|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 26, 2015 8:10:45 GMT
Featuring Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 26, 2015 8:35:59 GMT
Yeah! That was quick Jeremiah! Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 26, 2015 19:22:23 GMT
I wrote like essays of shit on this in the Marc Gasol thread when that whole thing happened, but I think the idea of realism in free agency is flawed and being serious about making everything "like the NBA" is bad for our league.
What is realistic is basically whatever that individual thinks could or should happen, there is no objective way to be realistic. Also unrealistic things happen all the time in the NBA and nobody blinks, because it's real life, whatever happens is realistic by definition. But when unrealistic things might happen in D5, people get angry and demand explanations. So now what is really happening is we're all making it impossible, or very difficult, for anything to happen besides the most obvious option. Since anything else results in backlash.
So that means superteams. Lots and lots of superteams. How could this premier player possibly pass on the option of playing with so and so and being an instant contender? Based on what is "realistic" they can't. So all the other teams that aren't contenders just get the scraps of whatever is left. It makes our free agency too formulaic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 26, 2015 20:53:33 GMT
I think that realistically only players at the end of their 29-30 year old season are looking to make sure they are in a winning environment. Even then we all know that a guy like Greg Monroe went to a middle of the road team with a bunch of lotto tickets. LeBron made his move without knowing that the Cavs would get Love.
In real life is a LeBron/Khawi level guy going to the 76ers (Real life) no. But there is no reason they wouldn't go to a Milwaukee (middle level borderline).
Teams like Golden State and Denver and the Clippers took advantage of having good guys to start, decent trades and no hard cap to aquire their superteams. Getting that many good players is going to be harder to do going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 26, 2015 21:10:39 GMT
I agree with Alex. An example is bosh spurning a super team with d12 and Hitler in Houston a couple off seasons ago to stay with an inferior team in Mia. Players don't always wanna be 2nd or 3rd fiddle on a super team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 26, 2015 21:12:42 GMT
I think that realistically only players at the end of their 29-30 year old season are looking to make sure they are in a winning environment. Even then we all know that a guy like Greg Monroe went to a middle of the road team with a bunch of lotto tickets. LeBron made his move without knowing that the Cavs would get Love. In real life is a LeBron/Khawi level guy going to the 76ers (Real life) no. But there is no reason they wouldn't go to a Milwaukee (middle level borderline). I completely agree, but these are examples of the exact type of moves that would never happen in D5. Greg Monroe won't go to Milwaukee, Al Jefferson would never sign with Charlotte, Lebron, Bosh, and Wade would never collude to sign together in Miami. Lebron would never leave the certainty of Miami for all the questions of a young Cavs team. Deandre Jordan would never change his mind after making a verbal commitment. Every year multiple things happen in real life free agency that could never happen here. If those things did happen everyone would get pissed off and talk about how bullshit it is. The other teams that bid for Monroe, or Jefferson, or whoever, would ask why their bid with equal money and a much better team got passed over. The problem is that with how our system works, they'd be right to ask those questions because there is no objective way for those players to pick the team they picked when better situations were available to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 26, 2015 23:15:32 GMT
Would maybe requiring the player agents to put out like a "Rumors Page" on the media section with various things that sort of give GMs an idea of where players heads are. Maybe before the Free Agency starts PAs post a rumors section.
An example for someone like Milsap next season his rumor could be: Milsap looking for long term deal to close out career.
Someone like David West whos a little older with waning skills pretend hes a FA: West may consider taking less money to play with a contender.
LeBron itching to return home.
With all of these you have real world evidence that explains these signings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 26, 2015 23:52:00 GMT
I feel like it's important to keep a player agent, or committees, personal touch as a factor. On the other hand I can see that it restricts OSFA in the way you guys are saying, although I do feel you guys are discounting the fact that there is often several teams with almost equal chances of signing a player when a decision is made.
