KEEPING IT REAL Wins!! RR NBA Dynasty League - S2

[skywalker]

Bold 1: Not true. Mack North is in same situation.

Bold 2: Also not true. I'm contemplating waiving Jack to get a shot at another player.

Bold 3: What is the difference than in the NBA when a team brings up a D-League player? It is a Jeremy Lin situation.

Bold 4: What is the difference between that and an NBA team offering a D-League player or a player who just finished in China or Europe a contract? Guys who aren't signed and are minimum contracts are the equivalent of minimum contract players. NBA teams can add and drop minimum players as they want. HOwever in our league each add and drop counts as a year and you only get 40. The consequence for doing this is if you do come across a player you want to have moving forward, you might not be able to keep him. I hate to pick on jbml but he is in the current situation. In the NBA you don't' see it happening because it actually costs real money and there are luxury tax ramifications.

BOld 5: Your thinking is backwards.
Years in Dynasty = actually money in the NBA
The lower the roster spaces in Dynasty = The greater the cap space in the NBA
(i.e. 200/1, 200/2, 200/3, 200/4, etc.).

Bold 6: Yes, because it is a minimum contract. IF you have extra years in your cap space, you can add a guy for extra years.


A couple of my own points:

1) I recall a similar discussion in year 1 on this topic. Not to the extent of extensions, but this has been discussed before.
2) After two years consequences for decisions are starting to become apparent. That is not justification for changing the rules due to poor or unfortunate planning.
3) No matter what the rules are someone is always going to say, "Yeah but....." It happens in the NBA all the time. Any change to the CBA is going to hinder some teams and help others.
4) I believe what the majority of the league wants to do is the way to go for after this coming season. However, I don't agree with changing the rules on this topic because there are already consequences in place. If you spend all your money in free agency then anyone who comes across the waiver wire is not available to you... it is that simple. If you used all your years and are over 40 when you pick up a player, you can't resign them meaning they go to free agency. Last year some decent players went across the wire and some players who were either on hot streaks at that time or would go on streaks in the future: Tony Allen, Alec Burks, Wesley Johnson, Draymond Green, James Johnson, Kent Bazemore, Kendall Marshall, Ed Davis, Kelly, Splitter, Garnett, Dudley, Cory Joseph, Harrison Barnes, Nene, Birdman, Dalembert, Harkless, Biyombo, Jason Smith, Farmar, Aaron Brooks, Courtney Lee, Matt Barnes, Mike MIller, PJ Tucker, Chris Kaman, Brendan WRight, Beasley, CJ Miles, Jodie Meeks.

If we're discussing rule changes with waiver wire the Change I'd like to see is this: if a player is waived, you must have the number of years available to sign him. SO for example last year when Harrison Barnes or Maurice Harkless was waived with 2 years remaining, you could only claim him if you had 38 years or less. If you had 39 or more, you would have to wait until he is an UFA. This would be like the NBA where you can only claim a player not on a minimum contract (1 year) if you have the cap space or an exception (but we don't have exceptions in our league so just cap space) to absorb the value of the contract.



Yes, it is possible. HOwever, the league was set up to mimic the NBA as best as possible. Unfortunately we're not actually dealing with real money. WE can't actually wine and dine players in free agency. We can't wow them with our practice facilities. We can't use agent connections. We can't rely on our past success - or failures. We don't have 'markets' to create more endorsement dollars.

Bold 1: You need to think in reverse.

Years in Dynasty = actually money in the NBA

The lower the roster spaces in Dynasty = The greater the cap space in the NBA
(i.e. 200/1, 200/2, 200/3, 200/4, etc.).

**I can't emphasize above enough so I bold it**

So this summer

Bold 2: So for an owner that allocated their years wisely, obtained valuable players and signed them to longer deals, built a balanced roster..... they'd be punished? If team A has 11 players and team b has 14 players, team A can still go up to $197 if they really want a player. Of course, they'd be forced to sign the remaining players for $1 each. That might sound like a shitty deal but the guy who won it last year, Keeping It Real !!, had 7 $1 players in free agency last fall.





It is never going to happen. Because this is dynasty, very rarely is a great player going to be waived. Even when good players get injured the team sucks it up and holds on to them because a) they are extremely talented, and b) the years still count against your cap unless you amnesty them (and you only have 1 shot to ever do that).

If you want to make the waiver wire more competitive and interesting, tie it in to the years as I put above. Anyone more than 1 year you need to have the years available.

