|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 2:52:02 GMT
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?!?! While that is you, and that is how you do it, that makes it harder to swallow when we see it happen with another PA. Why are you, Walter, operating under these rules, and the other PA isn't? Why is it that, based on who the player I am targeting is represented by, has a HUGE outcome on if they will sign with my team? The PA doing the negotiating and deciding for the player I am targeting should operate under the same set of "rules" or whatever, that the PA negotiating and deciding for the player my biggest competitor is targeting. What I am saying there is that I can get fucked in the ass based on who is the PA and gain a comparative advantage over an opponent based on who is the PA. That shit can't happen. We can't have GMs getting realistic contracts on Khris Middleton, and not on Mirotic. Why is that so hard to understand? I think that is more frustrating, but less apparent, than where a PA decides to sign. Say it with me children: con-sis-ten-cy |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 2:54:32 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) It was also ruined by an absurd amount of rash decision making regarding trades. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 28, 2015 2:56:55 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. #1 - You misread what I wrote. I said "can we not just fix it?" Meaning, "can't we just fix it?" So, I agree with all of what you're saying about how it is chaotic to have one PA operating under one set of "rules" and other PA's operating under others. Our personal touch will come through just b/c we all have different personalities but it does need to be more structured and dictated. I believe Ian already has plans to help with this. He talked about taking himself out as a PA and taking on an overseeing role, at least/especially for the bigger names. #2 - I like RFA, and think it wouldn't be all that difficult to achieve. I even think we COULD look into in-season extensions, but maybe one step at a time. #3 - "much too large" - those are my words, they are subjective so we can disagree on that and neither of us may be necessarily wrong. 5 years, $95 million for a better player IRL vs. 5 years, 112 million for a worse (albeit, still very good) player in D5. That's quite a bit of an overpay. It's somewhere in the realm of the real-life contract for the better player, but considering Favors/Bledsoe are not on the level of Kawhi, I think 112 million is way over the top. Again, "way over" is a subjective term but it's how I feel. I paid them extra, putting my faith in their development. By continuing their development, they are only living up to the contract that I gave them. Unless they take that step into 90+ territory this season, I think they're paid fair for next season. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 28, 2015 3:02:13 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. Again, I agree with you on not understanding why Bledsoe demanded Rubio out. He's never done anything like that or complain about sharing the ball IRL. Really wasn't realistic to BLEDSOE, even if it is something that some players do IRL. I disagree on the "why would he consider Minnesota in the first place" thing though. First of all, anyone who sends an offer to a PA should get consideration. Even if it's brief. Secondly, I have a nice young core that Bledsoe easily fits into personality- and age-wise. Thirdly, I've shown myself to be, if not a great GM, at least a very competent one. I do have a D5 EOTY under my belt for whatever that's worth (not a whole ton, granted). My point being, there are reasons, you can look at it from multiple points of view and see why he would consider coming here. He's my highest rated player with or w/o Rubio, I've made the playoffs 3 out of 4 years, made good trades, draft well, good signings, good young team, etc. Of course he would consider the TWolves. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 28, 2015 3:09:40 GMT
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?!?! While that is you, and that is how you do it, that makes it harder to swallow when we see it happen with another PA. Why are you, Walter, operating under these rules, and the other PA isn't? Why is it that, based on who the player I am targeting is represented by, has a HUGE outcome on if they will sign with my team? The PA doing the negotiating and deciding for the player I am targeting should operate under the same set of "rules" or whatever, that the PA negotiating and deciding for the player my biggest competitor is targeting. What I am saying there is that I can get fucked in the ass based on who is the PA and gain a comparative advantage over an opponent based on who is the PA. That shit can't happen. We can't have GMs getting realistic contracts on Khris Middleton, and not on Mirotic. Why is that so hard to understand? I think that is more frustrating, but less apparent, than where a PA decides to sign. Say it with me children: con-sis-ten-cy I agree with all of this. As for your questions directed at me during this post, I don't know exactly. I know that I've been a PA for probably...10 years across 5-10 leagues that were based more or less on D5's model. I've helped run leagues, I've been on TC's and RC's and named the "Salary czar" and the "ratings czar" in multiple leagues with really good managers. I have a long track record. Maybe I just have more experience doing this than most of the other guys? I always leave the "direction" of my initial process up to Ian. If he says this year "just sign with whoever offers the most money", I will respond to him and question it, but if he stands firm at the end of our conversation, that's what I'll do. So, the reason I do what I do is b/c Ian has said to do things like that, in one way or another. And I draw on my experience. And, how the hell am I, some idiot that is not involved in the actual wheelings and dealings of the NBA front office and contracts, supposed to decide what a player is worth? I'm not, not really. I let them do it IRL, and I use the most recent evidence and base my contracts on those real-life contracts. It's actually the easier way and I can always point to what happened IRL and no one can really question that part of it (the salary number). I wish one person (wouldn't need to be me, at all) could do all of the PA duties but it's too hard and too much time. A bit more structure and prepping ahead of time will assist, and Ian taking on a supervisory role should help as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 3:27:34 GMT
After reading what I have wrote, I can see a flaw that will surely be brought up.
Some will say that if consistency was implemented in OSFA, the teams a player will choose will be formulated before the process is even finished.
However, that is not that case. The reason consistency is needed in this process, is so that when someone, like myself, gets all upset over why someone didn't sign with their team, the PA can easily explain it to them. And it will likely be the same explanation a different PA would have given had they made the same decision.
This is taken, directly, from the Off-Season Free Agency Guidelines page.
Off Season Free Agency Guide
If you have enough money to make a bid for a player the strength of your offer depends on a number of factors:
1. Money Offered (Player Agents will work to keep salaries realistic, but it doesn't hurt to show you're committed)
2. Playing time.
3. The chances of success with your team (playoff/championship calibre)
4. How much dedication you have shown to the player.
5. Whether your team is a "big market" team, or a team with "prestige" or history.
6. The player's perceived real-life personality traits.
7. The perceived effort you put into making a offer.
Now, it doesn't seem that some PA's work to keep salaries realistic.
If we take number 6: "The player's perceived real-life personality traits" and make it number 1, the whole process changes. The problem with that list right now is that, some PA's completely disregard this list. Playing time doesn't mean Walt has to trade Rubio to fit in Bledsoe.
Some players, as Jeremiah stated, younger players, don't care about playoff/championship caliber in a team, because of how they see themselves and how they fit in a team. LeBron didn't even really care to go to Miami to win, sure he wanted to win, but that wasn't the reason why he went there. He went there because he wanted to play basketball with his 2 best friends, Wade and Bosh. And he left there, not because of the ability to win, even though that had decreased over the last 4 years, but because he wanted to bring something more to his career, his legacy.
If a PA goes down that list, and looks at things, number 6 could very well make numbers 1 thru 5 null and void.
I am in favor of capturing a player's perceived real-life personality traits as best as we can and making it the most important thing, because if we do that, everything else will follow very easily, the money, PT, winning, etc...
