|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 26, 2022 17:37:10 GMT
Currently, our MLE rule is such that any team over the salary cap, at the start of the offseason, receives the full MLE amount to spend during free agency. This is not the case in the real NBA, where there are two different MLE amounts: one for teams over the luxury tax, and one for teams below the luxury tax (as well as another other MLEs for teams that start above the cap and then go below the cap but we will ignore that one for simplicity). We lack a luxury tax threshold in D5, but I think one way to replicate it would be to set the MLE based on a theoretical luxury tax threshold. My proposal is that we implement a Taxpayer and Non-Taxpayer MLE amount. Taxpayer MLE:I propose that if a team is above more than half of the hard cap multiplier, then the team is considered a luxury taxpayer and only allocated the Taxpayer MLE. For instance, if our hard cap is 150% of the salary cap, then any team above 125% of the salary cap is only allocated this Taxpayer MLE. The Taxpayer MLE was set at $5,890,000 for the 2021/22 season and is projected at $6,184,500 for the 2022/23 season. Non-Taxpayer MLE:I propose that the Non-Taxpayer MLE is available to any team above the salary cap, but below half of the hard cap multiplier. For instance, if our hard cap is 150% of the salary cap, then any team below 125% of the salary cap but above 100% of the salary cap is only allocated this Non-Taxpayer MLE. The Non-Taxpayer MLE corresponds to the MLE figures we currently use. $9,536,000 for 2021/22 and is projected at $10,012,800 for 2022/23. In summary, my proposal is as follows: - Teams below the salary cap do not receive any MLE - Teams above the salary cap but below half of the hard cap multiplier (so currently 125% but would reduce to 122.5% in 2023/24 and 120% in 2024/25) receive the Non-Taxpayer MLE - Teams at or above half of the hard cap multiplier (so currently above 125%) receive the Taxpayer MLE
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 26, 2022 17:40:16 GMT
Side note: both of these MLEs are only allowed to increase by 5% per year in the real NBA. Our current rules allow them to increase by 7.5%, giving an advantage to teams over the salary cap. We could consider reducing the allowable MLE raises to 5% as well in order to be more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Apr 26, 2022 17:45:27 GMT
We did this in D720 I liked it. Helps a bit with the parity as the super stacked teams don’t get the full MlE
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Apr 26, 2022 17:48:10 GMT
This seems needlessly complicated IMHO. What is it trying to accomplish?
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 26, 2022 23:34:07 GMT
This seems needlessly complicated IMHO. What is it trying to accomplish? This is a good idea, I am fully behind this
|
|
|
Post by Arvydas Sabonis on Apr 27, 2022 0:38:46 GMT
I support this change. It's not very complicated as you just need to check in beginning of FA which team gets which MLE (if any) and there are clear thresholds
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Apr 27, 2022 0:44:07 GMT
This seems needlessly complicated IMHO. What is it trying to accomplish? This is a good idea, I am fully behind this
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 27, 2022 16:02:29 GMT
Ian opening up a rule change thread that hurts Ian that Josh decided to post after Josh cleared cap space
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 27, 2022 16:03:37 GMT
Award change request:
Change the Josh Barber Award from best trader to "most sly politician"
Awarded to the D5 member who peers feel contributed the most to sly politics for personal gain
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 27, 2022 16:15:08 GMT
Award change request: Change the Josh Barber Award from best trader to "most sly politician" Awarded to the D5 member who peers feel contributed the most to sly politics for personal gain Well first of all, Josh actually can’t benefit from this rule proposal either as he will have actual cap space that is earmarked for Jokic, so I wouldn’t call this a “fuck Ian over benefiting Josh rule proposal” lol This rule actually makes sense given how it works in the League and takes the simulation — including cap sheet management — closer to real life and away from arbitrary choices. As someone who was in favor of the rollback of our rookie scale deals from 5 to 4 years, RFA being introduced for players coming off rookie scale contracts, and tradeable BRs given they all brought D5 closer to real life alignment, I would’ve expected you to support ANOTHER rule in this vein. My diatribe aside, I think this rule does make sense and would help generate parity and force GMs to make more thoughtful choices on salary allocations when over the cap.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 27, 2022 16:17:46 GMT
It doesn't help Josh this year but it does next year and the couple of years after that
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 27, 2022 16:21:31 GMT
My worry is that this rule change complicates things further.
I don't want to create more complication for something we do for fun. Overly complicating things can take the fun out of it save for the few who enjoy complex games/rules.
I've definitely been a part of board games that are way too complicated that only like 2 people really enjoyed. "Trust me bro it's fun"
Aside from that, I'd further be worried about the 78-81 players who remain unsigned because PAs don't want to sign them to cheap deals to competing teams and the middle/tanking teams have no interest because it doesn't do anything for their plans
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 27, 2022 16:34:02 GMT
Tom Izzo, the increased complexity and implementation, I agree, are good counter arguments to the logic and intent of this proposal. It adds a layer of tracking on the rosters page and could discourage folks from making offers to certain players given it creates almost a caste system depending on the player’s rating, perceived value, etc. However, this is already happening in the NBA with bigs where we just watched Nets not be able to play Andre Drummond much vs the Celtics because stylistically he was unplayable. He likely will get a contract reflective of that reality this offseason despite his talents, especially as a rebounder. I don’t think we can completely expect to legislate better offers for FAs in a certain tier/rating as the sims don’t go deep into most teams benches already and many of those non-rookie scale players in that tier aren’t ones teams with a boatload of young talent want.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 27, 2022 16:44:20 GMT
You guys give me too much credit lol. Apparently my entire facts-based injury system was based entirely on finding a way for Kyrie to stay active, and now I'm proposing rules solely to screw over Ian. You are braindead if you don't think I'm going to be be taking on salaries and pushing the hard cap with my own team lol.
I proposed this rule because I don't think our hard cap reductions are going to do enough due to the ever-increasing salary cap raises. For instance, the hard cap will be a staggering $183m here next year. Even if we reduce it all the way down to our lowest planned point (140%), that is still $170.8m- a figure that is still higher than any team's current or projected salary. And then the following year, we can expect another increase by at least 3%, before a huge spike 2 seasons from now due to the new TV deal (the normal cap will be about where our current hard cap is).
We are running into a situation where the hard cap pretty much does not matter. I proposed this simply as another means to create parity in D5. Currently, a team with $170m in salary has the same OSFA spending power as a team with $113m in salary- with no repercussions. I think it is something that is worthwhile to think about addressing so that we don't keep ending up in situations where all the talent is congregated on a few teams.
|
|