No matter what the league rules are, we all have to abide by those same rules, and playing the game is all about how we operate within those parameters. No matter what rules are in place, it's going to be fun.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting changes to the waiver wire because of any consequence I've suffered.

I am suggesting it based on the fact that it seems that many times i hear/read stuff on dynasty leagues, they talk about a 'bidding on players' process throughout the whole year (or at least it seems that way). This is one way that it operates:


"In an auction bidding environment, players who are not selected in the league draft, players who are dropped and players added to the player pool during the season become FAAB-eligible for the timeframe set by the league creator. However, instead of placing a traditional waiver claim, an owner places a bid they feel is appropriate based on a player's value. The league creator assigns the pre-determined budget of each team for FAAB bidding over the course of the season. During the bidding period, team owners may bid at any time before the deadline. In a FAAB bidding environment, the only way players can be picked up is through the FAAB bidding process, and there are no first-come, first-served pick-ups. The bidding process is an open process and there is no sequence for the bids. Team owners may bid at any time during the waiver period, before it expires.

There is no waiver order in FAAB leagues. Claims are processed according to highest bid. There's a tie break order, but that's only reset when two teams bid the same amount on a player. During the bidding period, no team can see any other team's bids or bid amounts. All teams can view FAAB bidding results after bids are processed, either on the league home page or in waiver reports. Additionally, all teams can view other teams' budget balances on each team clubhouse and waiver order pages."

I'm not sure if that says what I am trying to say a little clearer.

The goal in my thought isn't to mirror real life NBA management, as much as it is about trying to change the 'first come, first serve' way of waiver wire.

[DanH]

Yes, it is possible. HOwever, the league was set up to mimic the NBA as best as possible. Unfortunately we're not actually dealing with real money. WE can't actually wine and dine players in free agency. We can't wow them with our practice facilities. We can't use agent connections. We can't rely on our past success - or failures. We don't have 'markets' to create more endorsement dollars.

Bold 1: You need to think in reverse.

Years in Dynasty = actually money in the NBA

The lower the roster spaces in Dynasty = The greater the cap space in the NBA
(i.e. 200/1, 200/2, 200/3, 200/4, etc.).

**I can't emphasize above enough so I bold it**

So this summer

Bold 2: So for an owner that allocated their years wisely, obtained valuable players and signed them to longer deals, built a balanced roster..... they'd be punished? If team A has 11 players and team b has 14 players, team A can still go up to $197 if they really want a player. Of course, they'd be forced to sign the remaining players for $1 each. That might sound like a shitty deal but the guy who won it last year, Keeping It Real !!, had 7 $1 players in free agency last fall.

First bold: ah, but those are contradictory statements. Naturally, the more players you have signed, typically the more years will be on the cap (and the less Dynasty cap space you will have). But at the same time, the less Dynasty cap space you have, the more money you have to offer a free agent, as you yourself outlined - 200 being greater than 199. There we address the second bold - if team A wants the biggest name free agent, and team B wants them too, team B gets them, not only in spite of, but BECAUSE of having LESS "cap space."

If years in Dynasty = money in NBA, then the amount of "money" (years) you have to spend should impact your ability to sign free agents.

I agree that we can't wine and dine the players, or use agent connections, or any of the rest, EXCEPT we CAN still horde cap space and offer the most money for free agents, just like in the NBA. Except we can't - not the way it is currently set up. The current system encourages the opposite - spend all your cap so that you'll be able to sign a big name free agent in the summer. It leaves teams with poor players stuck either losing out on their free agency targets, or locking up players they don't really want, just to keep their empty roster spots down. It discourages teams from letting players walk to free agency (as every player that walks actually effectively eats up cap space - in the context if signing free agents - instead of clearing it), thus also suppressing the free agent market, leaving very few good options out there - all of whom will be picked up by the nearly-capped-out teams, since they have effective veto over other bidders.

If everyone is fine with the way it is, so am I. But right now it is NOT logically consistent with the "Cap = Money" mantra. Right now it is more like "Empty roster slots = Money deficit," which is about as far away as you can get from the approach in the NBA.

[Mack North]

Wow, lots to think about! Some good points to be considered by all.

***In other news, Mack North is announcing they have signed The Westside Connection(circa 1997) as their Global Ambassador.
"We feel that the Gangsta, the Killa, and the Dope Dealer will have great effect on persuading many free agents to sign with Mack North, due to sheer brute force" said team owner Mack. "We can have anyone we want this year, homie!" says Ice Cube aka The Gangsta "We lookin' real hard at just a few palyers..."