An alternative could be to award bidding teams a weighted chance of signing a player depending upon how many "boxes are ticked" by a proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 27, 2015 1:23:07 GMT
I wrote like essays of shit on this in the Marc Gasol thread when that whole thing happened, but I think the idea of realism in free agency is flawed and being serious about making everything "like the NBA" is bad for our league. What is realistic is basically whatever that individual thinks could or should happen, there is no objective way to be realistic. Also unrealistic things happen all the time in the NBA and nobody blinks, because it's real life, whatever happens is realistic by definition. But when unrealistic things might happen in D5, people get angry and demand explanations. So now what is really happening is we're all making it impossible, or very difficult, for anything to happen besides the most obvious option. Since anything else results in backlash. So that means superteams. Lots and lots of superteams. How could this premier player possibly pass on the option of playing with so and so and being an instant contender? Based on what is "realistic" they can't. So all the other teams that aren't contenders just get the scraps of whatever is left. It makes our free agency too formulaic. I kinda disagree. We can basically connote "realism" as the thing that the players did in the Free Agency in real life. With that, we should have some who will not fit the logical mold in making their decision. Examples: LMA, D. West, Rondo, Duncan P.S. I still did not hear the podcast so I may have been barking in the wrong tree here. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 27, 2015 4:58:29 GMT
Well, Re: the whole mimic realism vs not - Can we not just fix it? Could we not write last year off as a mistake and say, "let's make it better"?
That will look like us not being consistent in the short-term but if we THEN remain consistent afterwards, we have fixed it. IJS
And I know I've been the main voice on the "other side" of PO's, but I agree with the point that Charles is making repeatedly - opt out if they can get more money.
My main argument has just been the following - What if the PA signed them to a much-too-large contract? And in "year 2" they are making as much as they're supposed to make. I guess they gain an extra year of a contract, but if we change the PO rules, they may lose a lot of flexibility in a key year of their career.
It's just another side I'm presenting. I can see the logic for an extra year, but what if they aren't even going to make any more money? And what if they lose flexibility they might value?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 27, 2015 5:29:33 GMT
Well, Re: the whole mimic realism vs not - Can we not just fix it? Could we not write last year off as a mistake and say, "let's make it better"?
That will look like us not being consistent in the short-term but if we THEN remain consistent afterwards, we have fixed it. IJS
And I know I've been the main voice on the "other side" of PO's, but I agree with the point that Charles is making repeatedly - opt out if they can get more money. My main argument has just been the following - What if the PA signed them to a much-too-large contract? And in "year 2" they are making as much as they're supposed to make. I guess they gain an extra year of a contract, but if we change the PO rules, they may lose a lot of flexibility in a key year of their career. It's just another side I'm presenting. I can see the logic for an extra year, but what if they aren't even going to make any more money? And what if they lose flexibility they might value? Totally agree! |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 27, 2015 5:29:36 GMT
Wow. Not even going to dignify the "Walt traded Draymond to Bryan for Bledsoe" thing. That's some bullshit Charles. I'd gladly open up my PM's from my Bledsoe signing to you if Ian would be OK with it. Never one word about any of that stuff.
I do like Rubio, just as much as I always have. What happened was, I decided it wasn't worth my time anymore to fight it so hard b/c he was on my team. I still feel the same as I have for a long time about Rubio, a lot of my values come out of Fantasy Basketball at least as a very beginning point. I can see that Rubio's stats come out to a very solid player, but he kept getting shit on in this league, so I always fought so hard to keep his rating up where I truly feel it should be. My time has become more limited, however, and I just had to say to myself "this group of managers just doesn't like Rubio as much as I do. I'm not going to have time to fight so hard to keep his rating up, so I'm done with it". It's what I did with KLove too. If the league doesn't like him as much as I do, I'm going to go try and get players that the league seems to like more.
As for the demand of Bledsoe to demand Rubio traded, I even told Bryan that seemed unrealistic but at the end of the day I liked Bledsoe more than Rubio so I agreed to it.
