Max Salary Discussion - Fantasy Basketball Cafe 2014
Fantasy Basketball Cafe


Return to FBC Salary Cap

Max Salary Discussion

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

Re: Max Salary Discussion

Postby Fenris-77 » Fri Aug 16, 2013 7:26 pm

dcdoorknob wrote:What I don't understand is why you think that's a problem. Currently, as I understand it, dasein (or whoever) has to look at 9 categories as punted categories individually for each and every player. All I am suggesting is to only look at 1 punted cat for each player (instead of all 9 individually), and let which one that is be designated by the team owners for their own players. It isn't doing anything that isn't already being done, it is just taking away 8/9ths of the work since I don't think that 8/9ths of the work is even beneficial or necessary.

The problem for me is how easy the system would be to manipulate. Especially as regards turning non-star players into stars. If I can punt a cat and add three stars to the mix why wouldn't I? Even if I'm not actually punting that cat I can just run my team through each punt option in BBM and see what gets me the most star players. Even worse if I can pick a different punt for each player, then things spiral out of control completely. It's going to generate a ridiculous number of star players and that takes a lot of the usefulness out of the system.

It would be less work, and that part I'm on board with, but I don't like a system that would be so easy to manipulate.
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: 6300
(Past Year: 410)
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Max Salary Discussion

Postby Da Ruhl » Fri Aug 16, 2013 7:32 pm

All,

Appears to me that there are four main intertwined issues here:

1) What is the max cap? As previously mentioned, there is an implicit max cap of $75 - min roster size * min contract, so no max cap is not really an option. I think there are 3 main ideas here:

a) $20 (no change)
b) greater than the likely max value of the best player
c) greater than the likely max bid of the most expensive player

Those advocating for c) seem to mostly prefer it because it means we don't need...

2) The tiebreak system. Although it should be noted that technically a tie can still occur (if an owner matches a bid that maxes out his cap space), so even with 1c) we'd still likely want a rule to handle that (unlikely) scenario. The issues with the tiebreak system include:

a) too much work
b) too complex
c) too gameable

but mostly the fact that it only matters for max players where the decision is typically driven solely by...

3) Bird rights, which are overpowered for max players where they basically guarantee retention and underpowered for everyone else where they are almost useless. The root issue seems to me to be the combination of a max contract below top players' values and super-valuable Bird rights for those players (with no value to other player's Birds rights) is making those players over-powered game-breakers, which leads to a desire to make the rules more fair. Of course, any change that makes the rules more fair...

4) is unfair to the folks that have done a good job maximing their benefit from the current rules. Hard to avoid this as a one-time benefit to those owners seems an unlikely option (just KD and LBJ owners? any max contract owner? Anthony Davis owner who is targeting being a future beneficiary?) Unless we decide this concern is large enough to not change at all, best we can do is make a decision with substantial lead time before it becomes effective and try to balance any changes among the three points above to even out who is benefitted/hurt buy the change.

Feels to me like any proposal needs to address (albeit not necessarily change) 1-3 above (max cap, tiebreak, Bird rights) as they are all intertwined. Perhaps we can move from discussion to specific proposals. I'd propose:

1) max cap $35
2) any remaining ties broken randomly (is fair to all and we already use randomness for the draft - also is simple and easy to implement)
3) Bird rights give bidding owner a 2.5% bump to contract value for bidding purposes only (not a cost against salary cap). Bird rights owner is responsible for noting their Bird rights and modified contract value in their bid post - if they don't, they don't get the Bird benefit for the bid.

I view this as fairer, simpler, less work, and the Bird rights modification introduces a wrinkle that evens out who is helped/hurt by the change, helps address some potential gaming around mid/late season drops, and makes long-term roster strategy more interesting.

Thanks and sorry for the long post!

-DR
Da Ruhl
High School Hoopster
High School Hoopster


Posts: 162
(Past Year: 153)
Joined: 23 Jul 2013
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Max Salary Discussion

Postby So-Tex » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:23 pm

Da Ruhl wrote:1) What is the max cap? As previously mentioned, there is an implicit max cap of $75 - min roster size * min contract, so no max cap is not really an option.

I don't really understand this statement, although I get that you're proposing a max salary limit of $35.

The cap limit for each roster has nothing to do with it. We could have A $50M cap limit on our rosters, and it still wouldn't change what the market would dictate the top players should be paid. If someone wants to keep LBJ forever, let them keep blowing $40, $45, $50M dollars, and so on. Otherwise, there should be a point where they feel it's not worth keeping him, and LBJ moves on to another owner. Eventually, he'll be worth LESS than that amount, as he gets older and starts to fade. Thus, the market will dictate that he's worth LESS and LESS as time goes by. You can still be smart with your money, and NOT have to keep LBJ.