The story will be different next off-season, when Mack North has 7 players coming off the books, of which a total of 3 can be re-signed. Some notables to likely be available would be; C - Brook Lopez, C - DeAndre Jordan, G-F - Tyreke Evans, G - Brad Beal, and C-PF - Andre Drummond. Mack is currently listening to any and all "fair" offers for each and every one, but mainly just listening at this point.***

*I did not do a good job my first season as GM assigning years, was still trying to figure the whole thing out. Believe I have it down now, though* .oO(I hope??)

[Axel]

I think far too much concern over fixing the current system when we don't actually know if it's broken. We need to run with it for a few years before we can really take a look and say, "this needs to be changed here and here" to allow for competitive balance.

And while McHappy's team looks like he is nicely set, remember that he has players on his roster that are long shots to produce for a year or two (Bruno, took the same gamble with Giannis last year). He also hasn't won anything yet, so even if he is positioned pretty and manages to win it all this year, it's not like the system is broken and we've seen his team (or any team) dominate the league.

[DanH]

I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with the current system, hard to argue with competitive balance when (if I have this right) the top 3 winners were totally different in years 1 and 2. I've just heard the NBA:money = Dynasty:years statement several times and the only part of the league that doesn't fit that (and actually completely opposes that) idea is free agency. Just brought it up as something to think about since we were discussing changes anyway.

[mcHAPPY]

First bold: ah, but those are contradictory statements. Naturally, the more players you have signed, typically the more years will be on the cap (and the less Dynasty cap space you will have). But at the same time, the less Dynasty cap space you have, the more money you have to offer a free agent, as you yourself outlined - 200 being greater than 199. There we address the second bold - if team A wants the biggest name free agent, and team B wants them too, team B gets them, not only in spite of, but BECAUSE of having LESS "cap space."

If years in Dynasty = money in NBA, then the amount of "money" (years) you have to spend should impact your ability to sign free agents.

I agree that we can't wine and dine the players, or use agent connections, or any of the rest, EXCEPT we CAN still horde cap space and offer the most money for free agents, just like in the NBA. Except we can't - not the way it is currently set up. The current system encourages the opposite - spend all your cap so that you'll be able to sign a big name free agent in the summer. It leaves teams with poor players stuck either losing out on their free agency targets, or locking up players they don't really want, just to keep their empty roster spots down. It discourages teams from letting players walk to free agency (as every player that walks actually effectively eats up cap space - in the context if signing free agents - instead of clearing it), thus also suppressing the free agent market, leaving very few good options out there - all of whom will be picked up by the nearly-capped-out teams, since they have effective veto over other bidders.

If everyone is fine with the way it is, so am I. But right now it is NOT logically consistent with the "Cap = Money" mantra. Right now it is more like "Empty roster slots = Money deficit," which is about as far away as you can get from the approach in the NBA.

Bold 1: The current system encourages wise allocation of your years.

BOld 2: Teams with poor players put themselves in that position - consequences.

Bold 3: Teams locking up poor players or players they don't want have done so at their own peril - again consequences.

Bold 4: Of course teams discourage players walk to free agency when unrestricted. And while every player walking eats up cap space it gives another opportunity to assign the cap space to a more productive player.

Bold 5: Free agency is always suppressed. It is very rare for a great player to be a free agent. That is why we see middle NBA guys paid ridiculous amounts of money = supply versus demand. Where you are going to see big names in free agency is when a team has more than 2 good players or they have signed a player over the cap during the previous season. The suppression of free agency is exactly why I don't want to see extensions unless you have a guy with "0" years. It is a loop hole out of bad planning and decisions and will ensure productive players rarely if ever make the free agent auction.

Bold 6: Who cares if teams are capped out in terms of years? They are either going to be very good or very bad. IT is consequences for assigning your years. If you've taken risks signing young, unproven players, drafted wisely, allocated your years wisely - why should you be punished in free agency?

Bold 7: When was the last time you saw a max free agent sign with a team other than his own to go to a crap or skeleton of a team? Same situation here. Top free agents are looking for money (years) and a chance to win (near full, productive roster).


The reality is the top players in Dynasty are never going to be available because you get two resigns each year. Durant or LeBron will never see free agency in our league.