Don't take some of this stuff too seriously - Rubio was "Untouchable" to me b/c I liked him more than everyone else, from what I could see. If someone offered me Durant for Rubio, Rubio's out of town with my 1st round picks and other young players, obviously. That "untouchable" is also about showing my level of commitment, plus maybe even raising the player's value to be closer to where I believe it should be. "He's untouchable, he's my cornerstone." So, if you want him, give me a "cornerstone" type of player.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 16:34:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 5:31:48 GMT
My main argument has just been the following - What if the PA signed them to a much-too-large contract? Then they won't opt out. It isn't "much-too-large" if someone would pay them more. That's why Bledsoe would opt out, and someone like Mirotic (if he could) wouldn't. Because one of those contracts is "much-too-large" and the other one isn't. You seem to think that much-too-large is decided by how much money a player got IRL. It isn't. It's decided by how much that player would get here. This PA "capping" of contracts is bullshit anyway and is clearly one of the most biased things I've ever seen. Does anyone have any reason why Mirotics contract didn't get capped at a "reasonable" value? It was the result of a bidding war and Mirotic took almost 4X as much as he got in real life. But now Bledsoe will opt in for "realism"? Nah. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 27, 2015 5:40:56 GMT
My main argument has just been the following - What if the PA signed them to a much-too-large contract? Then they won't opt out. It isn't "much-too-large" if someone would pay them more. That's why Bledsoe would opt out, and someone like Mirotic (if he could) wouldn't. Because one of those contracts is "much-too-large" and the other one isn't. You seem to think that much-too-large is decided by how much money a player got IRL. It isn't. It's decided by how much that player would get here. This PA "capping" of contracts is bullshit anyway and is clearly one of the most biased things I've ever seen. Does anyone have any reason why Mirotics contract didn't get capped at a "reasonable" value? It was the result of a bidding war and Mirotic took almost 4X as much as he got in real life. But now Bledsoe will opt in for "realism"? Nah. It's the choice of the individual PA, unfortunately. I don't like that. I'm one of the most "realistic" guys as a PA out there. So, maybe that's why I am the one harping on this issue on this side of the issue. I'm the one that signed Middleton to his contract. I look at real-life contracts and keep it pretty damn close to that. I got offers, as a PA, for Carmelo that were actually $35 MILLION PER FUCKING YEAR. I had to say "what the fuck, no fucking way, you're fucking crazy, we're lowering that a LOT down to something fairly realistic compared to what he got IRL." And if Carmelo wouldn't have had a recently-signed contract, I would have based it on the most similar player's most recent contract that I could find. But that's me. That's how I think it should be done so that's how I do it. Others receive the Josh Smith contract offer and just say "hey a ton of money, that's what he's worth! SIGNED" wtf?!?! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 16:34:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 5:42:49 GMT
We just need to implement maximum contracts. 25, 30, and 35% of the cap based on years experience is how it's done in real life and it'd be ridiculously simple to implement...
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 27, 2015 5:48:42 GMT
We just need to implement maximum contracts. 25, 30, and 35% of the cap based on years experience is how it's done in real life and it'd be ridiculously simple to implement... We started down that road this season but the follow-through wasn't great. Mostly b/c there is at least one exception to that rule IRL and we just kind of said "well if they're really good like Cousins, he can go above that scale" w/o defining HOW MUCH above that he can go. So, I think it'll get better and I agree on that. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 16:34:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 5:49:31 GMT
We just need to implement maximum contracts. 25, 30, and 35% of the cap based on years experience is how it's done in real life and it'd be ridiculously simple to implement... We started down that road this season but the follow-through wasn't great. Mostly b/c there is at least one exception to that rule IRL and we just kind of said "well if they're really good like Cousins, he can go above that scale" w/o defining HOW MUCH above that he can go. So, I think it'll get better and I agree on that. Just use the Derrick Rose rule as well... If they've made 2 all star teams or been named MVP they can get the full 35 |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 16:34:38 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 5:54:03 GMT
Haha like the real NBA doesn't have these issues because of their contract rules... So adopt those and the issues go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 27, 2015 6:02:26 GMT
Lowry did not, in fact, sign this offseason.
IRL, July of 2014, he signed a 4-year, $48 million contract. Guess what he got a couple months later in D5? About the same contract.