I agree that this league is unique in how it's set up...but I don't agree that putting no max on player's salaries turns this into just any old auction league. If that's the sentiment, then we need to reset. Because frankly, I've done the best job with my roster that I possibly could...but if there's little to no chance I'd ever get to see a LBJ or Durant, then there's really no reason to go through the motions.

See, this was the problem I had with the league when I first joined. It was heavily weighed on success during the season, with no opportunities to improve your "bad" squad other than the free agent bidding period, and maybe trading for draft picks. So, if my team finished last in the league, even if I was active till the very last day, I STILL wouldn't have had the best shot at getting the top rookie next season. Why? Because I would have finished so poorly in the standings. That made NO SENSE to me at the time...an active manager who wasn't tanking on purpose, gets NO HELP from next year's rookie draft. Betcha Cap wouldn't have made all those deals for draft picks this season if THAT type of setting was in place. }:-)

Fortunately, we changed all that. Made the trading rules less restrictive, made it easier to trade draft picks who have no real monetary value. And we have a system in place that allows for the bottom end teams to get the higher end draft picks each year, as it should be.

And now, I'd be in favor of a no max limit on any NBA player contract. Rookies can still be drafted under the "Rookie Contract" settings. But once that contract ends, let the market decide their value. Just as it is with the "elites". When their contracts come up, let the market decide their value(s).

I mean, realistically, if we can't have something like this, then what I see next coming up is another restriction, this time on player contracts. "Elite" players can only be signed to two year contracts. At least THEN, we'd HAVE to address all the tie-breaker issues, because THEN it would be used quite often. And can you imagine the debates and headaches we'd be having over THOSE types of issues? Quite frankly, I think that would be WORSE than simply lifting the limit on player contracts, and LETTING THE MARKET DECIDE. }:-)

There came a time when we decided if this league should strictly "mimic" the NBA as much as possible, or become it's OWN type of league, with it's OWN set of unique rules and circumstances. We crossed that line several seasons ago. And I'm in a few keeper leagues, as well as an auction re-draft, and in NO WAY does THIS league feel like ANY of those others...WHATSOEVER! ;-D
Image
So-Tex
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1039
(Past Year: 217)
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: South Texas, USA

Re: Max Salary Discussion

Postby Da Ruhl » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:38 pm

To clarify So-Tex's question:

Right now our rules include:

- Max team salary of $75MM
- Minimum contract of $0.25MM
- Minimum roster size (in-season) of 11

Therefore, no player is allowed to have a max contract (by our rules) of $75MM - 10 * $0.25MM = $72.5MM - it is an "implicit" max contract cap even if we have no explicit max contract rule.

Or, in other words, everybody's proposals, explicitly or implicitly, include some max. I think those maxes break into three categories:

a) stay with $20MM
b) be higher than max player value (we can argue, but generally probably somewhere in the $30's)
c) be higher than anyone would ever bid for a player (i.e. "no max" which really means $72.5MM) above

Or, put differently, I don't think there is any practical difference between a max of $60 and no max (which is really $72.5MM). Once the max gets above what anybody would bid for a player, it's all the same.

Hope that clarifies!

-DR

PS I agree that none of the changes currently being discussed would turn this into a pure auction league.
Da Ruhl
High School Hoopster
High School Hoopster


Posts: 162
(Past Year: 153)
Joined: 23 Jul 2013
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Max Salary Discussion

Postby dcdoorknob » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:48 pm

Fenris-77 wrote:The problem for me is how easy the system would be to manipulate. Especially as regards turning non-star players into stars. If I can punt a cat and add three stars to the mix why wouldn't I? Even if I'm not actually punting that cat I can just run my team through each punt option in BBM and see what gets me the most star players. Even worse if I can pick a different punt for each player, then things spiral out of control completely. It's going to generate a ridiculous number of star players and that takes a lot of the usefulness out of the system.

It would be less work, and that part I'm on board with, but I don't like a system that would be so easy to manipulate.


I am NOT suggesting that someone could pick a different punt for each player. I'm saying you should be able to pick one punt category for your whole team.