However, at this point, I just want consistency. I want consistency from PA to PA on how they select a contract from a given team. This will not mean Alex and Walt would agree on where a player goes, but what it will mean is that when the GMs look at why a player went there, they will be able to understand and see it better.
I don't see why Gasol went to the Bucks, if you take into account his personality. I know Alex talked about how Gasol values loyalty and no one seemed to be loyal to him, but the Kings were the most loyal of them all, and I think Gasol values loyalty the most, and I think he should have chose there. Instead, the defense on the Gasol signing, is that it was his best chance at winning a trophy. But Gasol doesn't really care about that right now in his career, in real life. So why did he choose to do so in here?
I'd like the use of perceived real life player personalities to be the first thing and most important thing on this list, because money will be equal now, bc of the cap, PT will be equal. But what if the player doesn't care about the money?
What if someone comes out and offers LMA 30 million? Should LMA choose that offer because it is the highest offer even though everything he did in real life went against that? Or David West?
Player personalities matter. And they don't matter enough to some PA's. And that needs to change. Along with these boneheaded contracts.
Implementing a uniform process wouldn't make OSFA formulaic, but it would make it defensible. Because at the end of the day, you are still going to have many teams that fit the players personality, and money, and everything else. And then, it is going to come down to the effort in the offer, the city, the personality of the GM; all things that the GM has control over and is capable of winning a player with when it comes down to the wire with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 3:46:45 GMT
#1 - You misread what I wrote. I said "can we not just fix it?" Meaning, "can't we just fix it?" So, I agree with all of what you're saying about how it is chaotic to have one PA operating under one set of "rules" and other PA's operating under others. Our personal touch will come through just b/c we all have different personalities but it does need to be more structured and dictated. I believe Ian already has plans to help with this. He talked about taking himself out as a PA and taking on an overseeing role, at least/especially for the bigger names. #2 - I like RFA, and think it wouldn't be all that difficult to achieve. I even think we COULD look into in-season extensions, but maybe one step at a time. #3 - "much too large" - those are my words, they are subjective so we can disagree on that and neither of us may be necessarily wrong. 5 years, $95 million for a better player IRL vs. 5 years, 112 million for a worse (albeit, still very good) player in D5. That's quite a bit of an overpay. It's somewhere in the realm of the real-life contract for the better player, but considering Favors/Bledsoe are not on the level of Kawhi, I think 112 million is way over the top. Again, "way over" is a subjective term but it's how I feel. I paid them extra, putting my faith in their development. By continuing their development, they are only living up to the contract that I gave them. Unless they take that step into 90+ territory this season, I think they're paid fair for next season. I think when it comes to contract size, we need to have D5 Realism. Since teams are different in here, some teams have more cap space than others do in real life. This is made more troublesome by the absence of a salary floor, but that wouldn't really effect OSFA too much, but it would still be a factor. So, we have teams with more money, different players are available than in real life, and it becomes different than RL, pertaining to the contracts. So the PA needs to understand and realize what the cap on a player's contract should and needs to be. If we need to implement a percentage system, then so be it, but I don't think that is necessary, unless we are talking about RFA. Bledsoe signed a ~14 million per year deal IRL in the fall of 2014, before the cap jump. At that time, 14 million was roughly 23% of the ~63 million dollar cap. Now, if we assume the cap jumps to 85 million next off-season, 20 million a year would be about 23.5% of the cap. This is all fine and dandy, except we forgot one VERY important thing: 2014 Bledsoe is not the same as 2016 Bledsoe. If we assume he has progressed, he should be worth more money than his 2014 self, and I don't think that 1.5% more of the cap is enough. This is the same with a lot of young players who just signed their contracts this off-season that got RFA deals in RL in 2014. To add to this conundrum, we throw in the multiple teams with lots and lots of potential cap room. So, his contract should be inflated a little bit more, not 15 million more, not even 10 million more. One would assume Bledsoe, along with the others, would get paid more on the basis that they are one year closer to their prime, one year better. On the other hand, AND THIS IS WHERE IT GETS REALLY FUCKING COOL, say a player has never made a peep about wanting out of an organization. Now they really didn't have a choice, considering RFA and everything, but if they like where they are, wouldn't a PA have just as good of a reason to opt in if we stress an importance on RL PP? And, if this is the case, wouldn't a player opt out, and just re-sign? Grab that extra year of guaranteed money. I don't think we can use NBA contracts as an end all be all example of contractual realism when we consider the landscape of our league being greatly differential compared to the landscape of the NBA. However, we can have D5 Contractual Realism, something that resembles NBA contracts, but also takes in to account our unique landscape, contracts for peers, RL PP, taxes, and such. I am not saying Bledsoe should get paid more this off-season than Kawhi. And I am not saying that 20 million isnt fair for Bledsoe. But what I am saying is that in this D5 world, they are worth more here than they are in RL. One major factor being that many GM's have huge boners for these guys. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 3:53:39 GMT
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. Again, I agree with you on not understanding why Bledsoe demanded Rubio out. He's never done anything like that or complain about sharing the ball IRL. Really wasn't realistic to BLEDSOE, even if it is something that some players do IRL. I disagree on the "why would he consider Minnesota in the first place" thing though. First of all, anyone who sends an offer to a PA should get consideration. Even if it's brief. Secondly, I have a nice young core that Bledsoe easily fits into personality- and age-wise. Thirdly, I've shown myself to be, if not a great GM, at least a very competent one. I do have a D5 EOTY under my belt for whatever that's worth (not a whole ton, granted). My point being, there are reasons, you can look at it from multiple points of view and see why he would consider coming here. He's my highest rated player with or w/o Rubio, I've made the playoffs 3 out of 4 years, made good trades, draft well, good signings, good young team, etc. Of course he would consider the TWolves. The reason he should not have considered Minny, for more than that brief second that all GM's should be guaranteed to get, is because Bryan wanted Bledsoe to be the main guy, and to my knowledge, the promise of a trade contingent upon a player signing there was never done before, and therefore was not in the realm of possibility. In that form of thinking he shouldn't have considered Houston. But why was Bryan even thinking like this in the first place is what escapes me. It wasn't a slight against you, your team, or your "credentials". What it was is a questioning of the demand by Bryan in the first place. If your goal is to have your guy be the clear cut PG, main guard on the team, why entertain a team that has already just that. Unless, of course, you can go ahead and make a promise of a trade contingent upon a signing of a player. And we just went back to the beginning. Its fine there is a new thing with promising the trade of a player contingent upon a signing, but why would Bryan demand that in the first place considering this went against everything Bledsoe had done in his professional and amateur career. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 4:02:00 GMT
