Non-Quliafying Veteran Free Agents Exception

[Arvydas Sabonis]

Mar 20, 2021 22:50:33 GMT Ian Noble said:

- In a weird way it's a shame that good GMs cannot continue to accrue talent endlessly to showcase their skills, I feel a pride in having the highest rated team ever right now, but that's been hampered by the Hard Cap since we started introducing it.

Good GM's can still showcase their skills by building a team that is combination of expensive and cheap contracts. In a way having more restrictions, makes it more difficult and requires better planning. So a GM who can adjust, make good trades and plan for long term will still have edge.

[Ian Noble]

Mar 21, 2021 0:50:53 GMT Tom Izzo said:

The point of bird rights is to allow teams to exceed the salary cap to retain their own players. That's it. Their own players include players they traded for, no matter how many years were left on the contract when they traded for that player. By us eliminating that real life rule to bird rights, many of our players become virtually untradable. If a player has no bird rights (>3 years remaining), there is almost no value.

www.hoopsrumors.com/2020/03/hoops-rumors-glossary-bird-rights-3.html

I know this isn't the primary aim of this thread but I'm trying to understand the implications of allowing Bird Rights to be traded. Correct me if I'm wrong here:

Tradeable Bird Rights mean that when a player signs with a team their Bird Rights don't exist until 3 years have passed, but if we take a 4 year long contract as an example there would be two time periods during which Bird Rights can be traded:

(1) the period during which at least 3 years remain on the player's contract (because whichever team trades for the player can still have the player on their roster for 3 years and eventually earn Bird Rights, ie. the same system we currently have at D5) and

(2) the period at the end of the player's contract, after they have spent 3 years with their team, after which they have earned their Bird Rights and their BRs can be traded.

Example
So, taking Kelly Oubre as an example, Oubre's contract can be traded, and their Bird Rights exist, in the first, second and fourth years of his contract.

79 - Kelly Oubre - $15,056,180 - $16,185,393 - $17,314,607 - $18,443,820

I'm in favour of this system because it still promotes loyalty to players whilst not putting a stranglehold on trading activity around the league.

By extension it means that a guy like Giannis would have all the years on his current contract bolded like in the Oubre example above, because Giannis has been on the Rockets for almost his entire career.

---

When it comes to league administration of this rule change, I would expect it would apply retroactively but the onus would be on GMs to prove that BRs apply, possibly even with a link to where a player was originally signed accompanied by a link to when/where they were traded, which might be a pain in the ass for GMs.

I notice D720 italicize their Bird Rights players, which I suppose is an option.

---

Brian Scalabrine you're the most vocal opponent to this happening, would like your thoughts also

[Alex English]

Mar 21, 2021 15:58:00 GMT Ian Noble said:

Mar 21, 2021 0:50:53 GMT Tom Izzo said:

The point of bird rights is to allow teams to exceed the salary cap to retain their own players. That's it. Their own players include players they traded for, no matter how many years were left on the contract when they traded for that player. By us eliminating that real life rule to bird rights, many of our players become virtually untradable. If a player has no bird rights (>3 years remaining), there is almost no value.

www.hoopsrumors.com/2020/03/hoops-rumors-glossary-bird-rights-3.html

I'm trying to understand the implications of allowing Bird Rights to be traded. Correct me if I'm wrong here:

Tradeable Bird Rights mean that when a player signs with a team their Bird Rights don't exist until 3 years have passed, but if we take a 4 year long contract as an example there would be two time periods during which Bird Rights can be traded:

(1) the period during which at least 3 years remain on the player's contract (because whichever team trades for the player can still have the player on their roster for 3 years and eventually earn Bird Rights, ie. the same system we currently have at D5) and

(2) the period at the end of the player's contract, after they have spent 3 years with their team, after which they have earned their Bird Rights and their BRs can be traded.

Example
So, taking Kelly Oubre as an example, Oubre's contract can be traded, and their Bird Rights exist, in the first, second and fourth years of his contract.

79 - Kelly Oubre - $15,056,180 - $16,185,393 - $17,314,607 - $18,443,820

I'm in favour of this system because it still promotes loyalty to players whilst not putting a stranglehold on trading activity around the league.

By extension it means that a guy like Giannis would have all the years on his current contract bolded like in the Oubre example above, because Giannis has been on the Rockets for almost his entire career.

---

When it comes to league administration of this rule change, I would expect it would apply retroactively but the onus would be on GMs to prove that BRs apply, possibly even with a link to where a player was originally signed accompanied by a link to when/where they were traded, which might be a pain in the ass for GMs.