A different punt for each player is, essentially, the current system though, except that dasein (or whoever) has to run all 9 punt possibilities for every player himself. If you don't like that spiraling out of control effect you mention then you should be in favor of changing the current system.
dcdoorknob
High School Hoopster
High School Hoopster

Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 340
(Past Year: 125)
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Max Salary Discussion

Postby Fenris-77 » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:48 pm

dcdoorknob wrote:A different punt for each player is, essentially, the current system though, except that dasein (or whoever) has to run all 9 punt possibilities for every player himself. If you don't like that spiraling out of control effect you mention then you should be in favor of changing the current system.
What that does is factor in some of the value for punt guys like Dwight (although less than Dwight deserves IMO). And while I've been clear about my desire to change the change the current system, that doesn't mean I have to agree that ranking 'Stars' with a punted category is good idea. I think it's a terrible idea. Terrible because of how it'll get abused of course, not because it's a stupid idea - I do get what you're trying for there.
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: 6300
(Past Year: 410)
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Max Salary Discussion

Postby dasein » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:58 am

silentjim wrote:
DVauthrin wrote:
scully19 wrote:2 players make more than 20 mill makes this a run of the mill auction league? We still have drafts, multi year contracts, RFA, bird rights, but because of 2 players we are now an auction league?


Again, I think if people could go to 25M etc on Harden, Curry, CP3, they would. Having a top 10 player to build around is huge. And it's not hard to find bargains to fill out your roster, especially if you are smart and let others blow their FA money before you.

And what's also bothering is me is that the no max people are getting a bit testy when those that aren't in favor bring up a dissenting viewpoint. Discussion is good, but we don't need to get upset when people disagree. If we put this to a league vote, and no max wins, I'll survive and be just fine, for what it's worth.


I agree that more players might go for 20+ if we increase or have no limit on the cap. I'd consider it myself so I'm sure others will as well.

For the record if we're going to toss out dollar values based on BBM ranks, keep in mind this is a 16 team 16 player league, which makes the values different than standard cat.


Sure, Harden and a couple others could go for a bit more than 20 once their current contracts expire. That's fine and it's on individual managers to decide what they're worth to them. That's the whole point of no max. I still don't understand why some think this would necessitate a redraft though.

Jim, the dollar values depend on 3 variables - the salary cap (75M), the number of active roster spots (8), and the number of teams (16). We could give ourselves 8, 10, or 20 bench spots. It won't change players' dollar values because none of those extra guys will play. I don't want to give away my exact method of valuation, but I will say if you're using a pool of 16 x 16 players, you're undervaluing everyone.

And I'm not sure if I'm being testy or not. I've got no problem with people having a different viewpoint. I do get frustrated when people miss the point after I've gone to great pains trying to explain myself clearly. I try to understand what the other guy is saying. I'd hope others do the same.
dasein
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach

User avatar

Posts: 918
(Past Year: 435)
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Max Salary Discussion

Postby dasein » Sat Aug 17, 2013 3:04 am

On the Fenris - dc debate.

I get what you're both saying, but think that the elephant in the room is still the fact that the system dictates that the rich get richer. Assuming that this would be operating with an increased max salary, it is only likely to apply to LeDurant. So we're quibling about how to ensure that LeDurant goes to the most stacked team. Am I the only one that thinks this is a little nuts?
dasein
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach

User avatar

Posts: 918
(Past Year: 435)
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Max Salary Discussion

Postby So-Tex » Sat Aug 17, 2013 3:43 am

dasein wrote:On the Fenris - dc debate.

I get what you're both saying, but think that the elephant in the room is still the fact that the system dictates that the rich get richer. Assuming that this would be operating with an increased max salary, it is only likely to apply to LeDurant. So we're quibling about how to ensure that LeDurant goes to the most stacked team. Am I the only one that thinks this is a little nuts?

I think I'm following everything on this debate. And I agree, to a point, that we need to specify certain things so the system doesn't get "abused" going forward.

But in all honesty, I think we're getting off track here...it's simply a tangent to the real issue. If we were to settle the "no-max" issue by instilling a "no-max" on contracts, that would pretty much end that other debate.

It's all good input and discussion and all. And I know we still need to address those issues to the current set of rules. I just don't think they should be discussed in this particular thread as much...if anything, because they're distracting from the true debate at hand.
Image
So-Tex
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1039
(Past Year: 217)
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: South Texas, USA

Re: Max Salary Discussion

Postby dcdoorknob » Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:13 am

dasein wrote:On the Fenris - dc debate.

I get what you're both saying, but think that the elephant in the room is still the fact that the system dictates that the rich get richer. Assuming that this would be operating with an increased max salary, it is only likely to apply to LeDurant. So we're quibling about how to ensure that LeDurant goes to the most stacked team. Am I the only one that thinks this is a little nuts?


I think a system that ensures that LeDurant goes to the worst team would be unquestionably worse. Talk about tanking. I know that's not what you're advocating, I'm just saying.

I don't have a problem with the idea of an owner who has managed to accumulate both quality talent under contract and simultaneously max cap space (whatever that is) to offer a FA being rewarded for their quality team management skills.
Last edited by dcdoorknob on Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
dcdoorknob
High School Hoopster
High School Hoopster

Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 340
(Past Year: 125)
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

PreviousNext

Return to FBC Salary Cap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nykos and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues




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