While that is you, and that is how you do it, that makes it harder to swallow when we see it happen with another PA. Why are you, Walter, operating under these rules, and the other PA isn't? Why is it that, based on who the player I am targeting is represented by, has a HUGE outcome on if they will sign with my team? The PA doing the negotiating and deciding for the player I am targeting should operate under the same set of "rules" or whatever, that the PA negotiating and deciding for the player my biggest competitor is targeting. What I am saying there is that I can get fucked in the ass based on who is the PA and gain a comparative advantage over an opponent based on who is the PA. That shit can't happen. We can't have GMs getting realistic contracts on Khris Middleton, and not on Mirotic. Why is that so hard to understand? I think that is more frustrating, but less apparent, than where a PA decides to sign. Say it with me children: con-sis-ten-cy I agree with all of this. As for your questions directed at me during this post, I don't know exactly. I know that I've been a PA for probably...10 years across 5-10 leagues that were based more or less on D5's model. I've helped run leagues, I've been on TC's and RC's and named the "Salary czar" and the "ratings czar" in multiple leagues with really good managers. I have a long track record. Maybe I just have more experience doing this than most of the other guys? I always leave the "direction" of my initial process up to Ian. If he says this year "just sign with whoever offers the most money", I will respond to him and question it, but if he stands firm at the end of our conversation, that's what I'll do. So, the reason I do what I do is b/c Ian has said to do things like that, in one way or another. And I draw on my experience. And, how the hell am I, some idiot that is not involved in the actual wheelings and dealings of the NBA front office and contracts, supposed to decide what a player is worth? I'm not, not really. I let them do it IRL, and I use the most recent evidence and base my contracts on those real-life contracts. It's actually the easier way and I can always point to what happened IRL and no one can really question that part of it (the salary number). I wish one person (wouldn't need to be me, at all) could do all of the PA duties but it's too hard and too much time. A bit more structure and prepping ahead of time will assist, and Ian taking on a supervisory role should help as well. We don't need one PA. We, as all of the GMs, need to be able to formulate a strategy and plan based upon the correct assumptions. Again, it isn't fair that one PA is crazy weird and another isn't. If GSW needs a SG, and that PA is reasonable in his contracts, and if MIL needs a C, and that PA is unreasonable in his contracts, it leads to GSW having an advantage. Because they are playing in the realm of what is rational and attainable and the Center PA is just going nuts. If we have consistency, it creates a defense for PA's. So that some off-the-wall knucklehead, who got fucked over, can't come out and bitch and cry and moan and raise questions of collusion, unfairness, or otherwise. Keep contracts within D5 Contractual Realism and keep PA's operating under one belief system; either that RL PP matter first, or don't matter at all. And if RL PP don't matter at all, I think that leads to OSFA being formulaic, because the best teams will get better, because the 23 year old's, coming off the rookie deal, PA will value winning 3rd, irregardless of if the player in RL just signed with RL PHI for the most money. Stressing RL PP makes a new wrinkle in this crucial time where teams have an abundancy of cap space and other teams are loaded with one missing piece. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 28, 2015 4:15:57 GMT
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. How does one achieve consistency without a formula? If you want all the PAs to operate under the same basic mindset, then you need rules that outline what the mindset should be. Which is something we already have. That is our formula for free agency. You're also demonstrating my point exactly right here: 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. The Bledsoe signing didn't make sense to you, the offer wasn't high enough, the Timberwolves weren't good enough, it shouldn't have happened that way. You got pissed off about it. So do you see what I mean? Anything that isn't obvious is unacceptable. The consistent and easy to plan for approach you're asking for is the exact thing that I think is wrong with our free agency. The rich get richer and everyone else that doesn't meet the free agency criteria for success will be discouraged and rightfully feel like their options are limited. They can only hope to re-sign their own good players, or get a lower tier free agent that would only result in them being mediocre. I don't mind that Eric Bledsoe did something weird in free agency. It's fine with me that Nikola Mirotic is being paid about twice what he's worth. Players being overpaid is a grand old tradition in the NBA. Tristan Thompson just held out because he didn't think he was being overpaid enough. The guy comes off the bench and somehow got $82 million. I'd argue for less of a process in free agency if I thought it would result in anything besides anger. But it would, so we're kind of stuck with the choice of being boring and not giving half the league any chance in free agency, or pissing everyone off so much that accusations of cheating will be thrown around and demands for Ian to remove PAs will be made. It seems like competitive balance is a necessary casualty if the other option is that no one wants to play anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 4:41:37 GMT
If we really want to fix the problem of these outrageous contracts, and they will only keep growing as the cap does, we need to implement RFA.
How do we go about doing this?
It is simple. Any player on their rookie deal has their 5th year become the QO. Except for those players on their rookie deal 5th year currently (ex Kawhi). Or, we just have no QO for the current players on their rookie deal, and instead of entering UFA, they enter RFA.
Anyways, you need to have the player for 3 years, just like how our BRs are, in order to match a contract and take you over the cap. This makes prospects that much more valuable for rebuilding teams, and it lets you keep your prospects. It will reduce the trading of players on their rookie deals, but it will also make them worth more in trades.
If you acquire a player on a rookie deal with less than 3 years remaining, meaning you would not have their BRs, you cannot go over the cap to match them.
The spot where this becomes tricky is in this instance: In our other league, the guy had Kawhi Leonard who would be a RFA, but did not own his BRs, so he cut salary, and by salary, I mean basically had to make his team devoid of any assets besides Kawhi in order to be able to match the maximum contract that could be offered to Kawhi. Now, in this instance, I lobbied for Kawhi to take the QO, instead of being on a shitty team for the next few seasons. That is where whether we have the QO for current rookie deals in place becomes of some importance.
Other than that, I don't see why this isn't implemented. It would eliminate a lot of these huge contracts we are going to see with the cap going up and up.,
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 12:36:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 6:03:45 GMT
Damn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 28, 2015 6:06:10 GMT
If we really want to fix the problem of these outrageous contracts, and they will only keep growing as the cap does, we need to implement RFA. I'm all for RFA and all, but I don't see how it prevents huge contracts at all. RFA would only affect a very small number of free agents in the first place, and for those it does affect, it probably encourages huge contracts. The only way for another team to get an RFA is for the contract to be so big that the original team doesn't want to re-sign them at such a high cost. See: Chandler Parsons, Jeremy Lin, Landry Fields. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 12:36:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 6:21:42 GMT
If we really want to fix the problem of these outrageous contracts, and they will only keep growing as the cap does, we need to implement RFA. I'm all for RFA and all, but I don't see how it prevents huge contracts at all. RFA would only affect a very small number of free agents in the first place, and for those it does affect, it probably encourages huge contracts. The only way for another team to get an RFA is for the contract to be so big that the original team doesn't want to re-sign them at such a high cost. See: Chandler Parsons, Jeremy Lin, Landry Fields. With RFA and the very very simple maximum contract rules we've mentioned here it would solve those... However, then there becomes an issue. 5 teams will offer the "Max" contract to the same player. How in a PA league do you decide who to give to who without calls of collusion? You don't. There will always be pissed people. My best bet is how we do player options here (a vote by all of the player agents). Now, I can't say I know much, but I can say that if all the player agents "vote" on which team (narrowed down by the initial position PA) is to receive the player and a majority of PAs agree on the destination, then the accusation of collusion would cease to be a primary concern. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 28, 2015 10:06:44 GMT
My lingering concern after OSFA was how to increase transparency to better show that nothing was rigged, and I believe that will be remedied by inviting random GMs into player agent discussions when big decisions need to be made.