Nothing to do with Bryan being a PA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 27, 2015 6:09:21 GMT
Haha like the real NBA doesn't have these issues because of their contract rules... So adopt those and the issues go away. Adam, you're not going to find me arguing against many, if any, real-life rules. We are not actual real-life so sometimes we have to modify things, but yea. Generally I like real-life rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 27, 2015 6:27:43 GMT
Just for the record, the league that I am managing and the one that Adam is managing use more real life rules specially in OSFA (Maximums, RFAs, PO restriction) and it run smoothly. (Although in my league, it was ruined by lack of active GMs during the offseason)
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Dec 27, 2015 13:17:14 GMT
We just need to implement maximum contracts. 25, 30, and 35% of the cap based on years experience is how it's done in real life and it'd be ridiculously simple to implement... Makes sense. Seems simple to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 1:47:39 GMT
I wrote like essays of shit on this in the Marc Gasol thread when that whole thing happened, but I think the idea of realism in free agency is flawed and being serious about making everything "like the NBA" is bad for our league. What is realistic is basically whatever that individual thinks could or should happen, there is no objective way to be realistic. Also unrealistic things happen all the time in the NBA and nobody blinks, because it's real life, whatever happens is realistic by definition. But when unrealistic things might happen in D5, people get angry and demand explanations. So now what is really happening is we're all making it impossible, or very difficult, for anything to happen besides the most obvious option. Since anything else results in backlash. So that means superteams. Lots and lots of superteams. How could this premier player possibly pass on the option of playing with so and so and being an instant contender? Based on what is "realistic" they can't. So all the other teams that aren't contenders just get the scraps of whatever is left. It makes our free agency too formulaic. Our free agency doesnt need a formula. What it needs is consistency among PA's. Either try to represent player personalities or don't. What we can't have is some doing it and not the others. Because when that happens, it just makes everyone question the rules and how things are supposed to be. Its like this, Al Jeezera comes out and says all these guys used HgH, some of the accused say, "yeah, I used HgH, it wasn't banned, now it is, and now I don't use it." And another guy comes out and says, "The report is blasphemy, I never used HgH in my life." Well, if one person admits it is true, and another doesn't, how do we know if the report is true? The accused who is admitting the use, may very well be trying to harm the credibility of others that have been accused. It leads to chaos amongst the masses trying to decipher the report. That is what occurred in the free agency this past season. Some PA's stuck with realism, others threw it out the window. It doesn't matter what is decided upon, just so that it is decided upon and the GMs in the league can know what to expect, to the best of their ability. Does Detroit have a chance at signing LeBron? If they think so, when most would argue that RL LeBron would never do so, they don't know if they should waste their time with an offer, and wait and negotiate or just pass and move on to more attainable free agents. See, that's what is important. Every GM should go in to FA with a plan and a strategy. If the basis of the assumptions is wrong in their strategy and plans, then they're fucked. If I'm leading troops in to battle, and we get information that the enemy is unequipped with tanks and just has small arms, then I don't equip my troops with weapons to combat tanks. And then if the enemy does have tanks, we are all dead. It is just important for the league and the GMs to understand to a certain extent of what to expect from a PA and a PA's decision. If they can't make correct assumptions, and by they I mean all of the GMs, because that is what is happening, then it leads to chaos and outrage and just overall bitterness. Consistency among PA's regarding OSFA pertaining to NBA and Player Realism is needed. And the good thing is, we have 6 months to figure it out. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 1:59:26 GMT
I agree with Alex. An example is bosh spurning a super team with d12 and Hitler in Houston a couple off seasons ago to stay with an inferior team in Mia. Players don't always wanna be 2nd or 3rd fiddle on a super team. What exactly are you argeeing with here? If I am not mistaken, Alex said that players will behave to an extent in which where they will go to the best team possible all the time, and you're making the point that Bosh, IRL, stayed with the Heat which you claim was inferior. The teams players go to is not important. What is important is why they go to those teams. And the "why" in that question being, "Is that where the player would have most likely gone if they were presented with the exact same situation in real life" or is it because "that's where the PA felt the player should go, irregardless of if that is where the player would have went in real life"? The team a player chooses is not important in this argument that I am making. The why a player chooses such team is important. If the PA is trying his best to put himself in the player's RL shoes, and make what he feels would be the player's decision in RL, than all the PA's need to operate like this. However, if the PA is just trying to get the best deal possible, and is trying his best to put the player in the BEST position possible, then all the PA's need to operate like this. One is representing realism to the best of the ability of the PA, and the other is just putting the player where he feels the player will fit best. The differences we have between the two are vast, yet so slim. One main difference is the player's RL personality and if it is taken in to account in the FA decision making process. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 2:05:08 GMT
I think that realistically only players at the end of their 29-30 year old season are looking to make sure they are in a winning environment. Even then we all know that a guy like Greg Monroe went to a middle of the road team with a bunch of lotto tickets. LeBron made his move without knowing that the Cavs would get Love. In real life is a LeBron/Khawi level guy going to the 76ers (Real life) no. But there is no reason they wouldn't go to a Milwaukee (middle level borderline). I completely agree, but these are examples of the exact type of moves that would never happen in D5. Greg Monroe won't go to Milwaukee, Al Jefferson would never sign with Charlotte, Lebron, Bosh, and Wade would never collude to sign together in Miami. Lebron would never leave the certainty of Miami for all the questions of a young Cavs team. Deandre Jordan would never change his mind after making a verbal commitment. Every year multiple things happen in real life free agency that could never happen here. If those things did happen everyone would get pissed off and talk about how bullshit it is. The other teams that bid for Monroe, or Jefferson, or whoever, would ask why their bid with equal money and a much better team got passed over. The problem is that with how our system works, they'd be right to ask those questions because there is no objective way for those players to pick the team they picked when better situations were available to them. There is an objective defense as to why those players picked those teams over others, and that is the player's personality. We knew Monroe wanted to be top dog in the post and an offense that at least let him eat. That's why he took the QO, and didn't sign long term with the Pistons. Jefferson was always a low key guy throughout his time in the league. He never really cared about where played, so long as he was paid well. If I was his PA, I would take the most money. Money being equal, I would have then picked the team that was built around low post guys, like all the other teams he has played for. Al Jefferson would be a harder one because not much is made of his personality, but all one has to do is some semblance of research in to the player they are representing. Being a PA is important, and if you aren't going to do your due diligence as a PA (and we are operating under the assumption of RL Player Personalities being used), then you shouldn't be a PA. Cut and Dry. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 2:07:59 GMT
I feel like it's important to keep a player agent, or committees, personal touch as a factor. On the other hand I can see that it restricts OSFA in the way you guys are saying, although I do feel you guys are discounting the fact that there is often several teams with almost equal chances of signing a player when a decision is made. An alternative could be to award bidding teams a weighted chance of signing a player depending upon how many "boxes are ticked" by a proposal. Or we could just operate under one uniform assumption of how a PA will pick a team for a player. Yes lots of teams often have equal chances of signing a player. But what happens when you throw in a player's real life personality? Teams go away. And what we had this off-season was some PA's throwing in the RL Player personality, and other's just eni-meni-myni-moe'ing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 2:10:16 GMT
I wrote like essays of shit on this in the Marc Gasol thread when that whole thing happened, but I think the idea of realism in free agency is flawed and being serious about making everything "like the NBA" is bad for our league. What is realistic is basically whatever that individual thinks could or should happen, there is no objective way to be realistic. Also unrealistic things happen all the time in the NBA and nobody blinks, because it's real life, whatever happens is realistic by definition. But when unrealistic things might happen in D5, people get angry and demand explanations. So now what is really happening is we're all making it impossible, or very difficult, for anything to happen besides the most obvious option. Since anything else results in backlash. So that means superteams. Lots and lots of superteams. How could this premier player possibly pass on the option of playing with so and so and being an instant contender? Based on what is "realistic" they can't. So all the other teams that aren't contenders just get the scraps of whatever is left. It makes our free agency too formulaic. I kinda disagree. We can basically connote "realism" as the thing that the players did in the Free Agency in real life. With that, we should have some who will not fit the logical mold in making their decision. Examples: LMA, D. West, Rondo, Duncan P.S. I still did not hear the podcast so I may have been barking in the wrong tree here. You're not barking up the wrong tree. This is a discussion, and it is one that needs to be had. Because we had PA's using realism, and others who weren't. And it lead to a very dramatic OSFA, and it lead to a lot of questions being raised. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 2:30:19 GMT
