Before addressing these points, I just want to reiterate that I like the current system, and am by no means pushing for changes. I would however like to debate this academically, if that's alright. If not, please ignore the following.
Agreed. That is why I never suggested such a thing. I suggested literally using the cap room you have to determine your cap space available. Just like the NBA. The current system effectively ties roster slots available to cap space available in free agency - and I agree that it is not in the spirit of the NBA CBA.Tying roster spots available to cap space available (more roster spots free results in more cap space) does not capture the spirit of the NBA CBA.
The benefits of doing all that is that you get to keep your players without ever letting them go to free agency. Why do you get additional benefits of having best bid on free agents? Seems like that is a) a secondary benefit and b) an unintended consequence."How would you be punished in free agency? You'd have just as much money, on average, per slot you need to fill, as everyone else."
You'd be punished by losing the benefits of staggering your years, finding diamonds in the rough, making smart trades, drafting wisely. Giving everyone the same ratio for free agency based on roster size is like assigning grades in school based on attendance.
See, it seems to me that that is a good description of the current system. Team B, you've allocated your cap space (well or terribly, doesn't matter) and almost filled your roster, so you get an A. Team A, you haven't filled it as much (whether you have good players or bad), so you get a B. Both teams are being rewarded/penalized based on their roster size, while the deciding factor (in the NBA) of actual cap space (read: test scores in your analogy) is ignored entirely.**Johnny You got all your answers wrong on your test but you've been here everyday....here is an A+!**
**Now billy you aced this exam but you missed 2 weeks of school when you broke your leg. All that hard work you did to ensure you succeeded and didn't fall behind doesn't really matter. I'm sorry but you're only going to get a B.**
Yes, and if YOU screw up, I want to be able to bid on your player you let slip, rather than be outbid by someone who happens to have a more full roster than me. If you take the approach where players are rewarded for letting middling talent go, you enrich the free agent pool. Obviously no one is letting LeBron James walk to get more cap room."Right now, teams who let their free agents go and give the league more flexibility and fun in free agency are the ones being punished."
The whole point is to not let your best players go to free agency! If you do that then you've screwed up!!!
You've ignored my point entirely. I stated that even if everyone keeps money back for waivers (thus preventing the scenario you outline above where one has to wait for players to clear waivers) the team with a larger roster (and probable higher cap) has the inherent advantage. Hence the $190 number and not $200. In other words, the team with a smaller roster has to keep back less money for waivers for both teams to be on equal footing in free agency."There are consequences to spending the entire $200. So let's assume all players have the same reservations about not having waiver wire money, and keep back $10. Now Team B's $190 beats Team A's $189."
You've missed point entirely or are choosing to ignore it: by spending all $200 you're giving up right to partake in waiver wire. The only players you can add are unrestricted. That means everyone has had an opportunity to sign the player before you do; you need to wait until they are unrestricted. That doesn't matter if you have 1 spot or 7 spots to fill in free agency.
Perhaps unfair is the wrong word. Odd, I guess is the way I would describe it, and opposite to how it is in the NBA."Reality is, all other things being equal, both teams being willing to take the same risks on waiver wire budget, whatever amount that may be, Team B has an unfair advantage in free agency. "
Where are the unfair advantages? This is not a one year league. All teams are operating under same rules for last 2-3 years.
Err, how so? I'm not punishing them. They get to keep those diamonds in the rough, and that's great. Those diamonds in the rough are not available, to other teams, no matter how much cap space they have, because the shrewd teams already have them."That's this year as it stands, in non-dead salary (no waived players). See? There is clustering, and there are exceptions, but the general rule holds - more roster spots = more salary committed.
You're a great example - you have 14 players and 30 years assigned - exactly in line with the trend line created."
Your data ignores some teams either not declaring resigns, only doing 1 resign, signing and trading resigned players, unequal years traded between end of season, different number of years being assigned to players.
For this to be accurate and "fair" you would need to do salary cap allocation before resigned players are added to total. If not you are once again punishing a team for good management of expiring players or finding diamonds in the rough and not only obtaining but finding means to keep those diamonds before they become desirable.
Just like Bird Rights free agents have cap holds, it only makes sense to count the re-signings before calculating cap space.
False. I used all the current rosters. Ballswin's team is low on both scales because of his re-signs not being posted, but I've incorporated all other transactions and announced re-signs, even if they are not in the cap sheet."Anyway, see those two dots at the low end? They have very little salary or roster spots combined, and will have the least bidding power come Oct 26th. Why are those teams being punished?"
Because ballswin hasn't given his resigns yet and koncept hasn't had his resigns updated to the current cap sheets.