Alex's point that our system eliminates free agent decisions that don't make perfect sense is the one thing I feel needs to be engaged with, but I haven't yet come across a solution, although maybe the different Player Agent personalities that Charles is talking about are the randomness that's actually needed in this situation (as infuriating as that is to hear for you Charles!).
The Eric Bledsoe and Marc Gasol signings will not happen again - where a GM promised to trade away a player to give themselves an advantage in free agency. I think everyone will agree that was a regrettable factor in OSFA.
Re: contractual realism. I don't think any of the contracts that were signed were bad. Mirotic got overpaid, Josh Smith got overpaid - sure, but that's exactly what happens in real life and their contracts are not an impossibility in real life either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 28, 2015 10:57:52 GMT
These are the order of priorities given to Player Agents and GMs for OSFA taken from the thread in the OSFA Section: I feel like it's perhaps more realistic to remove number 6 as a method of prioritising and instead view all the points as encapsulated within a player's personality? If that makes sense... so that player personality affects every single point listed, every point is considered within the context of a player's individual personality: In doing so though it seems logical to go one step further and factor-in Player Situation as well as Player Personality. Ie. Dwyane Wade has always taken a pay-cut to remain with the Miami Heat. But if he got traded to another team in D5 we can safely assume that he will no longer take a pay cut to re-sign with any team, because he's not with the Heat, but I'm sure the D5 GM would then try to say Wade should take a pay cut because that's an extension of his real life personality. To go even further: if D5 had been going since 2003, and in D5 a team other than the Heat drafted Dwyane Wade in 2003, would Wade still take a pay cut to stay with the team? Does Wade's pay-cut depend on winning a championship or two throughout the years? How far do we really want to go with this?  And would it be beneficial to let GMs and Player Agents know that this level of thought process will go into each signing, each season, at every one of the six points considered when deciding an OSFA player signing? |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 28, 2015 13:00:43 GMT
#LBJ2Cle
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 28, 2015 19:52:32 GMT
Alex's point that our system eliminates free agent decisions that don't make perfect sense is the one thing I feel needs to be engaged with, but I haven't yet come across a solution, although maybe the different Player Agent personalities that Charles is talking about are the randomness that's actually needed in this situation (as infuriating as that is to hear for you Charles!). Yea I'm not sure there is a good solution. Here are some things I'll throw out though: 1 - Shorten the moratorium period. Having 7 days where teams make offers but no signings allows teams to fully cover their bases. The good teams can feel out every player they're interested in and focus in on certain players when the signings actually start. If Superstar PG will re-sign then they'll chase All-Star PG, and probably get him in our current system. With a short moratorium period team's will be more forced to pick and choose their priorities. If the good team loses out on Superstar PG, well it's now too late for All-Star PG because that mid-level team went all in for him and he's already decided to sign. If the moratorium was just 2 or 3 days I think it would work. GMs have to come prepared since there is not much time for them to make good pitches, but it also allows everyone in D5 from Europe to Asia to get their offers in. It's not practical as an online league for us to make it too short. 2 - Penalize teams for settling on a player while other teams make them their number one priority. In the above example the good team is using the All-Star PG as a back up option. But if there are other teams who want that player more than anyone else, then they should be rewarded. This is kind of a thing already with the last point in the criteria about perceived effort, maybe we can just make it a more important aspect. It means GMs have to prioritize their offers in a realistic way based on who they believe they can sign, and the best teams can't just cast a net over the entire free agent pool. 3 - Put all teams who make an offer in a hat and draw names. Okay this is stupid and lets all ignore this point, but the chaos would be so much fun to watch. Lebron James signs with.... the Memphis Grizzlies! Problem solved, no undeserved advantage for the good teams. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 28, 2015 20:37:08 GMT
My limited (relatively) contribution to this thread:
We need to have maximum contracts, and some sort of RFA. They exist in real life, no reason why we don’t have them here. That being said, I think GM’s should be able to offer ANY amount of money allowed under maximum contract guidelines. If Memphis wants to offer Kenneth Faried a max contract next year, let him. A bit easy for me to say, after my Middleton signing, but I think that since this is a sim league, we should loosen the reigns a little bit. I just don’t believe we need to sign players for less that would be “realistic.” I think that diminishes the whole appeal of a sim league.
More importantly, my proposal for OFSA PA negotiation formats. I’m not the most technologically proficient, but here goes:
Create an online survey where we can vote on the order of importance of each free agency factor (1 being the most important, 5 being the least) to that particular player, according to their IRL personality. The results of that survey are then posted in the Free Agency section so all GMs can be aware of each players preferences and the player agent negotiates contracts accordingly. It really shouldn’t take that much time to complete these surveys and would greatly add to both the transparency of the process and consistency of negotiations, as well as probably streamline it because GMs will know which players align best with their team status.