I notice D720 italicize their Bird Rights players, which I suppose is an option.

---

Brian Scalabrine you're the most vocal opponent to this happening, would like your thoughts also

I think you're over thinking it based on how the NBA does it. Basically, any player that signs a 3 year contract will get Bird rights. Being traded isn't a player's decision, so it doesn't affect their Bird rights eligibility. Essentially the rule is:

To qualify as a Bird free agent, a player must have played three seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. - Source

So with tradeable Bird rights, a player could play for every team in the league in a 3 year span and still get Bird rights so long as they didn't change teams via free agency.

[Ian Noble]

Mar 21, 2021 16:42:16 GMT Alex English said:

Mar 21, 2021 15:58:00 GMT Ian Noble said:

I think you're over thinking it based on how the NBA does it. Basically, any player that signs a 3 year contract will get Bird rights. Being traded isn't a player's decision, so it doesn't affect their Bird rights eligibility. Essentially the rule is:

To qualify as a Bird free agent, a player must have played three seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. - Source

So with tradeable Bird rights, a player could play for every team in the league in a 3 year span and still get Bird rights so long as they didn't change teams via free agency.

Are you sure? Looking at D720's rosters it looks like it conforms to how I understood the BRs, unless of course D720 are also understanding it incorrectly

[Alex English]

Mar 21, 2021 17:09:22 GMT Ian Noble said:

Mar 21, 2021 16:42:16 GMT Alex English said:

I think you're over thinking it based on how the NBA does it. Basically, any player that signs a 3 year contract will get Bird rights. Being traded isn't a player's decision, so it doesn't affect their Bird rights eligibility. Essentially the rule is:

So with tradeable Bird rights, a player could play for every team in the league in a 3 year span and still get Bird rights so long as they didn't change teams via free agency.

Are you sure? Looking at D720's rosters it looks like it conforms to how I understood the BRs, unless of course D720 are also understanding it incorrectly

I'm 99% sure that's how it works in the NBA. I can't really say much about D720 since I don't know enough about their rules.

The way you're describing players being able to gain and lose Bird rights depending on what stage of the contract they're at is definitely not in line with the NBA. That also makes things extra confusing imo.

For example, the Lakers will have Dennis Schroder's Bird rights even though he'll have only played one season with the team.

[Brian Scalabrine]

I'm fine with the changes being discussed here if they are paired with an lower hard cap.

If we keep the hard cap at 150% or even 140% and implement these changes only a handful of teams will be contenders and it will take the rest of the league a decade or more to rebuild, as cap space will become essentially meaningless.

Decreasing the hard cap is vital

[Arvydas Sabonis]

Mar 21, 2021 17:09:22 GMT Ian Noble said:

Mar 21, 2021 16:42:16 GMT Alex English said:

I think you're over thinking it based on how the NBA does it. Basically, any player that signs a 3 year contract will get Bird rights. Being traded isn't a player's decision, so it doesn't affect their Bird rights eligibility. Essentially the rule is:

So with tradeable Bird rights, a player could play for every team in the league in a 3 year span and still get Bird rights so long as they didn't change teams via free agency.

Are you sure? Looking at D720's rosters it looks like it conforms to how I understood the BRs, unless of course D720 are also understanding it incorrectly

Alex is right. The BR stay regardless in which year (or how many times) the contract is traded. As long as it's at least 3 years original deal

[Ian Noble]

Damn yeah, so that does make BRs fairly ubiquitous on every decent player in the league.

---

Coming back to the 120% contracts proposed in this thread, tradable BRs make them almost pointless because almost every good player will be on BRs.

However without tradable BRs, 120% contracts give that 20% advantage to re-signing teams and do still facilitate a huge upswing in tradable players.

Nevertheless I'd sure as hell prefer a player without a 20% further inflated contract on my team.

[Tom Izzo]

Bird rights are a favor to the team and player. It's not supposed to be about loyalty or anything like that. It's just supposed to ensure the player can get paid/remain on a team if he wants and teams can retain their own players.

As for the hard cap, I'm not sure I favor a decrease. I just fear the power tied to cheap rookie contracts.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

#KeepTanking

[Ian Noble]

Some analysis of the 2020 OSFA crop and who got what contracts:

5 Year Long Contracts
Count: 8
Players Above 80 Rating: 6
Average Player Rating: 86.1

4 Year Long Contracts
Count: 18
Players Above 80 Rating: 7
Average Player Rating: 81.1

3 Year Long Contracts
Count: 13
Players Above 80 Rating: 2
Average Player Rating: 75.3

2 Year Long Contracts
Count: 20
Players Above 80 Rating: 2
Average Player Rating: 75.7

1 Year Long Contracts
Count: 35
Players Above 80 Rating: 5
Average Player Rating: 75.3


So pretty much ALL the good players in the league will be on BRs with Tradable BRs, whereas at least 120% comes with a 20% downside that is also an aid to re-signing

[Alex English]

I feel like all of these implications are fine as long as the hard cap is low enough. Opening the floodgates could actually be a good thing. It would increase economic mobility, to steal an academic term, as it would make it easier for teams to build and rebuild. I think our current trade market is kind of shit, to be honest.

