|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Mar 30, 2018 14:04:01 GMT
Good day. I just want to make a formal suggestion about promises. Instead of just letting it be a verbal thing, that we sometimes consider and sometimes not, let us make it a formal part of the Free-Agency offer that we will monitor.
Let me suggest THREE PROMISES, with the following parameter:
NO TRADE: Should not be a part of any trade that is posted for approval The parameters can be: a. Time span: "No Trade from ____ season to ____ season" b. Minimum Rating: "No Trade as long as the rating is ___"
STARTING SPOT: Started at least 2/3 of all the games he played The parameters can be: a. Time span: "You will be the starter from ____ to ____ season" b. Minimum Rating: "You will be the starter as long as your rating is at least____" c. Winning Percentage (Previous Season): "You are lock to be a starter as long as we win___% last season."
PLAYOFFS: Reach the playoffs The parameters can be: a. Time span: "We will reach the playoffs from ___ to ___ season" b. Minimum Rating: "We will try to get into the playoffs if your rating is at least ___"
When we make our pitches to our FA targets, these are basically the normal anchors of our offers. By making it a formal part of our offer and by monitoring it, our free-agency should be more fluid.
BREAKING PROMISES When do we know if a GM breaks a promise? No Trade: It is basically monitored all throughout the season. If you trade a player that is still under that promise, you break it. Playoffs: We check after the regular season. Starting Spot: We check after the regular season.
Example: If an FA (rated 78) accepted a contract this 2018 offseasn, with this promises on it: Playoffs: We will surely reach the playoffs by 2020-2021 and beyond, as long as your rating is at least 78. No Trade: In 2018-2019 season Starting Spot: As long as we win at least 50% of our game.
In 2018-2019, he was not traded, started 50 games out of 82, ended up in 10th seed with a 37-45 record. - No Promise was broken. In 2019-2020, he was not traded, started 40 games out of 82, reached the playoffs with 44-38 record. - No Promise was broken. In 2020-2021, he was not traded, started 50 games out of 82, ended up the 9th season with 40-42 record. - Broke the promise of Starting Spot. Why? Last season, they won at least 50% of their game. He should at least start 2/3 of all the games he played.
PENALTY The GM who broke a promise, will not be able to use that Promise in the next two offseasons.
What do you mean? The player agents should not honor that promise from that GM. Continuing the example: In the offseason of 2021 and 2022, the GM will not be able to promise a starting spot to anyone. He can put it on his pitch, but the PAs will not honor it.
THE EFFECT OF THE PENALTY In the upcoming 2018 offseason, I expect Covington to receive a lot of offer. Let us say, it ended up in a three teams offering maximum contracts. One of them is under penalty for breaking the starting spot promise. So, in that scenario, that team that broke a promise will surely miss-out.
George Hill will surely look for a playoff team in the upcoming offseason. If it boils down to Boston and Indiana with the following scenario. Boston promises Playoffs, Indiana is offering more money and a starting spot. He is on penalty for the Playoff promise.
If Indiana can promise Playoffs, I think he will easily be the choice. But without it, the PA will have the reason to choose Boston over him.
Lastly, Lebron James. Most of the elite stars do not want to be traded. Especially, Lebron. If GSW is under penalty in No Trade, and he received offers from Boston, Memphis and Miami, all with No Trade Promise. Don't expect him to re-sign with GSW.
BENEFIT The biggest benefit will be the avoidance of sh*t FA talks. By adding this also, the trading game and the contending part of our world should get a more realistic touch.
Like, if I re-sign Kelly O. this offseason and I promise as starting spot all throughout the contract, but suddenly Jordan Bell blossomed into a better starting C and Andrew Wiggins embraced the PF position, I may need to trade him before the end of the season or else, I will be penalize.
I hope I was able to explain it well.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 30, 2018 14:15:19 GMT
This might be interesting, for sure. It might actually present the possibility of a player refusing to re-sign, or demanding a trade, which could stir things up a bit!