For big-name players, and/or close decisions, other impartial GMs can be called in to give their opinion, enter a short, regulated discussion regarding the decision, and then the PA has the final call, giving a small extra dose of that unpredictability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 21:43:32 GMT
If we really want to fix the problem of these outrageous contracts, and they will only keep growing as the cap does, we need to implement RFA. I'm all for RFA and all, but I don't see how it prevents huge contracts at all. RFA would only affect a very small number of free agents in the first place, and for those it does affect, it probably encourages huge contracts. The only way for another team to get an RFA is for the contract to be so big that the original team doesn't want to re-sign them at such a high cost. See: Chandler Parsons, Jeremy Lin, Landry Fields. It wouldn't stop high value contracts like we have now. And it would further encourage the use of PO's. I assumed that if we implemented RFA, we would implement things like the Rose Rule, etc. Which, would in turn, limit the contract coming off that rookie deal. Because that is where all these huge contracts are coming from, guys coming off of their rookie deal, at least the majority of them in my humble opinion. I think it is a nice, cool wrinkle in to things. I think it has more benefits than it does negatives. I mentioned the increase in value for rookies and prospects and rebuilding teams. Because right now, we just have perpetual rebuilds happening. Guys having prospects, and then trading said prospects because they feel like they have no shot at re-signing them. This largely occurs with players being traded on rookie deals with out their BRs. This gives the team the ability to match if they can, cap wise. The Parsons contract was not matched because of the options in it. The Lin contract was not matched because of the price and structure of the contract. Fields was just a shitty over paid player. It would cap the craze of contracts and Free Agency that we have currently, which is most definitely needed in this state of chaos we are in in OSFA. And, if the PA so chooses, he can always take the QO and hop on out of the team, it does not give the team the guarantee that they will keep the player. With the cap increasing each season like it is, RFA is needed. And it will make the league more fun. It will keep the OSFA craze to a lower level, but it will make in season trading SO MUCH more important. I am for it. I think its cool. Bring in RFA, the Rose Rule, figure out what the QO should be. It gives rebuilding teams a better shot, not a guarantee but a better shot. And it makes the GMs in the off-season wishing to sign RFA's have more creativity in contract negotiations and offers in order to have the opposing team not match the offer sheet. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 21:47:32 GMT
My limited (relatively) contribution to this thread: We need to have maximum contracts, and some sort of RFA. They exist in real life, no reason why we don’t have them here. That being said, I think GM’s should be able to offer ANY amount of money allowed under maximum contract guidelines. If Memphis wants to offer Kenneth Faried a max contract next year, let him. A bit easy for me to say, after my Middleton signing, but I think that since this is a sim league, we should loosen the reigns a little bit. I just don’t believe we need to sign players for less that would be “realistic.” I think that diminishes the whole appeal of a sim league. More importantly, my proposal for OFSA PA negotiation formats. I’m not the most technologically proficient, but here goes: Create an online survey where we can vote on the order of importance of each free agency factor (1 being the most important, 5 being the least) to that particular player, according to their IRL personality. The results of that survey are then posted in the Free Agency section so all GMs can be aware of each players preferences and the player agent negotiates contracts accordingly. It really shouldn’t take that much time to complete these surveys and would greatly add to both the transparency of the process and consistency of negotiations, as well as probably streamline it because GMs will know which players align best with their team status. For big-name players, and/or close decisions, other impartial GMs can be called in to give their opinion, enter a short, regulated discussion regarding the decision, and then the PA has the final call, giving a small extra dose of that unpredictability. I like the survey idea. I think it is good, and it would be easy to implement with things like Google Survey. It also makes each player's wants and needs even more unique to what WE, the PEOPLE, think they are. This limits the problem of making RL PP negotiations more Formulaic. Also, the Kenneth Faried, and liimiting the reigns is like what I was saying with the D5 Contractual Realism Proposal. It doesn't need to match real life standards, but the standards of our playing field in here. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 22:04:28 GMT
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. How does one achieve consistency without a formula? If you want all the PAs to operate under the same basic mindset, then you need rules that outline what the mindset should be. Which is something we already have. That is our formula for free agency. You're also demonstrating my point exactly right here: 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. The Bledsoe signing didn't make sense to you, the offer wasn't high enough, the Timberwolves weren't good enough, it shouldn't have happened that way. You got pissed off about it. So do you see what I mean? Anything that isn't obvious is unacceptable. The consistent and easy to plan for approach you're asking for is the exact thing that I think is wrong with our free agency. The rich get richer and everyone else that doesn't meet the free agency criteria for success will be discouraged and rightfully feel like their options are limited. They can only hope to re-sign their own good players, or get a lower tier free agent that would only result in them being mediocre. I don't mind that Eric Bledsoe did something weird in free agency. It's fine with me that Nikola Mirotic is being paid about twice what he's worth. Players being overpaid is a grand old tradition in the NBA. Tristan Thompson just held out because he didn't think he was being overpaid enough. The guy comes off the bench and somehow got $82 million. I'd argue for less of a process in free agency if I thought it would result in anything besides anger. But it would, so we're kind of stuck with the choice of being boring and not giving half the league any chance in free agency, or pissing everyone off so much that accusations of cheating will be thrown around and demands for Ian to remove PAs will be made. It seems like competitive balance is a necessary casualty if the other option is that no one wants to play anymore. I am arguing for less of a process that leads to a fluid defense of the decisions made by the PA. Like Ian recently said, if we encapsulate the Player Personality around the Free Agency Guidelines, it makes things a lot more realistic and interesting. I am not calling for LeBron to go to Cleveland because he did so in real life, something like that is exemplary circumstances. But what I am calling for is a player agent to portray his player appropriately in negotiations. Not go off the wall and hinges with things when it makes no sense at all in regards to realism. I don't mind Mirotic getting a boat load of money. That is not my main point in all of this, it is just a sub point about D5 Contractual Realism, meaning that the contracts signed in here need to make sense and be defensible. If that means implementing a Rose Rule, or something along that lines, than I am for that. I think that needs to be implemented because some of the PA's are fucking idiots when it comes to things like this and they don't understand that a simulation league is meant to represent real life. Sure a player getting overpaid is something that happens all the time. But they aren't overpaid by 40 Million dollars. Yeah TT got over paid, but he got over paid, by most regards, 2.5 million more per year. Over a 5 year deal, and assume he extrapolates his performance, in the end it looks even. So you can't even say it is 12 million more than what he should have been paid, but something like 8. The Bledsoe signing didn't make sense to me and I got pissed off about it because nothing about the contractual negotiations represented anything about his amateur or professional career. Going by the Free Agency Guidelines for PA's, number 6, perceived player personality, should have been a factor. And it was totally disregarded. Numbers 1-5 were near equal between not only my team and Walt's, but others bidding for his services. If Bledsoe goes to Minny, yeah I am upset and mad, and bitter. But when he goes to Minny because I refused to move Rose, and Walt agrees to move Rubio, I AM PISSED OFF. Because nothing about that makes actual fucking sense in regards to the guidelines. I could give a shit less where anyone goes. If I get fucked in OSFA, I get fucked. But at least have a proper defense about why I got fucked. How can anyone answer the question as to why Bledsoe demanded to be the man and the mian guard when using the guidelines? That is my problem with this whole process. That number 6 is near last. When it should be first. We are simulating real life players, in real life games, why don't the players in the off-season resemble themselves as they are in real life? And again, if a player I want is represented by a certain PA using different guidelines than another PA who represents a player a rival team wants, how is that a fair process? That is most important to think about. If Gasol goes to MIL, that's fine. BUT WHY?! Being able to defend yourself when asked questions is important. Because in the OSFA process there is always going to be a Charles Barkley or Vlade Divac getting bitter and pissed. And asking questions. And when those questions can't be answered to a sufficient manner, it looks bad, it looks awful, and it makes the GMs question things, lose interest, and just overall salt. It doesn't need to be formulaic. Just be able to defend your decisions. If there are guidelines, everyone needs to follow them. Say we come up with new guidelines, more thorough guidelines, ones that encapsulate RL PP, if one PA differes in INTERPRETATION of a guideline, that is fine. But when one PA totally throws the guidelines out the window, and disregards them, then it is a problem. Nothing about OSFA is going to be formulaic. Boxes won't be checked, and things won't be predictable. It will just be more realistic. It will be more fluid. More defendable. People will still be pissed off and bitter and others will be giddy like a 15 year old boy getting a nude pic, but in the end of it all, the questions asked will be able to be sufficiently answered. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 22:18:23 GMT
My lingering concern after OSFA was how to increase transparency to better show that nothing was rigged, and I believe that will be remedied by inviting random GMs into player agent discussions when big decisions need to be made. Alex's point that our system eliminates free agent decisions that don't make perfect sense is the one thing I feel needs to be engaged with, but I haven't yet come across a solution, although maybe the different Player Agent personalities that Charles is talking about are the randomness that's actually needed in this situation (as infuriating as that is to hear for you Charles!). The Eric Bledsoe and Marc Gasol signings will not happen again - where a GM promised to trade away a player to give themselves an advantage in free agency. I think everyone will agree that was a regrettable factor in OSFA. Re: contractual realism. I don't think any of the contracts that were signed were bad. Mirotic got overpaid, Josh Smith got overpaid - sure, but that's exactly what happens in real life and their contracts are not an impossibility in real life either. The process does not need to be transparent if the questions asked at the end of it all can be sufficiently answered. This off-season, nothing was answered. Nothing was sufficient. The defense of the PA's decision shouldn't be "well this is just where I felt the best spot for him to be". The decisions don't need to make sense. I am not asking for them to be predictable. What I am asking for is for the questions at the end of it all by the GMs with their pitchforks out be answered. Can Bryan honestly answer why the hell he demanded Bledsoe to be the main guard? I don't see how he can. If he went through the guidelines, he should have gotten to number 6. Looked in to Bledsoe and his personality, and never demanded what he asked for. I am all for GMs promising trades contingent upon the signing of a player. It is cool. It is fun. It kills the value the GM will receive for the player, and it makes a new wrinkle in things. But the reason why the player is traded needs to be sufficiently asnwered. Nothing about what I am asking for makes this process predictable. It just makes it defendable. Take RL PP in to more consideration in the process. We simulate realism here, why it is disregarded is moronic. Enforce guidelines or a value system, but let it be somewhat open to interpretation. Kawhi is going to be a hot commodity, right? OK so what is his personality? He is quiet, low key, hard working. We don't really know if he wants loyalty or values it since he was an RFA. We know he has talent. Has he ever mentioned the unwavering desire to win, and win right now? No. So, when you look at all of that, what do you see? What does anyone see? It is open for interpretation. So long as he doesn't have a PA that completely misrepresents any of those characteristics. Him going to a flashy city wouldn't be a big deal, but him making huge demands about winning and winning right now would be. He didn't fit at first in San Antonio, and he didn't cry or complain. So him not completely fitting in a team at first wouldn't be a huge deal to him. He isn't wanting or crying to be the main man right now. So you take all of that in to consideration, and what do we have? We don't have a whole lot. That description could fit a lot of teams. And that is ok. But the important part of it is when the PA negotiates for the player. What the PA says. And, at the end of the day, it makes the process defendable. Just in the sense that he took it in to consideration. That that is what he did first. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 28, 2015 22:21:06 GMT
How does one achieve consistency without a formula? If you want all the PAs to operate under the same basic mindset, then you need rules that outline what the mindset should be. Which is something we already have. That is our formula for free agency. You're also demonstrating my point exactly right here: The Bledsoe signing didn't make sense to you, the offer wasn't high enough, the Timberwolves weren't good enough, it shouldn't have happened that way. You got pissed off about it. So do you see what I mean? Anything that isn't obvious is unacceptable. The consistent and easy to plan for approach you're asking for is the exact thing that I think is wrong with our free agency. The rich get richer and everyone else that doesn't meet the free agency criteria for success will be discouraged and rightfully feel like their options are limited. They can only hope to re-sign their own good players, or get a lower tier free agent that would only result in them being mediocre. I don't mind that Eric Bledsoe did something weird in free agency. It's fine with me that Nikola Mirotic is being paid about twice what he's worth. Players being overpaid is a grand old tradition in the NBA. Tristan Thompson just held out because he didn't think he was being overpaid enough. The guy comes off the bench and somehow got $82 million. I'd argue for less of a process in free agency if I thought it would result in anything besides anger. But it would, so we're kind of stuck with the choice of being boring and not giving half the league any chance in free agency, or pissing everyone off so much that accusations of cheating will be thrown around and demands for Ian to remove PAs will be made. It seems like competitive balance is a necessary casualty if the other option is that no one wants to play anymore. I don't mind Mirotic getting a boat load of money. That is not my main point in all of this, it is just a sub point about D5 Contractual Realism, meaning that the contracts signed in here need to make sense and be defensible. If that means implementing a Rose Rule, or something along that lines, than I am for that. I think that needs to be implemented because some of the PA's are fucking idiots when it comes to things like this and they don't understand that a simulation league is meant to represent real life. Sure a player getting overpaid is something that happens all the time. But they aren't overpaid by 40 Million dollars. Yeah TT got over paid, but he got over paid, by most regards, 2.5 million more per year. Over a 5 year deal, and assume he extrapolates his performance, in the end it looks even. So you can't even say it is 12 million more than what he should have been paid, but something like 8. I agree with almost everything you said except this. I think a lot should be as real as possible – but if Josh Smith’s max contract is let’s say 25 million, and a team wants to offer him 23 million a year, and can defend that signing, I think they should be able to. Like if Josh Smith is deciding between two teams – Team A and B. If Team A is a contender offering 3 mill per over 4 years, and Team B is offering 23 mill per over 2 years, I don’t want PA’s retroactively bringing down Team B’s offer to the “realistic” level, and then, once Team B’s offer is capped to a level closer to Team A’s, having Josh Smith pick Team A because the team situation is better. Josh Smith is gonna get that money if offered. In a more realistic scenario, if a player like Thad Young is offered the max by one team (even though, realistically, he’s not a max player IRL), then that should be allowed. Teams with money to throw around should be able to do that, because some teams have constructed themselves to have that money. Cap space is an asset, and I don’t believe we should limit GMs ability to use it. We let GMs essentially ruin their teams via trades and drafts, so I think we should allow them to offer some ridiculous contracts as well. Of course, this is all under my personal belief that money is the number 1 influence for most players, although sometimes other considerations can supplant small differences in contract size. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 22:28:27 GMT