Yes, teams should be rewarded for shrewd management. They are rewarded with a) having good players and b) being able to re-sign them. Just like in the NBA. NBA teams don't get a nonsensical bonus advantage in free agency just because they have more players signed. In the NBA, teams are rewarded with long term stability if they sign long term deals, and real the benefits in internal growth (by keeping their players off the market). Or teams are rewarded with free agency advantages if they sign short term deals, freeing up cap room. Teams don't get the benefit of both. Here they can."This pattern applies over the entire league - the players who are most foolhardy and tie up the most cap long term will TEND to have the least roster spots available, and thus the highest likelihood of landing a top free agent."
TEND being operative word. Not a given. If a team does that and are very good, shouldn't they be rewarded for shrewd player management? If a team does that and are bad, so what? They're going to be bad.
No, I don't. There's plenty of risk no matter which way you go. Risk is always there. That doesn't change the fact that the current system rewards roster allocation In a way the NBA does not."It's a troubling pattern, and as teams notice it, you'll see more and more players aiming to have those situations come up where they have only 1 open spot, allowing them to pick up whoever they like in free agency. "
But you ignore the risk by the owner. They are either going to lose a lot of good players at some point going into free agency in a future year with a lot of roster spots to fill or they are going to be stuck with bad contracts or waived contracts counting against their cap for many years. If they are good there is nothing wrong with the system.
Who said anything about 100% success rates? Less and less does not equal none. Already you have a system where Patrick Beverley gets bid on for $97. As good players get picked up and locked in, that effect is only going to become more extreme unless there is more incentive to sign players to shorter deals, like in the NBA. Anyway, that's a side note. I understand the current system works - my argument is the proposed one would be simpler and more like the NBA."Of course, the side effect of this is an extremely suppressed free agency, since less and less players will be let go at the end of each year."
I've yet to see a 100% success rate in free agency - fantasy or real like nba. That is what it would take to reach this state and it would take numerous years of 100% success among all teams.
Getting players before they become known and structuring their roster to be able to keep them is a great strategy in the NBA as well. Of course, they don't do away with the idea of cap space based free agency, so why do we? I'm not assuming anything about whether signings will work out. I'm pointing out who is getting an advantage in this system (players with less open roster spots) and that it is odd to give an advantage that way, when the traditional NBA way is cap space."That's just a side effect though - the main issue is the competitive advantage given to teams who will tend to be in the worse cap situation."
Isn't that bird rights?
And if this is all true why were the knicks so bad for so long?
Again you're assuming every free agent signing will work out and that just isn't going to happen.
Your conclusions also ignore our league only has 240 players out of 430-450 NBA players. You don't think during the course of a season those bottom half players will make it to the top half? As I said before, owners need to obtain players before they become known and then structure their roster to be able to keep them.
Yes, the most money. I'd have no problem with two teams with lots of cap space outbidding each other for top free agents. But you didn't see Parsons sign with SAS. Why? Because SAS follow the great model of finding talent early and not letting other teams have it later by organizing their cap intelligently. And as a result, they do not have cap space to offer top free agents. It is not a punishment for them - it is the reality of the NBA system, and a reality that is not reflected in Dynasty."it's just not at all like the NBA, where the second tier free agents (max or near max guys who don't really deserve it, see Parsons, Hayward, etc, which aligns pretty well with our "best guys who don't get re-signed" in Dynasty) don't just go to winners - they go where the money is greatest."
Not accurate. Parsons went to mavs who took champion spurs to 7 games in first round while Hayward would have gone to up and coming hornets except for RFA and were left to sign Stephenson. They went to most money and a chance to win.
Also, as you noted, the bottom 200 players won't be on any teams in this league, so the "bottom" players in our league getting paid slightly over league average salary doesn't seem crazy.
This is a great example lot support moving to my proposed system. The Spurs do a great job by finding guys before anyone else (ie not having to bid for them in free agency) and keeping their team together by managing their cap well. And as a result, they never have much of a chance in free agency. But the current system would actually give the Spurs the pick of the free agency litter. In the NBA, they don't get that. They don't have the cap space for it.I believe the current system strikes a fine balance. As to the argument earlier about most teams not carrying near full rosters, well, there is one team who routinely does - the spurs. They keep all their main pieces under contract and tinker on the edges. They grow from within and are conservative in their contract extensions. They are a franchise of stability. The current rules allow for such stability if you too find players before they become known.
Now, maybe it would be a better world if teams like the Spurs were rewarded for their vigilance with an advantage in free agency, and maybe that's what you are going for here. That's fine, but my point is that this system does not replicate the NBA system do punishing teams who have lots of talent already signed.
When did I say every player had to be picked up on waivers? No one said that. I'd keep the ability to grab a free agent in-season for nothing, and to be able to re-sign them at the end of the year if you have cap space when you pick them up. Where did I ever even suggest I wanted to be rid of that feature - I think it's brilliant.The issue I have with the discussion is by having every player needing to picked up on waivers you're creating a hard cap. That is not how the nba operates. You can always pick up an unrestricted free agent....but you might not always be able to keep them. Our league mimics this pretty good if you ask me.