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Mar 30, 2018 14:24:55 GMT
I like the starting and no trade promises though I think no trade should be restricted to players over 85 or something, otherwise league activity will get bogged down. These are good ways to distinguish teams in FA.
I'm not sure about the playoff one, is there any benefit to making the playoffs as an 8 seed and getting crushed? I think it should be more meaningful than playoffs, like round 2 appearance or conference finals. These rounds are what separate the pretenders from the contenders and when it comes down to it, good players want to be on a contending team, not just be 8 seed fodder.
I also worry about tracking promises kept and broken, especially if a team switches GMs mid-season. Would the new GM be held to the old GMs promises? That seems unfair
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Mar 30, 2018 17:36:20 GMT
I like the starting and no trade promises though I think no trade should be restricted to players over 85 or something, otherwise league activity will get bogged down. These are good ways to distinguish teams in FA. I'm not sure about the playoff one, is there any benefit to making the playoffs as an 8 seed and getting crushed? I think it should be more meaningful than playoffs, like round 2 appearance or conference finals. These rounds are what separate the pretenders from the contenders and when it comes down to it, good players want to be on a contending team, not just be 8 seed fodder. I also worry about tracking promises kept and broken, especially if a team switches GMs mid-season. Would the new GM be held to the old GMs promises? That seems unfair Agree, it could get tough to track. In all the leagues I've been in with promises, the only promise that stays is no trade clause
|
|
|
Post by Allen Iverson on Mar 30, 2018 20:36:36 GMT
IMO it's the PA's job to keep track of all the promises a GM provided. You guys have threads for admins, so why not post it there for tracking purposes? No need for specific restrictions like this.
For the penalties for violators, Idk. Not my thing to decide on things. I just want to have promises like starting roles and no trade promises to be well implemented (Well, depends on what happens to the signed player IRL, e.g. injuries).
+1 Activity!
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Mar 30, 2018 22:39:13 GMT
I like the starting and no trade promises though I think no trade should be restricted to players over 85 or something, otherwise league activity will get bogged down. These are good ways to distinguish teams in FA. I'm not sure about the playoff one, is there any benefit to making the playoffs as an 8 seed and getting crushed? I think it should be more meaningful than playoffs, like round 2 appearance or conference finals. These rounds are what separate the pretenders from the contenders and when it comes down to it, good players want to be on a contending team, not just be 8 seed fodder. I also worry about tracking promises kept and broken, especially if a team switches GMs mid-season. Would the new GM be held to the old GMs promises? That seems unfair It is monitored per GM, not per team. Monitoring is not that hard. Trust me. We used this in the PH league already.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Mar 31, 2018 0:52:28 GMT
I like the starting and no trade promises though I think no trade should be restricted to players over 85 or something, otherwise league activity will get bogged down. These are good ways to distinguish teams in FA. I'm not sure about the playoff one, is there any benefit to making the playoffs as an 8 seed and getting crushed? I think it should be more meaningful than playoffs, like round 2 appearance or conference finals. These rounds are what separate the pretenders from the contenders and when it comes down to it, good players want to be on a contending team, not just be 8 seed fodder. I also worry about tracking promises kept and broken, especially if a team switches GMs mid-season. Would the new GM be held to the old GMs promises? That seems unfair Kevin Love would still be in Minnesota had his team made the playoffs. That was his biggest gripe.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Mar 31, 2018 7:08:55 GMT
I like the starting and no trade promises though I think no trade should be restricted to players over 85 or something, otherwise league activity will get bogged down. These are good ways to distinguish teams in FA. I'm not sure about the playoff one, is there any benefit to making the playoffs as an 8 seed and getting crushed? I think it should be more meaningful than playoffs, like round 2 appearance or conference finals. These rounds are what separate the pretenders from the contenders and when it comes down to it, good players want to be on a contending team, not just be 8 seed fodder. I also worry about tracking promises kept and broken, especially if a team switches GMs mid-season. Would the new GM be held to the old GMs promises? That seems unfair Kevin Love would still be in Minnesota had his team made the playoffs. That was his biggest gripe. Doubt he stays if they made the 8 seed and got swept that year they were 40-42. Same reason Anthony Davis will leave Nola even though they'll make the playoffs and get crushed this year and possibly next. Great players want to be contenders, not 1st round fodder
|
|
|
Post by Ghazny Dimalen on Apr 2, 2018 12:31:53 GMT
Just add the championship promise to spice the league. I agree with hanamichi this is a good idea and will balance the league in FA, in nbaxeries we use this promises also.