These are the order of priorities given to Player Agents and GMs for OSFA taken from the thread in the OSFA Section: I feel like it's perhaps more realistic to remove number 6 as a method of prioritising and instead view all the points as encapsulated within a player's personality? If that makes sense... so that player personality affects every single point listed, every point is considered within the context of a player's individual personality: In doing so though it seems logical to go one step further and factor-in Player Situation as well as Player Personality. Ie. Dwyane Wade has always taken a pay-cut to remain with the Miami Heat. But if he got traded to another team in D5 we can safely assume that he will no longer take a pay cut to re-sign with any team, because he's not with the Heat, but I'm sure the D5 GM would then try to say Wade should take a pay cut because that's an extension of his real life personality. To go even further: if D5 had been going since 2003, and in D5 a team other than the Heat drafted Dwyane Wade in 2003, would Wade still take a pay cut to stay with the team? Does Wade's pay-cut depend on winning a championship or two throughout the years? How far do we really want to go with this? And would it be beneficial to let GMs and Player Agents know that this level of thought process will go into each signing, each season, at every one of the six points considered when deciding an OSFA player signing? How far we go with that process is up to the PA. I think the pay-cut thing is more about being loyal to his city and his team, and that is the type of person that he is. A hard working, fall 7 times get up 8, type of loyal individual that wants the same in return. And we saw it this off-season, Wade demanded to be respected just as he had respected the Heat. I think if Wade were to have been drafted by the Nuggets, he would give the Nuggets the pay cut so long as they built a winner around him, considering that is why he took the cut in the first place, to win. Now, say the Nuggets have traded Wade in his last year of the deal, Wade may or may not take a pay cut, depending upon how the GM goes about Wade. If he just says, hey we added a piece to our championship puzzle, that is less than saying we have just acquired a franchise changing star. That is where things get fun and the personality of a GM comes in. We don't have to take this all the way. And go so deep. But, WE CANT MISS THE OBVIOUS ONES. Paul Pierce wants to win, so why does he sign with a shitty team? (Hypothetically as an example, the Mavs aren't shit). And, we are always going to have people salty. Just make it so the questions asked by the salty people can be answered and the PA can defend the decision made. Don't overlook the obvious things in this process. Outlining all of this is important. It is important to think of the RL PP first though. How does the player care about money? Winning? System? Teammates? City? Fit? And how does the GM represent those things? Does the GM just wheel and deal everyone and anyone? Or is he loyal? Does the GM consistently try to win? Or does he mail it in at times? How does the player feel about all of these things? Incorporating how a GM conducts himself is just as important in regards to RL PP. I don't even understand why this is such an issue. To me, it is very very simple and obvious. What is the problem with incorporating RL PP more in the contract negotiations process? Please explain why it is a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 22:36:09 GMT
Alex's point that our system eliminates free agent decisions that don't make perfect sense is the one thing I feel needs to be engaged with, but I haven't yet come across a solution, although maybe the different Player Agent personalities that Charles is talking about are the randomness that's actually needed in this situation (as infuriating as that is to hear for you Charles!). Yea I'm not sure there is a good solution. Here are some things I'll throw out though: 1 - Shorten the moratorium period. Having 7 days where teams make offers but no signings allows teams to fully cover their bases. The good teams can feel out every player they're interested in and focus in on certain players when the signings actually start. If Superstar PG will re-sign then they'll chase All-Star PG, and probably get him in our current system. With a short moratorium period team's will be more forced to pick and choose their priorities. If the good team loses out on Superstar PG, well it's now too late for All-Star PG because that mid-level team went all in for him and he's already decided to sign. If the moratorium was just 2 or 3 days I think it would work. GMs have to come prepared since there is not much time for them to make good pitches, but it also allows everyone in D5 from Europe to Asia to get their offers in. It's not practical as an online league for us to make it too short. 2 - Penalize teams for settling on a player while other teams make them their number one priority. In the above example the good team is using the All-Star PG as a back up option. But if there are other teams who want that player more than anyone else, then they should be rewarded. This is kind of a thing already with the last point in the criteria about perceived effort, maybe we can just make it a more important aspect. It means GMs have to prioritize their offers in a realistic way based on who they believe they can sign, and the best teams can't just cast a net over the entire free agent pool. 3 - Put all teams who make an offer in a hat and draw names. Okay this is stupid and lets all ignore this point, but the chaos would be so much fun to watch. Lebron James signs with.... the Memphis Grizzlies! Problem solved, no undeserved advantage for the good teams. Why are your points hard to implement? Why is this even an argument? Shorten it. Come prepared. Don't slack off. Do your Due Diligence both as a player and as a PA. Put in the fucking effort afforded to you as it is your responsibility in this league. In my mind, and in my experience, money is usually always going to be near the same, unless you have a case where someone stands put, then the other GM obviously goes up if they want them that bad. That is pretty cut and dry. But when money isn't the issue for the player, thats when it gets fun. But nearly all of the players in the league act the same way towards this. It is easy to pass on an extra 5 million or so in a contract. It is hard to pass on an extra 25 or so million in a contract. Especially when the player factors in other things, such as taxes, city, championship aspirations, home town discount, things of that nature. Perceived effort is not just about the points you make in your proposal or the amount of words you type lauding over the player. It is about how aggressive you are when it is the player you want. Are you settling? Is he your top priority? How can you show it? GM effort and personality are just as important as RL PP because most of things are always equal when it comes to the top two teams competing for a player. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 22:48:42 GMT
I don't mind Mirotic getting a boat load of money. That is not my main point in all of this, it is just a sub point about D5 Contractual Realism, meaning that the contracts signed in here need to make sense and be defensible. If that means implementing a Rose Rule, or something along that lines, than I am for that. I think that needs to be implemented because some of the PA's are fucking idiots when it comes to things like this and they don't understand that a simulation league is meant to represent real life. Sure a player getting overpaid is something that happens all the time. But they aren't overpaid by 40 Million dollars. Yeah TT got over paid, but he got over paid, by most regards, 2.5 million more per year. Over a 5 year deal, and assume he extrapolates his performance, in the end it looks even. So you can't even say it is 12 million more than what he should have been paid, but something like 8. I agree with almost everything you said except this. I think a lot should be as real as possible – but if Josh Smith’s max contract is let’s say 25 million, and a team wants to offer him 23 million a year, and can defend that signing, I think they should be able to. Like if Josh Smith is deciding between two teams – Team A and B. If Team A is a contender offering 3 mill per over 4 years, and Team B is offering 23 mill per over 2 years, I don’t want PA’s retroactively bringing down Team B’s offer to the “realistic” level, and then, once Team B’s offer is capped to a level closer to Team A’s, having Josh Smith pick Team A because the team situation is better. Josh Smith is gonna get that money if offered. In a more realistic scenario, if a player like Thad Young is offered the max by one team (even though, realistically, he’s not a max player IRL), then that should be allowed. Teams with money to throw around should be able to do that, because some teams have constructed themselves to have that money. Cap space is an asset, and I don’t believe we should limit GMs ability to use it. We let GMs essentially ruin their teams via trades and drafts, so I think we should allow them to offer some ridiculous contracts as well. Of course, this is all under my personal belief that money is the number 1 influence for most players, although sometimes other considerations can supplant small differences in contract size. This is all what I am trying to say about D5 Contractual Realism. It doesn't matter what the player is being paid in real life because there are so many different factors between our league and the NBA, and when I say factors, I mean how the teams are set up, the cap space we have, the GM's, everything. Mirotic getting that is fine. What a player makes IRL should have little effect in our league, when it comes down to how much they should be paid, when we consider that sometimes we have a different FA class than RL. If Josh Smith makes 25 a year IRL, there's no way in hell he should make 4 per year in here just to