|
|
Post by eric on Jan 8, 2019 21:53:28 GMT
eric skrouse fason AngryKing 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 TimPig h7t trofie kn88 Mike Taco: Better than a Nacho Druce 👼Saint Panktrick's Day👼 wee2dee ahebrewtoo IanBoyd duc15 Muzunga Majic dump jhb Norman Dale pedro el guapo andrewluck cf3234 mj yawn jeezy soup breauxcaine sugarshaun Buster rv avogato dagrizz Mike rw troybarnes ryanr bigdaddycool baller4ever sheezy29 @bk want to be sure everyone gets notified here we're talking about changing the league so that all GMs have exactly one team and the other teams will be composed of robot players with all 25 attributes (i.e. scrubs). robot teams will draft/sign only robots, and robots will only play in the non human area. robot teams owed picks will be voided and compensatory draft picks will be assigned in a yet to be determined manner. GMs with two teams will get to decide which team situation they want to keep. the purpose of this is de facto contraction, since so many teams are unfilled with no likelihood of becoming filled soon, and since this software has no de jure contraction option. this is going to happen this offseason in some way unless people object soon, so get your thoughts in ASAP. . remaining points of contention: 1. how do we arrange the teams?
a. one human conference.
b. one human division in each conference.the atlantic division does not play the central division the same amount of times the midwest division plays the pacific division, whereas the eastern conference always plays the western conference the exact same number of times. this makes the conference proposal better. division winners always get into the playoffs as no worse than the #2 seed. if there is one robot division in each conference, there will be a team that can't possibly win their first round match up in the #2 seed, so the #7 seed will in effect have a bye to the second round. this makes the division proposal worse. 2. what do we do with players on the old teams?
a. dispersal
b. deletionthere are many options for dispersal. my proposal is two post playoffs waiver periods that work just like amnesty waivers, where teams need the hard cap to take on the player's actual contract, followed by all players that clear waivers being treated just like any other free agent in the ensuing FA period. . please feel free to post other thoughts or deal breakers here. for example, ian boyd has said one deal breaker for him is playing in the eastern conference, so if he were to be otherwise satisfied with the proposal we would all be western conference teams. for another example, jhb has said going to the sim league 3.0 software is a deal breaker. stuff like that. i also would like people to post what team name they want so i can start working on a reasonable distribution. you have first crack at any team you are GMing or second GMing, otherwise you have first crack at any NBA/ABA team name not yet claimed. please also include what roster # you want, for example if you were the Bucks and Clippers GM you could say you wanted roster 14. this includes banks, all owed and received picks from human teams, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Jan 8, 2019 22:00:05 GMT
Voted 1B and 2A.
As you said, I think 1A makes more sense but I'm fine appeasing people and if the 7 seed has a 1st round bye, whatever.
No issues or concerns from me.
I'll take the Bulls name, roster, bank, everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 8, 2019 22:02:04 GMT
i should be more clear
if you pick a roster, you get the roster/bank/picks of that team. no picking and choosing.
you can give that team whatever name fits the stated criteria
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Jan 8, 2019 22:17:17 GMT
Voted 1B and 2A
Blazers for all categories please and thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 8, 2019 22:19:04 GMT
what specifically about human divisions in both conferences are people voting for
|
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Jan 8, 2019 22:32:49 GMT
what specifically about human divisions in both conferences are people voting for Assuming we split evenly and have 8 in one conference and 7 in the other (or thereabouts - I think you counted us having ~15 GMs), that gives us both sides of the playoff bracket almost entirely filled with humans. The 7 seed in one conference would have a weird first-round bye, but, like tanking for the 8th seed, I don't think anyone will really consider that an efficient way of doing things. It'd be really hard to purposely land on 7, where 6 and 8 will both have human competition. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 8, 2019 22:44:45 GMT
what specifically about human divisions in both conferences are people voting for Assuming we split evenly and have 8 in one conference and 7 in the other (or thereabouts - I think you counted us having ~15 GMs), that gives us both sides of the playoff bracket almost entirely filled with humans. The 7 seed in one conference would have a weird first-round bye, but, like tanking for the 8th seed, I don't think anyone will really consider that an efficient way of doing things. It'd be really hard to purposely land on 7, where 6 and 8 will both have human competition. do we want tankers/rebuilders in the playoffs though? that sounds to me like another point AGAINST two divisions |
|
Norman Dale
New Member
Posts: 449
Likes: 108
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by Norman Dale on Jan 8, 2019 22:46:19 GMT
I voted 1B and 2B, though I have a ton of money and Lew on the last year of a rookie deal. I could reap the benefits of 2A but I feel 2A is wrong and we will get too top heavy on talent for some teams as stars on other teams will get to teams on MLE, LLE and vet mins. Never mind the first come first serve for that signing thread which will be a cluster fuck.