Well, Re: the whole mimic realism vs not - Can we not just fix it? Could we not write last year off as a mistake and say, "let's make it better"? That will look like us not being consistent in the short-term but if we THEN remain consistent afterwards, we have fixed it. IJS
And I know I've been the main voice on the "other side" of PO's, but I agree with the point that Charles is making repeatedly - opt out if they can get more money. My main argument has just been the following - What if the PA signed them to a much-too-large contract? And in "year 2" they are making as much as they're supposed to make. I guess they gain an extra year of a contract, but if we change the PO rules, they may lose a lot of flexibility in a key year of their career. It's just another side I'm presenting. I can see the logic for an extra year, but what if they aren't even going to make any more money? And what if they lose flexibility they might value? No, we can't just not fix it. Because there is no consistency in the process of a PA deciding a team for a player. We can't have GM's operating under false assumptions. We can't have PA's using a method that differentiates from another PA. What if the PA for PF's operates under RL PP (Player Personalities) and the PA for SG just picks where he feels the best fit for the player is. You would get one set of results. However, if we switched the PF PA with the SG PA, you would get a totally different set of results. We can't have that be the case, because that will give teams a leg up on another because of the position a PA represents. Because a lot of times, money is equal. Especially now with lots of cap space. It isn't like people are outbidding each other right and left, and if they are, the PA keeps it to a realistic number (or at least they need to, because it will get out of hand very quickly). Not only do we not have realism in the team in which a PA picks for a player, but we don't have realism in the contracts being signed (and offered). To just disregard it, and not fix it, that way we have a consistency in the long run is not good. Because it will be a consistency of chaos and bitterness. There will still be drama, and sleepless nights, and everything good. But when the process is over, the PA's will be able to defend their positions under a uniform code, whichever it is that is, and NEEDS, to be decided upon. A consistency in chaos and bitterness is not the type of consistency that is good for the league; it is not the type of consistency that should be desired. Re: PO's The contracts they signed aren't "much-too-large". And the only real way of seeing this is if they opt-out. If the players likely to opt out, in your case Favors and Bledsoe, this gives you an extra 40 million to work with. It gives you, the GM, more flexibility and options. Teams will have a lot of space to operate with this off-season, just as last off-season, and just as the next off-season. Players contracts will be going up and up. No FA really signed a much too large contract, the argument could be made for Cousins, but it is a semi-weak one. The only way a player wouldn't receive more money next off-season as they did the last is if they regressed or got a serious injury. The reason these contracts will increase for these players is because a lot of these guys were coming off of rookie deals and are young, sexy players. A solution to this, restricted free agency... Changing the options rule would be awkward at this point in the process considering we have operated under it for a long period of time and a lot of the contracts would instantly become more or less valuable because of the rule change. Not changing it isn't about consistency as much as it is about the ramifications of what would occur throughout the league. It wouldn't be drastic, but it would be definitely noticeable. Plus, and this is the kicker, there is no real set rule on how it is in real life. Right now, PO's and TO's are bargaining chips in contracts and safety nets for teams. Eliminating the extended use of these would weaken OSFA as a whole. A GM can always stand firm on the options they have offered, and offer more money, and persuade the PA by talking up his team and his city and the other factors that go in to the negotiation process. This is just more proof of how OSFA should not be about the most money and most favorable contract being selected. That would make OSFA way too formulaic as Alex claimed it already could be. Point being that a consistent, fair method in PA's choosing teams is needed. And Player Options are there for players to opt out and get more money, and in the case of this off-season, every free agent that I named in the podcast should realistically get a better offer, assuming no rule changes are made to player and team options. A way of avoiding this, would have been, and could still be RFA. Easy and painless to implement, and it makes it more fun and fair for teams, as I stated in the podcast. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 2:43:18 GMT