The big problem in d5 FA is the bird rights issue, and also the trading system. The GM easily trading their player without thinking, sometimes 1 player can habe 3-5 trams in 1 season only.
If we want realistic Rules ee should also implement the 60 day rules in trading player.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on May 21, 2018 21:50:57 GMT
I think, no one went against the core of this suggestion.
So, can I propose that we already implement this in the upcoming offseason?
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 25, 2018 11:48:22 GMT
Sorry I've not responded to this guys, I'll try and get onto it asap.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jun 2, 2018 23:29:09 GMT
Sorry I've not responded to this guys, I'll try and get onto it asap. Up to this point, nobody has been against this one Ian. So, I am really hoping we can implement it this offseason. Still your call though
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jun 26, 2018 8:39:49 GMT
bump
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jun 26, 2018 20:21:25 GMT
Hanamichi Sakuragi's proposal breaks down into these categories: 1. There should be different types of set Promises that can be made to players. 2. Breaking Promises should be recorded and remembered. 3. The penalty for breaking Promises should be the removal of the right to make that set type of Promise and there being a penalty when trying to sign free agents. 4. All of this will avoid bad OSFA decisions.
In response: The only thing I don't like is that you seem to be suggesting that there be a list of the types of Promises that can be chosen by GMs. I think putting Promises within a prescribed framework creates unnecessary complication, and really GMs should be able to make any kind of promise they like even if it does happen to fall inside or outside that framework of choices. On the face of it I think (2.) might be good and that (3. and 4.) this would give some contribution to OSFA decisions if I maintained a public GM Promises Thread, so the use of Promises adds yet another layer onto negotiations. But do we want to add more layers to OSFA negotiations? They're already the most complicated things in D5. What if Paul George went to Houston instead of Charlotte last season because James Kay broke a promise to a roleplayer 3 years ago and the committee decided that that was more important than the positional conflicts that swayed us last off season... I'm not 100% sure it's needed in that context. It just becomes an extra layer of complication when the punishment for breaking a Promise is already that you're forced to trade or bench the player.
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Jun 26, 2018 20:23:59 GMT
Not a fan of most promises but one I think should be there is starter promise.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jun 26, 2018 21:17:19 GMT
This is going to be difficult to track in my opinion. I personally would rather work towards implementing BRs that can be traded (outside of rookies); trading your own 1st if you have another first in that same year; and some other items.
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Jun 26, 2018 21:25:06 GMT
This is going to be difficult to track in my opinion. I personally would rather work towards implementing BRs that can be traded (outside of rookies); trading your own 1st if you have another first in that same year; and some other items. agreed, there's much more important things to be implemented
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Jun 26, 2018 21:25:52 GMT
Have you guys discussed rfa? Like matching contracts on rookie deals
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jun 26, 2018 21:36:41 GMT
Have you guys discussed rfa? Like matching contracts on rookie deals For days and days edit: To be frank - RFA has been put to bed. It's not happening. I could try and find the endless discussions we had but basically Bird Rights on Rookie Deals is by far the most simple, efficient and realistic system instead. The draft pick thing that Kevin Hollis mentioned though, I guess it's worth thinking about for the millionth time, but I have a preference for keeping that rule because, more so than in real life, GMs do need to be protected from themselves sometimes
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jun 27, 2018 12:31:43 GMT
Hanamichi Sakuragi 's proposal breaks down into these categories: 1. There should be different types of set Promises that can be made to players. 2. Breaking Promises should be recorded and remembered. 3. The penalty for breaking Promises should be the removal of the right to make that set type of Promise and there being a penalty when trying to sign free agents. 4. All of this will avoid bad OSFA decisions.
