35, .5, etc, as opposed to 1, 2, or 3M once he's healthy. Again, I agree with Jim...if I have the space, and no one else has the foresight to bid on the guy, then so be it.
As far as the "idealistic" approach that "a player wouldn't "realistically" sign for a min deal when injured, knowing he could get much more, doesn't fly in this league. If THAT was the case, then "realistically", I could sign all my last year guys to contract extensions of some sort, because "realistically" none of those players in would want to leave me team. I've said this before in the "Max Salary" thread...as much as I'd like to mimic the real NBA, there comes a point where we have to draw the line. That point happened several seasons ago, and we can't just go making new grey areas to satisfy our need for "realism".
So keep the injured player signings as they are...if everyone is so concerned about it, then keep a million or two on your cap and a roster spot open...end of debate.
I know the horse is dead already, but whatever I'll just say it anyways. I feel like what people are really saying is that they like an advantage to be given to teams who are already not worrying about contenting the current season with regards to being able to pick up players mid-season who are out for the rest of the season for cheap. They've got nothing to lose by carrying that dead roster spot, while a team that is still aiming to win in the playoffs has a tougher decision to make, even if they actually have the money to spend on that injured player.
Just because you may be able to get away with a non-producing roster spot in this league doesn't mean that you can get away with one MORE dead roster spot against other top teams in the playoffs. Rockets tried it with LouWill and it likely cost him the semis matchup against me in the semifinals, given that we had to use a tiebreaker to break the 4-4 tie that week, and had he had a guy that could have contributed say, 1 steal over the course of the week instead of LouWill, he would have won instead of lost that matchup. If I had picked up Lou instead and tried to carry the dead weight through the playoffs it seems really unlikely I would have eeked out those playoff wins either. Ditto on if I had held onto Amare after he was ruled out for the year instead of picking up Brandan Wright like I did.
IDK, it's just acting like it's solely a lack of foresight that is keeping a contending team from wanting to try and sign a guy who 100% can not help them in the current season rubs me the wrong way. If you're not worried about the current season, and you want to benefit from that by signing a guy for cheap that can not possibly help you in the current season, that's fine and all, but let's call a spade a spade. You're gaining an advantage over teams that are trying to win presently by signing that guy, and it's not just because the contending teams don't have enough forsight that you are getting the injured guy at an artificially low price. It's because they have more possible consequences to making such a decision than you do.
dcdoorknob wrote:Just because you may be able to get away with a non-producing roster spot in this league doesn't mean that you can get away with one MORE dead roster spot against other top teams in the playoffs. Rockets tried it with LouWill and it likely cost him the semis matchup against me in the semifinals, given that we had to use a tiebreaker to break the 4-4 tie that week, and had he had a guy that could have contributed say, 1 steal over the course of the week instead of LouWill, he would have won instead of lost that matchup. If I had picked up Lou instead and tried to carry the dead weight through the playoffs it seems really unlikely I would have eeked out those playoff wins either. Ditto on if I had held onto Amare after he was ruled out for the year instead of picking up Brandan Wright like I did.
Forgive me, because I'm not trying to call you out on this or make light of it, and I really honestly don't remember how that matchup went down...but, not having another guy on the bench made a difference?!? If THAT'S the case, then I'd fault the BOTH of you on that one...Rockets for not being able to field one more guy out of 8 OTHERS who could have gotten him that steal...and YOU for not being able to pummel the bejeezus out of him with your bench.
You see how silly that sounds?
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here. With only the 8 active roster spots, if I had a halfway decent team, I could have made that matchup just as close, wouldn't matter if I had 6, 7 or 8 guys on my bench. That's why we have such deep benches in the first place. Basically, what you're implying then is that we should go to 18 deep, or 20. That's the ONLY way I see this argument having any validity. I know your not SAYING that...but that's the take here...that having that ONE MORE SPOT for a non-injured player, could have made a difference.
I'm sorry, but in my mind, it wouldn't have made a difference at all. It doesn't change the fact that you had at least 8 solid players who got you to that point in the playoffs. And I don't think carrying LouWill lost Rockets that matchup...it's the one guy on his roster who could/should have gotten him two more steals which lost him that matchup. It has nothing to do with holding onto a guy for next season. How many of the winning managers had "injuries" or "prospects" on their benches? And they still made the playoffs and/or won, right?
Nope...again, I mean you no disrespect, cause I DO see you trying to back up your argument...but honestly, I don't see it.
The matchuyp was tied 4-4. We had to go to a tiebreaker, which was whoever won the regular season matchup iirc. The tied category was steals, so 1 more steal for Rockets would have meant him winning and me losing.
Of course having a guy that played 1 game (on a non-heavy day so he'd be in the lineup) and got 1 steal that week instead of LouWill (who played 0 games and got 0 steals obviously) would have made the difference. IIRC points and rebounds were also really darn close, so an extra 5-10 or so would have swung it too. You can not buy it all you want as long as you don't mind being wrong.
I get the argument that having LouWill couldn't have done him any good in an active matchup.
But that's not the issue here. Like I said, I don't remember how the matchup went down...but I'm ALMOST CERTAIN having LouWill on his roster DID NOT hinder Rockets in any way. NOT with a 16 MAN ROSTER, where he could have gone out and gotten ANYBODY who played minutes, just to gain that extra game and have an extra chance at beating you.
Again, I don't remember how the matchup went down...but you're saying you managed to play ALL 16 of your players that week?!? Hell, there are times I can't even get all my "active" guys in a slot, much less my "rookies"/"prospects"/"injured players"! I mean, if that's how you managed to do it, and you took Rockets to a 4-4 tie, then kudos to him for having one less guy than you, and standing you down toe-to-toe. AND, kudos to you for managing your roster SO WELL, with 16 ACTIVE GUYS no less, to put yourself in that position to win, even in a tie-break situation.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that you need 16 ACTIVE, HEALTHY PLAYERS to win in this league. It's simply overkill. And the format's not set up to maximize those players anyway! It's set up to have a competitive team, while still being able to hang on to a rookie or two, and maybe an injured player while he gets healthy.
And if that's being wrong...well then, I don't want to be right!