While I remember, we had at least one guy bidding on a player after his season was over this year (wasn't a playoff team but playoffs were still going). This is within the current rules and I don't remember if it has happened before but it just feels a little dirty to me. Something to think about within the whole transaction deadline question.
Our home team advantage for a 2nd contract doesn't mean squat if someone else prices you out of the player. As for 3rd contracts, if I'm not mistaken can't teams offer a player a 5th year if they re-up with them vs. jetting for another team? For max. contract players we're talking about an extra 25M in guaranteed salary so that's a pretty big incentive to stay loyal.
TBH I'm not exactly sure what the best solution would be, but just adding an extra year to rookie contracts doesn't seem like it would matter all that much in the long run. When I draft a (lottery) player I want him to be part of my team for at least 6 or 7 years, that's usually when rookies become true free agents, no? Personally, I would prefer to see something like 4 year rookie contracts with 2 year team options at 3x base salary, then 2 year team options at 1.5x base salary, then they become UFA, that would be enough of an investment in such a young player to me. For example, MCW runs out at 3M in 2016, I resign him at 9M for 2 more years, then resign him at 13.5M for 2 more years; 8 guaranteed years of control before they hit the open market. It's never going to match real life exactly but at least that would mimic an actual NBA career more.
And for the record, I would only offer Wiggins 35M, if I could.
capoltorta wrote: Our home team advantage for a 2nd contract doesn't mean squat if someone else prices you out of the player.
Well, yeah but that's kinda the point. Ours is an auction league at the core. Players goes to the team that pays the most. If the home team can't (or doesn't want to) match in the RFA auction that's on them. What you seem to want is a home team guarantee rather than a home team advantage, and that's not gonna happen.
capoltorta wrote:As for 3rd contracts, if I'm not mistaken can't teams offer a player a 5th year if they re-up with them vs. jetting for another team? For max. contract players we're talking about an extra 25M in guaranteed salary so that's a pretty big incentive to stay loyal.
True, but under the old CBA, mega stars would just force sign and trades to get that 5th year and go to their team of choice. Recent examples of that include LeBron, Bosh, and Carmelo. The new CBA changed the rules so that can't happen anymore and the jury is still out as to how much it will influence players. However, we've already seen Dwight give up the 5th year to go to a better situation. Either way, this is an aspect of the CBA that doesnt easily translate to our game.
capoltorta wrote: When I draft a (lottery) player I want him to be part of my team for at least 6 or 7 years, that's usually when rookies become true free agents, no?
Well, that's what we have now. Under the current rules we have the choice to keep a drafted player for up to 7 years. Yes, you have to match the RFA winning bid after year 3, but that choice is in entirely in your hands. If you want to keep the player (and can afford to), nobody can stop you.
BTW, 7 years is about the length of an average career. Granted the players we're interested in are above average, but even then it's rare for players to play meaningful roles for more than 14 or 15 years. So in most cases we are in the drivers seat to have a player for half his career. That's not too shabby even if 2 or 3 of those years are sub-prime. Like I said before, I'd consider extending rookie deals by 1 year, but I'm not interested in anything that lets you skirt around the competitive auction process.
Ours is an auction league at the core. Players goes to the team that pays the most. If the home team can't (or doesn't want to) match in the RFA auction that's on them. What you seem to want is a home team guarantee rather than a home team advantage, and that's not gonna happen.
Actually our league is not supposed to be an auction league at the core. It was originally meant to mirror the NBA as much as possible. Many of the problems over rule changes the past 2-3 years is that people were pushing this league more and more towards a true auction league and less and less trying to mirror the NBA as was orginially intended. While it is impossible to perfectly mirror the NBA system in fantasy, I think trying to make this league as NBA-like is important and we should be mindful not to make this more of an auction league, we are all in enough auction leagues already.
The idea of giving rookie contracts the option of an extension is a good one. In the NBA teams can work out 3 year extension with their rookies post rookie deal. Yes, there are rookies out there that will have great value for an extra 3 years. That is the point. That is how real leagues work. If you are smart enough or lucky enough to get a stud or a guy who develops into a great player then you get to enjoy the benefits for a few years before the open market kicks in. This is not an auction league. What is wrong with teams getting slight benefits for a few years, not forever. The focus of this league isn't only a season, it is 5-10 years down the road. I don't care that the teams with Lebron and Durant compete to win every year right now, in 5 years that will not be the case for a team with Lebron. The point is to mirror the NBA as much as possible and not be an auction league...the teams that have Lebron and Durant have an advantage in the NBA, what is the problem with that? Also, teams that draft well through skill or luck get an advantage. Why shouldn't we mirror the system of the NBA as much as possible? That is the point of this league, to try to be more like that NBA and less like a fantasy league, not the other way around which is what several people have been pushing for the past couple of years.