Allocating a set amount of money per roster spot is about as far from the NBA as you can get. You don't see each player in the NBA making $5M. You see a team with a couple of players earning over $20M and over half the team earning less than $5M.

To the comment: "But at the same time, the less Dynasty cap space you have, the more money you have to offer a free agent, as you yourself outlined - 200 being greater than 199. There we address the second bold - if team A wants the biggest name free agent, and team B wants them too, team B gets them, not only in spite of, but BECAUSE of having LESS "cap space."

True but there are consequences to spending all $200. You can't hit the waiver wire. You're going to be stuck adding/dropping to the list of players everyone has already had a shot to sign. But your thinking is flawed to the number of years. You could have 14 players under contract and 14 years assigned to the cap. You could have 14 players under contract and 28 years assigned to the cap. You're making assumptions here. I have 14 players under contract and 30 years assigned in cap space.

[DanH]

Again, not a criticism of the current system, but another thing to think about.

My other point was that our cap situation does not impact our free agency money.

Why do our free agency bids not really affect our cap space? This ties into the last one, as it is easier to implement if we only have our cap space to offer (say, $1 for every year of cap room we have). Then whatever you bid on a player, you actually have to give them in years. So, say most people have about 10 years in cap room, but one player has 11, if he wants to automatically outbid everybody, he is then tied to a ridiculous 11 year deal sitting on his cap. This makes it so free agency is self contained in price-setting.

As it stands, as time goes on and people get better at planning for free agency, more and more teams will put themselves in the position where they have only one or two free agency slots, and more and more free agents will go for $200 or close to it, putting a good chunk of the league out of the free agency race before it even begins. But if there was a significant consequence to placing high bids (like it directly impacting the cap), then it comes down to who is willing to risk the most salary (years) on a player, just like in the NBA (remember, these aren't max level guys - they all get re-signed). Bidding wars, with no real artificial cap except a member's actual cap room.

Just pouring out my stream-of-consciousness for your thoughts.

[Axel]

Without providing a detailed response, I have to say I don't like the idea of tinkering along the lines of Dan's post above. $200 per auction is just fine. If you only have 1 spot to fill, good for you but there are still likely some deals on your books you don't want.

Draft well, find bargains at the auction, make smart trades and get lucky with injuries and real life trades. That's how you build your team.

[DanH]

[QUOTE=mcHAPPY;364236]Bold 1: The current system encourages wise allocation of your years.[QUOTE]

Yes. But also encourages using up your roster spots with non-expiring deals - I think an unforeseen consequence, that suppresses free agent pools.

BOld 2: Teams with poor players put themselves in that position - consequences.

Yes. Agreed.

Bold 3: Teams locking up poor players or players they don't want have done so at their own peril - again consequences.

What peril? As you noted real difference makers rarely make it to free agency.

Bold 4: Of course teams discourage players walk to free agency when unrestricted. And while every player walking eats up cap space it gives another opportunity to assign the cap space to a more productive player.

Does it though? It opens up the roster slot to be able to assign a better player - but if the best players are out of your reach due to having too many open roster spots, what's the benefit in that?

Bold 5: Free agency is always suppressed. It is very rare for a great player to be a free agent. That is why we see middle NBA guys paid ridiculous amounts of money = supply versus demand. Where you are going to see big names in free agency is when a team has more than 2 good players or they have signed a player over the cap during the previous season. The suppression of free agency is exactly why I don't want to see extensions unless you have a guy with "0" years. It is a loop hole out of bad planning and decisions and will ensure productive players rarely if ever make the free agent auction.

I agree about the lack of extensions, it is key to making sure the free agency market is vibrant. Of course, you still end up with only a few difference makers, and the teams that let the least free agents walk can take those guys no problem. So, you see, teams that let the most free agents go to free agency (thus making free agency more interesting) get punished but having their bidding ability suppressed.

Bold 6: Who cares if teams are capped out in terms of years? They are either going to be very good or very bad. IT is consequences for assigning your years. If you've taken risks signing young, unproven players, drafted wisely, allocated your years wisely - why should you be punished in free agency?

I agree that teams who are capped out in terms of years are either going to be very good or very bad. 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. 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.

Bold 7: When was the last time you saw a max free agent sign with a team other than his own to go to a crap or skeleton of a team? Same situation here. Top free agents are looking for money (years) and a chance to win (near full, productive roster).