If we do want to allow these other star players to play out their careers, what if we raised the caps and had a contraction draft?
|
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Jan 8, 2019 22:48:05 GMT
Assuming we split evenly and have 8 in one conference and 7 in the other (or thereabouts - I think you counted us having ~15 GMs), that gives us both sides of the playoff bracket almost entirely filled with humans. The 7 seed in one conference would have a weird first-round bye, but, like tanking for the 8th seed, I don't think anyone will really consider that an efficient way of doing things. It'd be really hard to purposely land on 7, where 6 and 8 will both have human competition. do we want tankers/rebuilders in the playoffs though? that sounds to me like another point AGAINST two divisions If someone is tanking and gets the 8th seed, they'll lose in the first round and still get the "top" draft pick since CPU teams won't be drafting. What difference would that make? |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 8, 2019 22:58:31 GMT
I voted 1B and 2B, though I have a ton of money and Lew on the last year of a rookie deal. I could reap the benefits of 2A but I feel 2A is wrong and we will get too top heavy on talent for some teams as stars on other teams will get to teams on MLE, LLE and vet mins. Never mind the first come first serve for that signing thread which will be a cluster fuck. If we do want to allow these other star players to play out their careers, what if we raised the caps and had a contraction draft? raising the salary cap would make the distribution more top-heavy (good players going to good teams), not less. teams with soft cap space will be able to get star players on $9m or whatever deals or just take their current contracts on, and they're the teams that are generally worse, that's why they have soft cap space to begin with. i don't see any way a star gets through the waiver process AND all five days of FA. paul pierce didn't manage it and he's barely good. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 8, 2019 23:00:41 GMT
do we want tankers/rebuilders in the playoffs though? that sounds to me like another point AGAINST two divisions If someone is tanking and gets the 8th seed, they'll lose in the first round and still get the "top" draft pick since CPU teams won't be drafting. What difference would that make? the difference would be a meaningless playoff round - if there are three tankers in each conference, then the top 3 seeds get a bye while the 4-5 matchup is two real teams. if we had all humans in the western conference then those 6 tankers would get the non playoff spots and the 8 teams trying would all make the playoffs, and we'd have competitive matchups throughout |
|
Norman Dale
New Member
Posts: 449
Likes: 108
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by Norman Dale on Jan 8, 2019 23:12:28 GMT
I voted 1B and 2B, though I have a ton of money and Lew on the last year of a rookie deal. I could reap the benefits of 2A but I feel 2A is wrong and we will get too top heavy on talent for some teams as stars on other teams will get to teams on MLE, LLE and vet mins. Never mind the first come first serve for that signing thread which will be a cluster fuck. If we do want to allow these other star players to play out their careers, what if we raised the caps and had a contraction draft? raising the salary cap would make the distribution more top-heavy (good players going to good teams), not less. teams with soft cap space will be able to get star players on $9m or whatever deals or just take their current contracts on, and they're the teams that are generally worse, that's why they have soft cap space to begin with. i don't see any way a star gets through the waiver process AND all five days of FA. paul pierce didn't manage it and he's barely good. My point in raising the caps is the extraction draft. Give teams some flexibility to add a player. Maybe do the draft order in the extraction from worst record to best. |
|
Norman Dale
New Member
Posts: 449
Likes: 108
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by Norman Dale on Jan 8, 2019 23:13:13 GMT
Inflation has to hit at some point like it does in the real nba
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Jan 9, 2019 0:30:38 GMT
I would be strongly against any type of waver claim system and would strongly push for some type of expansion draft.
All players are thrown into the pool with their current contracts, we go through to draft who we want. leftovers are then either into the waver or are FA.
Another idea, we could follow a similar method we did for the creation draft. First rounds make XX amount of money on a 4 year deal. Second rounders make YY on a 4 year deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Jan 9, 2019 0:38:57 GMT
split balling here but something like this:
First Round Pick: 12 million per year for 4 years
Second Round Pick: 10 million per year for 4 yeas
Third Round Pick: 8 Million Per Year
If a team doesnt have the cap then the forfeit their pick until a round in which they can afford or until FA.