My opinion is that we should do all these changes, but I don't think the current 150% is low enough. We should move the hard cap to 140% for the 2022 offseason so people have plenty of time to prepare. We should also definitely get rid of the 5th year on rookie contracts, which would help reduce the huge value of star players on rookie deals.

[Ian Noble]

Interestingly our team salaries are not vastly different to the real NBA's:


Total NBA salaries: $3.875bn
Total D5 salaries: $3.909bn


edit: ALSO! I'm the highest rated team in the league but I'm 25th in total salary

[Tom Izzo]

Mar 27, 2021 18:18:22 GMT Ian Noble said:

Interestingly our team salaries are not vastly different to the real NBA's:


Total NBA salaries: $3.875bn
Total D5 salaries: $3.909bn


edit: ALSO! I'm the highest rated team in the league but I'm 25th in total salary

Because of our 5 year rookie contracts... That need to go away.

[Tom Izzo]

And I agree about the trade market. It's just non-existent.

We need to be able to trade players and let them keep their BRs. For example, maybe a team wanting to compete (Detroit? New Orleans?) could be in the market right now for someone like Dame or others that they aren't willing to go after without BRs

[George Gervin]

Mar 27, 2021 18:03:18 GMT Alex English said:

I feel like all of these implications are fine as long as the hard cap is low enough. Opening the floodgates could actually be a good thing. It would increase economic mobility, to steal an academic term, as it would make it easier for teams to build and rebuild. I think our current trade market is kind of shit, to be honest.

My opinion is that we should do all these changes, but I don't think the current 150% is low enough. We should move the hard cap to 140% for the 2022 offseason so people have plenty of time to prepare. We should also definitely get rid of the 5th year on rookie contracts, which would help reduce the huge value of star players on rookie deals.

Add too with the 2022 offseason RFA starting as well that would kick in for rookies drafted in 2018 onwards so as to rev up for rookie deals that would be four years starting with the 2022 draft. I’d also think 140% isn’t low enough— 135% should be a reasonable target

[Tom Izzo]

I really do not like the idea of reducing the hard cap.

This only favors cheap rookie contracts. Veterans that are valuable but maybe slightly overpaid will have further reduced value.

[Alex English]

Mar 27, 2021 20:39:28 GMT Tom Izzo said:

I really do not like the idea of reducing the hard cap.

This only favors cheap rookie contracts. Veterans that are valuable but maybe slightly overpaid will have further reduced value.

I think getting rid of the 5th year will do a lot to limit this issue. Considering most players need a couple years to get good, you get a year or two at most of a cheap but valuable player, then they get paid fairly a year earlier than they do now.

[Tom Izzo]

Mar 27, 2021 22:27:42 GMT Alex English said:

Mar 27, 2021 20:39:28 GMT Tom Izzo said:

I really do not like the idea of reducing the hard cap.

This only favors cheap rookie contracts. Veterans that are valuable but maybe slightly overpaid will have further reduced value.

I think getting rid of the 5th year will do a lot to limit this issue. Considering most players need a couple years to get good, you get a year or two at most of a cheap but valuable player, then they get paid fairly a year earlier than they do now.

Still cheaper max deals than the best of the crop are worth though.

I just fear reducing the hard cap will negate the balance we bring by introducing tradeable BRs and reduced rookie contracts. Yes, we will make progress toward nerfing OP rookie contracts/absolute tanking strategy, but a further reduction of the hard cap limits team's ability to take on bad contracts/veterans to maybe push themselves up. 

I'll use myself as an example. Stuck with Kevin Love, Mike Conley, and a roster of players like Diamond Stone and Jared Sullinger, I was able to make moves and take on players like Ersan Ilyasova in deals that ultimately made my team better, allowing me to compete and salvage the franchise instead of bottoming out and losing Giannis. 

[Ian Noble]

Actually the most interesting thing about this graph is that the reason the NBA graph flatlines around $135m is because the Luxury Tax starts at $132m.

17 teams are $6m above or below of the Luxury Tax.
4 teams pay more than $6m above.
9 teams pay less than $6m below.

