OFFICIAL SCL RULES - Fantasy Basketball Cafe 2014
Fantasy Basketball Cafe


Return to FBC Salary Cap

OFFICIAL SCL RULES

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

Re: OFFICIAL SCL RULES

Postby silentjim » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:28 pm

dasein wrote:
silentjim wrote: I was thinking that maybe the first two years shouldn't change.


What's your reasoning behind that?

I understand that because the idea is to allow these guys to be stashes, we don't want them to be a heavy burden on the cap, we also need to balance this against the end of 1st round contracts so that they don't end up being better assets than 1st round picks.

[0.5, 0.5, 0.75] feels a bit light compared to 1, 1.5, [2] And when you consider the first 2 years cost more and are guaranteed, I'd say under this scenario pick 2.01>>1.16 which isn't really what we want.

How about [0.5, 1, 1.5] ?

The first year stays the same, but years 2 and 3 are the same as years 1 and 2 on a late first rounder. You have to pay something for the stash, but you always have that get out of jail free card in the form of the TO.

Or theres always the [0.5, 0.75, 1] which I first posted. It feels like something of a compromise now.


Since the contracts aren't guaranteed, I'd simply drop a second rounder and then pick him back up on a min .25M, .25M deal. This is one of the reasons I thought the first year should be guaranteed if we moved forward with three year deals for second rounders.

This is a cool idea, I'm just not sure how often it would be implemented to be honest. Most second rounders will probably be dropped, and as I said you could draft one, and drop him and then pick him up for much cheaper.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11516
(Past Year: 632)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: OFFICIAL SCL RULES

Postby nsink » Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:00 pm

True, but then he'd be on the FA market, so he'd be fair game to all
nsink
College Captain
College Captain


Posts: 399
(Past Year: 115)
Joined: 7 Dec 2011
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: OFFICIAL SCL RULES

Postby silentjim » Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:07 pm

nsink wrote:True, but then he'd be on the FA market, so he'd be fair game to all


Very true, but its probably a gamble most would be willing to take since there won't be too much cap space floating around.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11516
(Past Year: 632)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: OFFICIAL SCL RULES

Postby dasein » Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:12 pm

Also, you can't sign him the year you drop him, but that probably doesn't matter for this argument because we're presumably talking about guys that won't do anything in the first year.
dasein
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach

User avatar

Posts: 982
(Past Year: 387)
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: OFFICIAL SCL RULES

Postby dasein » Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:25 pm

silentjim wrote:
Since the contracts aren't guaranteed, I'd simply drop a second rounder and then pick him back up on a min .25M, .25M deal. This is one of the reasons I thought the first year should be guaranteed if we moved forward with three year deals for second rounders.

This is a cool idea, I'm just not sure how often it would be implemented to be honest. Most second rounders will probably be dropped, and as I said you could draft one, and drop him and then pick him up for much cheaper.


Was too tired last night to reply properly, but I do want to keep the idea alive.

I see where you're coming from now. I actually think what your point highlights is the possibility that our current 1st round contracts are too high relative to the minimum given the level of rookie production. But that's a whole can of worms I don't even want to look at. :-o

So what do we have? Lets list the constraints:

1. We don't want the first year guaranteed because this forces managers to roster players they don't really want, which is silly.
2. We don't want the salary to be so low that 2nd rounders are more desirable than 1sts
3. We don't want it to be so high relative to the minimum that nobody uses them.

I think you're right that making them closer in value to 1st round picks just means they wont be used, so we might have to keep em low and just trust that the value of being first in holds more often than not (which it probably will).

So how about continuing the contract size based on position then. Maybe

2.01 to 2.08 get [0.5, 0.5, 0.5] and 2.09 to 2.16 get [0.25, 0.25, 0.25]

Or just have them all [0.5, 0.5, 0.5] if that's too much ass.

People would use this if you had someone you wanted to stash right? The extra 0.25M from dropping wouldn't be enough to make you give up the RFA rights.

We'd still have the problem that 2.01 is probably better than 1.16, but I now can't see how we can really address that without lowering 1st round contracts and that would just be too hard. But taking on the extra year would mean more assets and the upside of having more assets floating around must be good right?
dasein
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach

User avatar

Posts: 982
(Past Year: 387)
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: OFFICIAL SCL RULES

Postby Da Ruhl » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:01 pm

I don't see that 2.01 being worth more than 1.16 is that big a deal, to be honest.

a) Not different than reality in current NBA where first 2nd round pick may be worth more than last 1st round pick

b) You could argue we already have that "problem" in that 1.11 (1M 1.5M [2M]) may well be worth more than 1.10 (2M 2.5M [3M]) - unless of course the guy at 1.10 will take who you want at 1.11. I'd argue this is mostly the same dynamic as 1.16 / 2.01.