Draft Position is a weighted lotto based on wins over the last 2 years for your team.
Afterwards, we have a FA or Waver period for the remaining players
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 9, 2019 1:02:41 GMT
raising the salary cap would make the distribution more top-heavy (good players going to good teams), not less. teams with soft cap space will be able to get star players on $9m or whatever deals or just take their current contracts on, and they're the teams that are generally worse, that's why they have soft cap space to begin with. i don't see any way a star gets through the waiver process AND all five days of FA. paul pierce didn't manage it and he's barely good. My point in raising the caps is the extraction draft. Give teams some flexibility to add a player. Maybe do the draft order in the extraction from worst record to best. bad teams already have flexibility to add players that good teams don't. if we remove that advantage by increasing the cap for everyone then the league WILL become top heavy, the scenario you're trying to avoid. we don't need to do a draft because the waiver system already gives the worst win % the first crack at any player they bid on. turning it into a draft just adds complications |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 9, 2019 1:06:24 GMT
split balling here but something like this: First Round Pick: 12 million per year for 4 years Second Round Pick: 10 million per year for 4 yeas Third Round Pick: 8 Million Per Year If a team doesnt have the cap then the forfeit their pick until a round in which they can afford or until FA. Draft Position is a weighted lotto based on wins over the last 2 years for your team. Afterwards, we have a FA or Waver period for the remaining players what is the functional difference between this and the waiver system? teams without enough cap already can't bid, the worst teams already get pole position. |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Jan 9, 2019 1:09:12 GMT
Tough calls all around. I am team whatever the hardcore guys want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Jan 9, 2019 1:10:34 GMT
maybe I am just not understanding the logistics of how the waver would work.
Draft seems easier in terms of tracking for all parties and to easily see who was taken, who is left and the contract situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 9, 2019 1:36:05 GMT
maybe I am just not understanding the logistics of how the waver would work. Draft seems easier in terms of tracking for all parties and to easily see who was taken, who is left and the contract situations. Any team besides the original team can submit a claim to take on the contract, so long as they have hard cap space to do so and are capable of signing a free agent. The team with the lowest winning % at the end of the wire will get the player. If tied, previous seasons will be considered until the tie is broken. If the player is not signed, they are treated as any other free agent. . the advantage to this system is that players already have contracts determined by the market, so we don't have to worry about a team getting a stud or a scrub on a $12m deal (or whatever we make round 1). it also is dramatically easier to reuse should we want to contract another team at any point in the future, as one team won't make nearly enough players to sensibly run a draft |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 9, 2019 1:36:59 GMT
since this came up in shout, there's nothing that says we won't be able to expand the league again should we ever bring in another GM, and there are many methods for doing so, including some version of expansion draft.
|
|
Norman Dale
New Member
Posts: 449
Likes: 108
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by Norman Dale on Jan 9, 2019 1:40:46 GMT
My point in raising the caps is the extraction draft. Give teams some flexibility to add a player. Maybe do the draft order in the extraction from worst record to best. bad teams already have flexibility to add players that good teams don't. if we remove that advantage by increasing the cap for everyone then the league WILL become top heavy, the scenario you're trying to avoid. we don't need to do a draft because the waiver system already gives the worst win % the first crack at any player they bid on. turning it into a draft just adds complications If you want go with 2A, that is fine with me. I have 3 rookie contracts and Jake next season under contract. I will be able to land some pretty good talent around them. however, I am looking at this with common sense and logic and what would be most fair. If we are going to go the route of an influx of top end talent, we should consider an influx in our cap. I also do not feel open FA is the best route because as I pointed out, I could very easily sign a top end talent then resign my good players with bird years. Those players should remain in FA because of the influx of talent to the FA pool. I feel the best course of action is a draft, do multiple rounds, increase the cap to a number that makes sense and we draft based off current contracts. I am not talking of doubling the cap either, I am saying, take low cap from 50 to 60, high cap 80 to 90. Give teams a little more flexibility. |
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Jan 9, 2019 14:13:07 GMT
voted 1b and 2a
2a was kinda weird though... Not sure the best way to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 9, 2019 15:51:45 GMT