Agreed. Max free agents (and let's address this as the best available in free agency, since the top players will never hit free agency) will definitely be looking for the most money (years). So why do teams with the most money to give likely having their bidding ability suppressed?

The reality is the top players in Dynasty are never going to be available because you get two resigns each year. Durant or LeBron will never see free agency in our league.

Yes, of course. Unless someone plans poorly. Nonetheless, the top players available in free agency are significantly better than the guys that go for $1, and can make a big difference to a team.

Allocating a set amount of money per roster spot is about as far from the NBA as you can get. You don't see each player in the NBA making $5M. You see a team with a couple of players earning over $20M and over half the team earning less than $5M.

But I'm not allocating money per roster spot - cap space is determined based on salary (years) committed. Exactly as it is in the NBA. The current system is the one that allocates money based on available roster spots, effectively, as the "cap hold" ($1) for each empty spot decreases the team's ability to bid on the big name free agents.

To the comment: "But at the same time, the less Dynasty cap space you have, the more money you have to offer a free agent, as you yourself outlined - 200 being greater than 199. There we address the second bold - if team A wants the biggest name free agent, and team B wants them too, team B gets them, not only in spite of, but BECAUSE of having LESS "cap space."

True but there are consequences to spending all $200. You can't hit the waiver wire. You're going to be stuck adding/dropping to the list of players everyone has already had a shot to sign. But your thinking is flawed to the number of years. You could have 14 players under contract and 14 years assigned to the cap. You could have 14 players under contract and 28 years assigned to the cap. You're making assumptions here. I have 14 players under contract and 30 years assigned in cap space.

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. Same situation. 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.

My thinking is not flawed. You are interpreting it incorrectly. I am not saying that teams will ALWAYS have cap proportional to their roster slots. I'm saying, in general, teams with more roster spots open will have more cap space available. There will obviously be exceptions. And that's the entire point - free agency should NOT be determined by roster spots available, since they are not explicitly tied to the cap (and if it were, it should be in the opposite way that it is now).



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.

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?

---

Consider the following, to address the point that teams locked into bad salary get what's coming to them. Team C has 15 mediocre players on their roster. Team D has 15 mediocre players on their roster. Team C has them all signed to short term deals, smart move. A couple of two year deals, and the rest 1 year deals, looking to upgrade over them in free agency the next summer. Team D signs all of their players to three year deals, except 6 (the 6 he feels are the worst) - he gives 3 of them 2 year deals and 3 of them 1 year deals.

Next summer comes along. Both teams re-sign the two best performing expiring contracts. There are a few decent free agents, but not many. Which team gets rewarded with the top free agent? Team D has $200 to spend on the player of his choice. Team C has something like $190. Clearly Team D gets the top free agent. Of course there are other teams, probably having more to spend than Team C, who had a lot of expirings. So to get another of the top free agents, Team C needs to outbid the other teams, meaning that they will (read: might) get one top free agent, and then be stuck with mediocre pickups.

Team D signs his top free agent long term. Done. Team C signs their second-tier top free agent long term, and their mediocre players for 1 year, looking to upgrade the following year. Flash forward a year. Once again, Team D has 3 expirings, of which he keeps the best two. Team C has a bunch of expirings, of which he keeps the best two. Once again, going to free agency, Team D gets to take their pick of the litter, and Team C is stuck with the leftovers.

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. 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. 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.

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. It's fine, 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.

[DanH]

My Proposal

I feel like I am making this seem more convoluted than it is. So, a simple summary, and a simple proposal.

1) In Dynasty, cap years are a replacement for salary. We have a "years" cap instead of a "salary" cap.

2) In the current model, everyone has the same amount to spend in free agency, regardless of their "cap space". This is contrary to the way it works in the NBA.

3) Further, players who have the least cap space will TEND to have the least roster spots to fill, thus giving them the advantage in getting the best the free agent market has to offer. This again is contrary to the way it tends to work in the NBA - rare is a team with 14 players on the roster already, or a high team salary, a real player in free agency.

4) Teams who sign a player in free agency get to set the terms of their signing, regardless of what their bid was. This is different from the NBA in that if you outbid someone, you are stuck with the consequences of said bid.

Conclusion: The current system works mostly fine (with a little bug where the more full your roster is, the better shot you have a top free agent), but if the intent is to replicate being an NBA manager as much as is feasible, the current system for free agency does not replicate the NBA free agency system. Trades, re-signings, restricted free agency - all of these systems have a smart and well-thought-out replication here in Dynasty which is both simpler and still in the spirit of the NBA approach. Free agency bidding does not.