[Ian Noble]

Like you guys have said - these changes need to come with changes to the Luxury Tax/Hard Cap. The difficulty here is that logically we cannot do the Luxury Tax like the real NBA, we are not team owners with finite bank accounts expecting returns on investments, so how do we go about replicating how much the Tax hurts teams?

We need a system that preferences realism, and the graph in the post above shows that the Luxury Tax keeps all but four teams hovering around the luxury tax, not many others go beyond it.

✓ Luxury Tax - same as NBA ($132,627,000 - 122% of Salary Cap)
✓ Luxury Tax Penalty - IMHO should be proportional to the amount you are above the Luxury Tax, like in the NBA, not a flat rate 10% 1st Year - 20% 2nd Year - 30% 3rd Year etc. system like D720's.

[Brian Scalabrine]

I think a luxury tax penalty is too complicated. I've been D720 for years and still don't understand their luxury tax rules.

We should just lower the hard cap

[Jerry West]

Mar 28, 2021 17:54:08 GMT Brian Scalabrine said:

I think a luxury tax penalty is too complicated. I've been D720 for years and still don't understand their luxury tax rules.

We should just lower the hard cap

I agree. I think it should be a little higher than the NBA luxury tax, so something around 130%

[Ian Noble]

I certainly do prefer to keep things simpler.

It's easier for me to administrate and, like you said Brian Scalabrine, it's easier for GMs to understand, and that's a key factor for just enjoying your time here, as well as helping newbies learn the system.

[Tom Izzo]

I still don't understand why we need to lower the hard cap. Can someone help me understand the benefit?

[Alex English]

Mar 28, 2021 18:10:53 GMT Tom Izzo said:

I still don't understand why we need to lower the hard cap. Can someone help me understand the benefit?

It makes creating super teams, and especially keeping super teams together, much more difficult. Ideally every team should be able to to afford only 2 max contracts and a decent supporting cast, or maybe 3 max contracts at the cost of basically no depth.

If we make trading more free and control the leagues competitive balance with the hard cap then teams should have a much easier time creating championship contending teams.

If we make trading more free, but the hard cap barely affects the creation of unrealistically good teams, then we'll likely just make things even easier for super teams, and the 20+ teams that don't stand a chance will have to continuously tank until they find their franchise player rookie(s).

[Ian Noble]

Mar 28, 2021 18:10:53 GMT Tom Izzo said:

I still don't understand why we need to lower the hard cap. Can someone help me understand the benefit?

In the NBA there's only three teams higher than 127% of the Salary Cap and they are freakish outliers: GSW, BKN and PHI (who will be back down to more normal levels next season).

I can see 140% working here at D5, maybe even 135% or 130% since our penalties for being above the Hard Cap do not really impact teams that badly.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Can we please stop babying the TANKERS?

Almost, all the recent big changes favor them already!

Rookie BRs being available for trades.
The hard cap.

It is already hard for playoff contenders because the exceptions are not available in this league. Even the MLE is not allowed to be utilized if you have cap space.

The reality is, it is much harder to contend here than to tank. So, can we at the very least, lean this one more towards the contenders? Just a little bit please.

[Jerry West]

Mar 28, 2021 22:47:05 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Can we please stop babying the TANKERS?

Almost, all the recent big changes favor them already!

Rookie BRs being available for trades.
The hard cap.

It is already hard for playoff contenders because the exceptions are not available in this league. Even the MLE is not allowed to be utilized if you have cap space.

The reality is, it is much harder to contend here than to tank. So, can we at the very least, lean this one more towards the contenders? Just a little bit please.

It's hard to content because it's possible to create super teams with 5 max players. If people can't do that it will balance the league and encourage more people to compete. Or do we just want everyone to tank until they have 3 top 5 picks and then compete with them plus 2 max players?

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Mar 28, 2021 22:50:24 GMT Jerry West said:

Mar 28, 2021 22:47:05 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Can we please stop babying the TANKERS?

Almost, all the recent big changes favor them already!

Rookie BRs being available for trades.
The hard cap.

It is already hard for playoff contenders because the exceptions are not available in this league. Even the MLE is not allowed to be utilized if you have cap space.

The reality is, it is much harder to contend here than to tank. So, can we at the very least, lean this one more towards the contenders? Just a little bit please.

It's hard to content because it's possible to create super teams with 5 max players. If people can't do that it will balance the league and encourage more people to compete. Or do we just want everyone to tank until they have 3 top 5 picks and then compete with them plus 2 max players?

It should be possible because in real life, that is possible.