Seriously, I'm not sure how you can say it's not an auction league when that is our main mechanism for distributing players. Regardless of how you want to describe our game, the problem with "extensions" is that they require a negotiation between agent/player and team. Whether or not an extension happens (and its value) depends on the caliber of the player in question, the cachet of the agent in question, recent comparable contracts etc. In our game, only the teams are sentient. We have nothing that can act as an agent. Therefore, at the risk of being Captain Obvious, negotiation does not translate to our game.
Adding an extension fudge factor like x2 rookie salary for another two years isn't actually going to mirror the NBA because in the real world, the value of an extension is not tied to the rookie scale; it's tied to the perceived value of the player. Put another way, players in the real world don't automatically accept extensions if offered. It depends on whether the team is offering enough to make it worth the player foregoing free agency. In most cases players don't accept them in fact. Last year, 6 extension eligible players received them and 12 didn't. Of those that did, most got the max or close to it: Wall, George, Cousins, Favors, Sanders. The other was Quincy Pondexter...go figure.
Obviously if the team offers the player a max extension in real life, they take it. That won't work for us though because we don't have max salaries (for good reason). For sub-max guys like Hayward and Avery Bradly, extensions didn't happen because they couldn't agree with their team on their value. The take home here is that the dynamics behind the awarding of rookie contract extensions in the NBA are complex and won't be reproduced by any rules that we can concoct.
I'm also the guy who voted to keep the 20 mil cap on salaries in order to keep tie breaker rules that allowed some mirroring of how a player may choose a team despite the fact I had no hope in hell of ever winning a tie break. The second we changed that we went down the road of being a plain old auction league. I have to agree that is what this league has become. But it didn't use to be, and it wasn't intended to be at the outset. Me owning The Brow has little to do with my opinion on this.
I understand there are enough outspoken members in this league that want this to be an auction league and to take the uniqueness out of what this league is/was as was shown last season. In my opinion rookie extensions mirror the NBA pretty closely and add a unique twist to the league. Yes, there is no perfect way to do this. Why does the system have to perfect? Sometimes imperfection makes a league a little more interesting and this league could certainly use a little more uniqueness and a step away from being a glorified auction league.
hi chi wrote: In my opinion rookie extensions mirror the NBA pretty closely and add a unique twist to the league.
Well you keep saying this, but haven't actually explained how it would work. Nobody has outside of vauge
Also, don't try and make out that the rules have been dictated by a minority of big mouths. We voted on the max salary question and a clear majority favored scraping it. There are quite a few smart people who would like to do this in the real NBA too btw.
There certainly are teams/people who would like that, but it hasn't happened yet. I'm not saying the rule changes in our league weren't passed by many. All I'm saying is that this league used to try to mirror the NBA as much as possible, not so much any more and this change started with a vocal group of managers.
As you stated there are many ways to determine contract extensions, none of which are perfect. You could use a base formula applied to previous salary, create a set of criteria that would need to be met before a rookie contract could be extended, create a max salary for coming off a rookie deal that a manager needs to offer to have a contract extension, a combination of these, etc. There are many possibilities, none of which are perfect.
Whether this issue is agreed on or not is really not all that important. My main point is that it would be nice to move this league a little bit more to its roots and a little further away from being an auction league, even if it creates slight salary imbalances like Durant and Lebron. The imbalances and imperfection are what make this league fun. If I wanted a league with perfect value for each player I wouldn't have joined this league and would have stuck to the auction leagues I was already in. The rookie extension idea is just one way to step this league back from a basic auction league and to make it a little more unique once again. It should be considered.
- I do think that we don't give enough of an edge to existing teams in trying to resign their FA's. Be that RFA, Bird rights, or just normal FA, I see them as all too weak. The current discussion around resigning draft picks I see as a subset of that.
- I don't like the extension proposal as I think it takes us too far from the auction concept and neglects the negotiation between player and team idea (basically dasein's points).
- I'd like to see the current team advantage increased in this (and other) situations. Some ideas would be to either a) give the current team a x% edge (e.g. if the current team wins that auction at $5 / $5, only charge them $4.5 / $4.5 - a 10% discount) b) allow resigning teams to offer an extra year on the contract relative to the usual years allowed at a given rate.
The first (percentage discount) could even be linked to league standing (#1 gets a 20% discount, #16 gets a 4% discount) as an anti-tanking provision and to emulate the fact that players like to resign with winning teams.