Wow. Not even going to dignify the "Walt traded Draymond to Bryan for Bledsoe" thing. That's some bullshit Charles. I'd gladly open up my PM's from my Bledsoe signing to you if Ian would be OK with it. Never one word about any of that stuff. I do like Rubio, just as much as I always have. What happened was, I decided it wasn't worth my time anymore to fight it so hard b/c he was on my team. I still feel the same as I have for a long time about Rubio, a lot of my values come out of Fantasy Basketball at least as a very beginning point. I can see that Rubio's stats come out to a very solid player, but he kept getting shit on in this league, so I always fought so hard to keep his rating up where I truly feel it should be. My time has become more limited, however, and I just had to say to myself "this group of managers just doesn't like Rubio as much as I do. I'm not going to have time to fight so hard to keep his rating up, so I'm done with it". It's what I did with KLove too. If the league doesn't like him as much as I do, I'm going to go try and get players that the league seems to like more. As for the demand of Bledsoe to demand Rubio traded, I even told Bryan that seemed unrealistic but at the end of the day I liked Bledsoe more than Rubio so I agreed to it. Don't take some of this stuff too seriously - Rubio was "Untouchable" to me b/c I liked him more than everyone else, from what I could see. If someone offered me Durant for Rubio, Rubio's out of town with my 1st round picks and other young players, obviously. That "untouchable" is also about showing my level of commitment, plus maybe even raising the player's value to be closer to where I believe it should be. "He's untouchable, he's my cornerstone." So, if you want him, give me a "cornerstone" type of player. There isn't a need to dignify it. Its just me being petty and bitter and salty. But from my perspective of "how did I just get a train ran thru my asshole", that's what it COULD look like. Listening further throughout the podcast, I made the statement that it is not smart to bet on free agency, and anyone doing so should stop right now. But, what could have been nice in the process of all of that going on, was knowing why these players chose these teams? Why did Bryan demand Rubio out? And in my case, Rose out? NOTHING about Bledsoe in his basketball career has ever been about him being the top dog and the main guard, just so long as he got paid according to his talent level. Of course Rubio wasn't untouchable. The point about all of that was: Walt went around and lauded for Rubio at every chance he could, and defended him whenever needed. Which a good GM will do. So, if Bryan is operating under the assumption that Bledsoe needs to be the top dog, the main man, why did he even consider Minny with Rubio? And, why even consider Houston with Rose? Promising a trade like that is fine in my book, because that shit happens all the time in real life, and it was a cool wrinkle Bryan had in all of this. But why do it with one of the most unselfish combo guards in our generation, especially when combo guards are notoriously selfish? It just didn't add up. It made no sense to me. And it is what led me to all of this Realism shit. Because while Bryan was doing all of that, Alex was operating under other "rules", as were you, Ian, and Danny. The Bledsoe signing left me completely baffled and dumbfounded, and going in, I thought that if I were to lose Bledsoe, it would be to a totally different team other than yours, and one that bidded way way higher, and that Bledsoe would have picked it for totally different reasons than what he chose. Which left me saying "what the fuck" out loud. And then the Dray signing came in, and then I rationalized it, took solace in the belief that I was cheated, and tried to be content with it all. You guys didn't cheat. But I'm still not content with how things went down. Which led to the player personality and realism things, not just with Bledsoe, but around the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 2:45:40 GMT
My main argument has just been the following - What if the PA signed them to a much-too-large contract? Then they won't opt out. It isn't "much-too-large" if someone would pay them more. That's why Bledsoe would opt out, and someone like Mirotic (if he could) wouldn't. Because one of those contracts is "much-too-large" and the other one isn't. You seem to think that much-too-large is decided by how much money a player got IRL. It isn't. It's decided by how much that player would get here. This PA "capping" of contracts is bullshit anyway and is clearly one of the most biased things I've ever seen. Does anyone have any reason why Mirotics contract didn't get capped at a "reasonable" value? It was the result of a bidding war and Mirotic took almost 4X as much as he got in real life. But now Bledsoe will opt in for "realism"? Nah. So what you are saying is that there should be some sort of "consistency" in the way in which the players get their salary decided? Makes sense. And it goes along with everything I've been saying about the OSFA process. Making the process consistent across PA's does not make the outcomes predictable. It makes understanding the outcomes believable. |
|
Cleveland Cavaliers
Denver Nuggets
New Orleans Pelicans
Boston Celtics
Minnesota Timberwolves