Just my 2c - although I don't feel strongly, it would be nice for 2nd rounds to feel a bit more useful and I don't think 1.16 vs. 2.1 issues should be a holdup.

Thanks!

-DR
Da Ruhl
High School Hoopster
High School Hoopster


Posts: 185
(Past Year: 149)
Joined: 23 Jul 2013
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: OFFICIAL SCL RULES

Postby silentjim » Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:31 pm

Da Ruhl wrote:I don't see that 2.01 being worth more than 1.16 is that big a deal, to be honest.

a) Not different than reality in current NBA where first 2nd round pick may be worth more than last 1st round pick

b) You could argue we already have that "problem" in that 1.11 (1M 1.5M [2M]) may well be worth more than 1.10 (2M 2.5M [3M]) - unless of course the guy at 1.10 will take who you want at 1.11. I'd argue this is mostly the same dynamic as 1.16 / 2.01.

Just my 2c - although I don't feel strongly, it would be nice for 2nd rounds to feel a bit more useful and I don't think 1.16 vs. 2.1 issues should be a holdup.

Thanks!

-DR


Agreed. I don't see it as that big of a deal either.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11516
(Past Year: 632)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: OFFICIAL SCL RULES

Postby Fenris-77 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 7:03 pm

Or, just like the NBA, we could allow GMs to set the terms of their second round contracts provided a minimum floor was respected. I don't think the .5/.5 base is actually too much since no one is being forced to pay it, but I'd have no problem with people adding on years to that second round deal. If someone wants to gamble on some future upside, .5 x four years isn't a huge premium to pay.

Really the league has enough bench slots relative to active slots that carrying a second round guy to see how he pans out isn't a huge deal anyway. If the issue at hand here is cap space a far (far) bigger problem is the mechanics of our bidding system and the tendency for contracts to get padded that way. With our salary cap a half-million dollar contract shouldn't be an issue, nor am I really behind rules that seem mostly designed to shoe-horn a little extra talent onto cap strangled teams (like my team, before anyone thinks I'm being self-serving here :-b ).

I do think that people should perhaps be able to retain the rights to second rounders they don't pick up though. That might require a waivers system of some sort, but it's possible and would keep a little more value on that second round pick.

As I think about it, there's another option. If people really aren't using the second round picks we could always phase them out entirely. :-? Those rookies could just become part of the FA pool instead.
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: OFFICIAL SCL RULES

Postby scully19 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:02 pm

I didn't answer the first group thing because honestly I don't know where I stand at this point. I am personally leaning more towards keeping everything the same, and am not huge on giving he 2nd round picks 3 years since it is longer than we can give everyone else at that value, but i can also see the point. In the end I'm mostly on the fence and will be fine with either.
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


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

Re: OFFICIAL SCL RULES

Postby dasein » Sat Aug 10, 2013 3:41 am

Fenris-77 wrote:Or, just like the NBA, we could allow GMs to set the terms of their second round contracts provided a minimum floor was respected. I don't think the .5/.5 base is actually too much since no one is being forced to pay it, but I'd have no problem with people adding on years to that second round deal. If someone wants to gamble on some future upside, .5 x four years isn't a huge premium to pay.


Seems like a lame duck amendment unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. If you mean choosing the salary amount, then nobody would choose anything but the minimum because there's no reason to do so. I know you're not dumb so you must mean they have the ability to choose extra years. Ok, but functionally that's no different than starting off with 3 TO years. Allowing an optional 4th year is interesting, but also feels a little a little weird in relation to the rest of the contract rules. And assuming it was also a TO, there's no reason why you wouldn't do it by default, so might as well just start off with 2nd rounders being [0.5 x4] in that case.

Fenris-77 wrote: I do think that people should perhaps be able to retain the rights to second rounders they don't pick up though. That might require a waivers system of some sort, but it's possible and would keep a little more value on that second round pick.


Didn't we already move away from a waiver type system because it was too much ass? Smells like work to me.

Fenris-77 wrote: As I think about it, there's another option. If people really aren't using the second round picks we could always phase them out entirely. :-? Those rookies could just become part of the FA pool instead.


Yeah, I mentioned this in my original post on the subject. I prefer keeping the second round though simply because drafts are fun. Worth trying to revamp it a bit before cutting it I reckon.
dasein
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach

User avatar

Posts: 982
(Past Year: 387)
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
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 13:12 hours
(and 68 days)


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