My proposal: After all re-signings are done, each team has leftover cap space. That cap space gets converted directly to free agency dollars. If a team has 10 years of cap space, they'll have $10 at the auction. Bidding works the same - whoever gets the highest bid gets the player. Instead of then assigning players years, the bid value is used as their signing amount - if you bid $6 to get a player, you've signed him to a 6 year contract. And vice versa, if you want to sign a player long term, it takes up your free agency dollars to do so.

This aligns with the NBA where a) teams with cap space have the most money to offer free agents, and b) if a team wins a bidding war for a player, they actually have to pay the player the amount that won them the player.

Other benefits of this... If teams are rewarded for having cap space, they will sign more short term deals, more players will go to free agency, and we will see more fluidity year to year in team structure. Signing long term deals will still have the negative consequence of hurting you long term, even more so really as it will restrict your free agency funds. Teams will not be able to bid wildly on players and not have any consequences for it. Nor will teams be able to lock up good players long term without giving other players an advantage in free agency.

It also self-corrects for roster size AND cap space - if you go into the auction with three slots open and $12 in cap space, Yahoo will automatically only allow you to bid a max of $10 for a free agent, holding back enough for two 1 year deals. This means one less step rushing to set years in the few days between the free agency auction and the start of the season.

[mcHAPPY]

Again, not a criticism of the current system, but another thing to think about.

My other point was that our cap situation does not impact our free agency money.

Why do our free agency bids not really affect our cap space? This ties into the last one, as it is easier to implement if we only have our cap space to offer (say, $1 for every year of cap room we have). Then whatever you bid on a player, you actually have to give them in years. So, say most people have about 10 years in cap room, but one player has 11, if he wants to automatically outbid everybody, he is then tied to a ridiculous 11 year deal sitting on his cap. This makes it so free agency is self contained in price-setting.

As it stands, as time goes on and people get better at planning for free agency, more and more teams will put themselves in the position where they have only one or two free agency slots, and more and more free agents will go for $200 or close to it, putting a good chunk of the league out of the free agency race before it even begins. But if there was a significant consequence to placing high bids (like it directly impacting the cap), then it comes down to who is willing to risk the most salary (years) on a player, just like in the NBA (remember, these aren't max level guys - they all get re-signed). Bidding wars, with no real artificial cap except a member's actual cap room.

Just pouring out my stream-of-consciousness for your thoughts.

Again Durant or a top player is never going to hit free agency unless you have an owner with 3 of those type players expiring in the same year.

There already are significant consequences in place.

If you load up on nonproductive players you're screwed because all your years are allocated and a simple waive doesn't remove the years. I took the risk of adding John Henson for 4 years and Larry sanders for 5 years last season. Sanders did not work out and Henson is still to be determined.

If you sign all your players to shorter contracts/years you're going to end up losing some of them because you can only keep 2 per year.

If you have all your roster spits filled it also limits you flexibility adding and dropping players. If you have all your years assigned when you pick up a player you can't keep ten the following year. Happening to jbml this year and it happened with Tobias Harris with me last year. Why do you think he went for $126?

So far I've only heard positives for a person with 14 players heading into free agency. Above as some of the negatives in addition to not being able to tweak roster after auction and before season starts or possibly being frozen out of waiver wire.

Also look through the player list. There are only going to be 2 top 100 (frye and jones) players available and neither are going to be major difference makers. The key to this league is finding or drafting guys before they are top 100 players.


I disagree with such radical changes 3 years in. I especially disagree when rules are being changed to make things more 'fair' when we've all been operating under the same rules since the beginning.

I still believe the situation Mack North and I are in is because we took advantage of the rules as we saw fit. But we both have risks. I have years tied up in questionable players like mcroberts and Thomas. Mack has a lot of very good players on 1 year deals right now. He won't be able to keep them all.

The idea of an artificial value is exactly free agency. Teams have so much to spend and someone is going to spend it. Teams bidding against each other drives up prices. The $200 is an exception everyone has to use. Your planning and allocating will determine how much you have to spend on any one free agent.

[mcHAPPY]

I feel like I am making this seem more convoluted than it is. So, a simple summary, and a simple proposal.

1) In Dynasty, cap years are a replacement for salary. We have a "years" cap instead of a "salary" cap.

2) In the current model, everyone has the same amount to spend in free agency, regardless of their "cap space". This is contrary to the way it works in the NBA.