win. Because Josh Smith doesn't give a shit about winning, Josh Smith just wants paid. He has represented himself that way on and off the court of basketball in RL, why would he even consider the 4 mil per year offer in here? Our contract offers can't be compared with the NBA, we have different factors. But, we can compare our contract offers with other offers around the league. Favors and Bledsoe got paid around the same amount, as did Cousins and Gasol. We kept that in D5 Contractual Realism. However, Mirotic was a hot commodity. A bidding war ensued. That happens. But at some point the PA should have stepped in and said, "ok, this is where the money stops." As in: if you offer this, this is where I will sign. And if two teams offer that amount, then the PA decides on what team based on the guidelines. However, if the player has never really gave a shit how much he makes, doesn't care about being paid the most money in the league or doesn't hold out for money, then a bidding war should have never ensued. In the case of Mirotic, the Bulls IRL held his rights, he came over, negotiated with them, and he actually demanded some money. But it wasn't like it was in here. Why? Because we operate on a different landscape financially. If Mirotic had been a straight up FA IRL, a bidding war would have likely occurred. However, that didn't happen IRL, so it was hard for the PA to know what to do. I think he did fine, however, I don't think another player in that position that we know more about and didn't really care about money, would have done the same thing. And that is what is important, that the players that care most about money, get the bidding war. Mimic how they are in real life, not how the contracts are. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 28, 2015 23:02:41 GMT
I agree with almost everything you said except this. I think a lot should be as real as possible – but if Josh Smith’s max contract is let’s say 25 million, and a team wants to offer him 23 million a year, and can defend that signing, I think they should be able to. Like if Josh Smith is deciding between two teams – Team A and B. If Team A is a contender offering 3 mill per over 4 years, and Team B is offering 23 mill per over 2 years, I don’t want PA’s retroactively bringing down Team B’s offer to the “realistic” level, and then, once Team B’s offer is capped to a level closer to Team A’s, having Josh Smith pick Team A because the team situation is better. Josh Smith is gonna get that money if offered. In a more realistic scenario, if a player like Thad Young is offered the max by one team (even though, realistically, he’s not a max player IRL), then that should be allowed. Teams with money to throw around should be able to do that, because some teams have constructed themselves to have that money. Cap space is an asset, and I don’t believe we should limit GMs ability to use it. We let GMs essentially ruin their teams via trades and drafts, so I think we should allow them to offer some ridiculous contracts as well. Of course, this is all under my personal belief that money is the number 1 influence for most players, although sometimes other considerations can supplant small differences in contract size. . But at some point the PA should have stepped in and said, "ok, this is where the money stops." As in: if you offer this, this is where I will sign. And if two teams offer that amount, then the PA decides on what team based on the guidelines. However, if the player has never really gave a shit how much he makes, doesn't care about being paid the most money in the league or doesn't hold out for money, then a bidding war should have never ensued. Well this I disagree with. What point do PAs say, this is where the money stops? That's so arbitrary. We should abide by the Max Contract rules that the NBA follows - up to 25% of the salary cap for players with less than 6 years experience. In Mirotic's case, he was technically eligible for a deal worth $17,500,000. He signed for $16,775,000. The money should not "stop" until the max contract is reached. If both teams are willing to offer the max, the other factors come into play. If one team is offering the max and the other has stayed firm in their offer, Mirotic could possibly play for less money depending on the discrepancy between the two offered salaries and with consideration of his other personality traits (winning, location, role, etc). It is the GM's responsibility to either increase their offer to gain an edge, or stay firm in their offer of what they think the player is worth and rely upon the other factors to sway the player to their team. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 28, 2015 23:25:57 GMT
. But at some point the PA should have stepped in and said, "ok, this is where the money stops." As in: if you offer this, this is where I will sign. And if two teams offer that amount, then the PA decides on what team based on the guidelines. However, if the player has never really gave a shit how much he makes, doesn't care about being paid the most money in the league or doesn't hold out for money, then a bidding war should have never ensued. Well this I disagree with. What point do PAs say, this is where the money stops? That's so arbitrary. We should abide by the Max Contract rules that the NBA follows - up to 25% of the salary cap for players with less than 6 years experience. In Mirotic's case, he was technically eligible for a deal worth $17,500,000. He signed for $16,775,000. The money should not "stop" until the max contract is reached. If both teams are willing to offer the max, the other factors come into play. If one team is offering the max and the other has stayed firm in their offer, Mirotic could possibly play for less money depending on the discrepancy between the two offered salaries and with consideration of his other personality traits (winning, location, role, etc). It is the GM's responsibility to either increase their offer to gain an edge, or stay firm in their offer of what they think the player is worth and rely upon the other factors to sway the player to their team. Yeah, I guess that is what I mean. But in our league, we don't have a max contract offer. So the PA needs to use judgement in that sense. Which is why the "this is where the money stops" line came in to play. We have very simple things we need to implement. The importance of RL PP in to contract negotiations as well as stressing the importance of the perceived effort the GM makes and how he has been towards said player. RFA and with it the Rose Rule and with that Max contracts, but a point can be made about allowing some over the max guys, so maybe we have our own scale, this is what I am saying with D5 Contractual Realism, our own Max rule, our own Rose Rule, our own contract lengths, options, total dollars, and yearly salary rule. It needs to be different from the NBA's because we operate on a different landscape. Shorten the moratorium as Alex stated. And create a more fluid OSFA Guideline that encapsulates a player's personality in real life, and with this, creates a defensible decision in the selection of a team and answers possible questions sufficiently that will be raised by bitter GM's. I do not see the downsides to these things. And I do not see why these shouldn't be implemented. Why would we not want to make the league better? I feel as though all of these things will make the league better for everyone. If anyone has a concern or definitive answer as to the downsides of this and why these propositions shouldn't be implemented, please explain. Because maybe I am just seeing it from one perspective and not considering what else it could possible do. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 29, 2015 0:51:35 GMT
I think that the easiest to implement that solves many of these problems is the Max Salary Scale and limiting options to the end of the contract.
Max Salary Scale has these pros:
Is easy to do and keep track of.
It protects teams from terrible signings being complete death sentences. If the cap was going to remain the same that Josh Smith contract would ruin a team for years. If he had signed to a scale max his contract would have started at 17.6 million instead. Thats a good bit of shaving off the top.
It can trap you into an average player. If you have a guy like say Joe Johnson who peaked and declined into being an alright player at a max contract. It would end up being untradeable unless you give up assets, but would prevent peoples ability to full blown tank because those players would stick around for a few years. (Players don't just go from 84 to 60 overall)
When you are talking about two players competing for a max contract guy. Which lets be honest is the only time people get pissed. Then it truly does come down to the intangibles of what a players personality is, how much time/effort you spent on an offer etc. Not who was able to squeeze that extra few hundred thousand out of their offer.
Limiting options to the end of a deal is just smart. It doesn't allow someone to offer an unheralded prospect a 4 year minimum with 3 team options on it. It doesn't allow someone to just swipe a player off someone by throwing in some dumb option on year 2 of a 5 year deal.
I love the idea of RFA. But lets try to avoid adding too much craziness in terms of new regulations in one offseason. Although it wouldn't be that hard to implement.
|
|
Minnesota Timberwolves
Denver Nuggets
Boston Celtics
And would it be beneficial to let GMs and Player Agents know that this level of thought process will go into each signing, each season, at every one of the six points considered when deciding an OSFA player signing?
Charlotte Hornets