In response: The only thing I don't like is that you seem to be suggesting that there be a list of the types of Promises that can be chosen by GMs. I think putting Promises within a prescribed framework creates unnecessary complication, and really GMs should be able to make any kind of promise they like even if it does happen to fall inside or outside that framework of choices. On the face of it I think (2.) might be good and that (3. and 4.) this would give some contribution to OSFA decisions if I maintained a public GM Promises Thread, so the use of Promises adds yet another layer onto negotiations. But do we want to add more layers to OSFA negotiations? They're already the most complicated things in D5. What if Paul George went to Houston instead of Charlotte last season because James Kay broke a promise to a roleplayer 3 years ago and the committee decided that that was more important than the positional conflicts that swayed us last off season... I'm not 100% sure it's needed in that context. It just becomes an extra layer of complication when the punishment for breaking a Promise is already that you're forced to trade or bench the player. I am suggesting the most COMMON and I think the most VITAL promises to check out. Teams can still promise other things like trying to acquire someone or etc.. Tracking it will not be a problem at all.. One person can take the responsibility.. actually, making it a rule will make it a check-and-balance for each GM. They will surely try to check out if the GMs that they expect to be their rivals for FAs are doing well with their promises or not. The complications that you are talking about are created by OPINIONS of, let us be honest here, the same people in the last few seasons. What I am trying to add is more formality to the FA process. Something that all of us can value at par with each other. Like, Durant was just traded after a season of signing a new contract! And OKC is basically unharmed by it. Like, Butler was offered to me for KP in the regular season. If I have chosen that deal, CHI will not be unharmed. Again, the penalty of breaking a promise is to simply not honor those promises for two seasons. It doesn't mean that PAs will not be able to used common sense in making decisions. Like, if Melo is an FA. He badly wants to be a starter, right? If LAL and CLE are fighting for him, and LAL is under penalty for the Starting Spot, it doesn't mean that the PA cannot logically think that Melo will start in the LAL team with the current roster structure of LAL. Let us stop assuming that we have a very smooth process. Year by year we have issues, rages, debates and etc. Time to try some changes. Please. Let us try even just one! Just the No Trade one for the next two offseasons. And you will see what it will do.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jul 2, 2018 11:20:55 GMT
To extend on my other post, I would definitely like protected picks to be implemented. Would add another layer on to strategy/realism of the sim in relation to the NBA before free agency promises.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jul 3, 2018 4:04:18 GMT
To extend on my other post, I would definitely like protected picks to be implemented. Would add another layer on to strategy/realism of the sim in relation to the NBA before free agency promises. We’ve been against this because it’s too hard to keep track of fyi.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jul 3, 2018 4:06:26 GMT
Hanamichi Sakuragi's proposal breaks down into these categories: 1. There should be different types of set Promises that can be made to players. 2. Breaking Promises should be recorded and remembered. 3. The penalty for breaking Promises should be the removal of the right to make that set type of Promise and there being a penalty when trying to sign free agents. 4. All of this will avoid bad OSFA decisions.
In response: The only thing I don't like is that you seem to be suggesting that there be a list of the types of Promises that can be chosen by GMs. I think putting Promises within a prescribed framework creates unnecessary complication, and really GMs should be able to make any kind of promise they like even if it does happen to fall inside or outside that framework of choices. On the face of it I think (2.) might be good and that (3. and 4.) this would give some contribution to OSFA decisions if I maintained a public GM Promises Thread, so the use of Promises adds yet another layer onto negotiations. But do we want to add more layers to OSFA negotiations? They're already the most complicated things in D5. What if Paul George went to Houston instead of Charlotte last season because James Kay broke a promise to a roleplayer 3 years ago and the committee decided that that was more important than the positional conflicts that swayed us last off season... I'm not 100% sure it's needed in that context. It just becomes an extra layer of complication when the punishment for breaking a Promise is already that you're forced to trade or bench the player. Yes the position conflicts, of course. In a league prized on forward thinking and analytics that have countless times pointed to positionless basketball, the basis for a major decision was the position conflicts.
|
|