3) Further, players who have the least cap space will TEND to have the least roster spots to fill, thus giving them the advantage in getting the best the free agent market has to offer. This again is contrary to the way it tends to work in the NBA - rare is a team with 14 players on the roster already, or a high team salary, a real player in free agency.

4) Teams who sign a player in free agency get to set the terms of their signing, regardless of what their bid was. This is different from the NBA in that if you outbid someone, you are stuck with the consequences of said bid.

Conclusion: The current system works mostly fine (with a little bug where the more full your roster is, the better shot you have a top free agent), but if the intent is to replicate being an NBA manager as much as is feasible, the current system for free agency does not replicate the NBA free agency system. Trades, re-signings, restricted free agency - all of these systems have a smart and well-thought-out replication here in Dynasty which is both simpler and still in the spirit of the NBA approach. Free agency bidding does not.

My proposal: After all re-signings are done, each team has leftover cap space. That cap space gets converted directly to free agency dollars. If a team has 10 years of cap space, they'll have $10 at the auction. Bidding works the same - whoever gets the highest bid gets the player. Instead of then assigning players years, the bid value is used as their signing amount - if you bid $6 to get a player, you've signed him to a 6 year contract. And vice versa, if you want to sign a player long term, it takes up your free agency dollars to do so.

This aligns with the NBA where a) teams with cap space have the most money to offer free agents, and b) if a team wins a bidding war for a player, they actually have to pay the player the amount that won them the player.

Other benefits of this... If teams are rewarded for having cap space, they will sign more short term deals, more players will go to free agency, and we will see more fluidity year to year in team structure. Signing long term deals will still have the negative consequence of hurting you long term, even more so really as it will restrict your free agency funds. Teams will not be able to bid wildly on players and not have any consequences for it. Nor will teams be able to lock up good players long term without giving other players an advantage in free agency.

It also self-corrects for roster size AND cap space - if you go into the auction with three slots open and $12 in cap space, Yahoo will automatically only allow you to bid a max of $10 for a free agent, holding back enough for two 1 year deals. This means one less step rushing to set years in the few days between the free agency auction and the start of the season.

I would recommend starting your own league.

This league does work fine.

Starting our third year and people want to drastically change now when we have all been operating under same rules? That is bullshit....sorry

[DanH]

The idea of an artificial value is exactly free agency. Teams have so much to spend and someone is going to spend it. Teams bidding against each other drives up prices. The $200 is an exception everyone has to use. Your planning and allocating will determine how much you have to spend on any one free agent.

I understand how the current system works. I just find it lacking. Clearly I wouldn't suggest we change anything for this season.

The current system is fine, it just ignores the concept of cap space as used in the NBA. That's fine if that's what everyone wants.

[DanH]

I would recommend starting your own league.

This league does work fine.

Starting our third year and people want to drastically change now when we have all been operating under same rules? That is bullshit....sorry

I don't WANT to change anything. Just wanted to get people's thoughts. Since people were discussing this anyway.

[skywalker]

I think far too much concern over fixing the current system when we don't actually know if it's broken. We need to run with it for a few years before we can really take a look and say, "this needs to be changed here and here" to allow for competitive balance.

And while McHappy's team looks like he is nicely set, remember that he has players on his roster that are long shots to produce for a year or two (Bruno, took the same gamble with Giannis last year). He also hasn't won anything yet, so even if he is positioned pretty and manages to win it all this year, it's not like the system is broken and we've seen his team (or any team) dominate the league.

I agree with you Axel. I don't think we want to devote too much time to drastic changes, especially if a system isn't broken.

The league rules, that are already in place, states the following "Free agency will use a money system. Each team is given equal FA dollars which they can use to place secret bids on FA's who are currently on waivers. When a player is signed the team must immediately post on the league page or the league thread if it is a multi-season signing. If no mention is made within a one week window of the signing then the signing is deemed a one year deal regardless of cap space."

Am i asking for anything different than what this rule states?

According to this rule, if I want to sign player A in January, for whatever reason, don't i have to make a "secret bid?" but if he's simply available on the wire, and i can simply go pick him up, isn't that against the actual league rules?

Maybe I am reading that wrong, but it seems that each player is available to be 'bid' on, and other teams have equal opportunity to also put in a secret bid. Therefore, i shouldn't be able to pick up a guy off the waiver in exactly the same way as leagues that don't have a waiver wire budget.