i want to start off by saying that we in general may be approaching this with different goals in mind. my goal is to best simulate contraction. other people may have other goals in mind, which is fine, i just want to get them into the open so our discussion can be the most productive. for example, putting all the human teams in one conference is the best simulation of contraction because if we actually contracted they would by definition only play each other, only the top teams would get in the playoffs, etc. that's why i keep stressing the ways monoconference equalizes the robot teams. if people have a different goal in mind that mixed conferences accomplishes, i'd love to hear about it. bad teams already have flexibility to add players that good teams don't. if we remove that advantage by increasing the cap for everyone then the league WILL become top heavy, the scenario you're trying to avoid. we don't need to do a draft because the waiver system already gives the worst win % the first crack at any player they bid on. turning it into a draft just adds complications If you want go with 2A, that is fine with me. I have 3 rookie contracts and Jake next season under contract. I will be able to land some pretty good talent around them. however, I am looking at this with common sense and logic and what would be most fair. If we are going to go the route of an influx of top end talent, we should consider an influx in our cap. I also do not feel open FA is the best route because as I pointed out, I could very easily sign a top end talent then resign my good players with bird years. Those players should remain in FA because of the influx of talent to the FA pool. I feel the best course of action is a draft, do multiple rounds, increase the cap to a number that makes sense and we draft based off current contracts. I am not talking of doubling the cap either, I am saying, take low cap from 50 to 60, high cap 80 to 90. Give teams a little more flexibility. the only way you'll be able to land anyone through waivers is if 25+ teams pass on them, since you'll almost certainly have one of the best win%s this year. the only difference that happens doing a draft is it gets EASIER for the Lakers to land a player, since it's easier for them to fit $12m (or whatever we come up with for the first round) than the $22m in the unlikely event Firsto (or whoever) falls past the other teams. the soft cap doesn't come into play for waivers or the draft so i don't see how changing it impacts any of the concerns being raised, and it would have significant other consequences: max contracts are based on % of the soft cap when they're signed and MLE/LLE don't take cap into consideration at all, so pre-bump maxes would be disproportionately valuable and MLE/LLEs would become more valuable indefinitely. i'm not saying either of these are catastrophic, but if we gain nothing and lose something then why do it? raising the hard cap doesn't make sense to me either; the Cavs don't need any hard cap space to add Victor Oladipo, the Hornets do. i don't understand what you're going for with this suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Jan 9, 2019 16:05:53 GMT
I'm fine monoconferencing in the West to appease Ian.
|
|
h7t
New Member
Posts: 563
Likes: 86
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by h7t on Jan 9, 2019 17:57:25 GMT
I'm fine monoconferencing in the West to appease Ian. Likewise. Hawaii Volcanos for me por favor. Oakland Oaks or San Diego Sails calling my name if I couldn't take Hawaii since it was Continental Basketball Association and not ABA/NBA. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2019 18:06:54 GMT
A moment of silence for the dumbasses that let Hawaii be in the continental basketball association
|
|
Norman Dale
New Member
Posts: 449
Likes: 108
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by Norman Dale on Jan 9, 2019 18:28:09 GMT
ericMy point is that I feel a contraction draft is a better way to go other then putting people into FA or waivers. I was under the impression you were going to use FA as the dispersion, didn’t consider waivers, however if you think about it, waivers would work the same way as a contraction draft. My reasoning for wanting to raise the cap slightly is because of the influx we will have in talent. This should be about parity to an extent but not equaling the playing fields for the teams that have developed their roster. Is it fair if we have a team and lower end GM with a ton of cap room improve his roster significantly without any thought other than these are proven good players and I have the cap space. The NBA does it all the time in raising of the cap and that is because of 2 reasons 1) increase in revenue and 2) influx of talent. Meaning each year we keep getting more and more top end talent so compensations need to increase. With a flood of talent coming in from the non owner teams we are dealing with this influx on a larger scale because these are proven players in the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 9, 2019 19:26:32 GMT
ericMy point is that I feel a contraction draft is a better way to go other then putting people into FA or waivers. I was under the impression you were going to use FA as the dispersion, didn’t consider waivers, however if you think about it, waivers would work the same way as a contraction draft. My reasoning for wanting to raise the cap slightly is because of the influx we will have in talent. This should be about parity to an extent but not equaling the playing fields for the teams that have developed their roster. Is it fair if we have a team and lower end GM with a ton of cap room improve his roster significantly without any thought other than these are proven good players and I have the cap space. The NBA does it all the time in raising of the cap and that is because of 2 reasons 1) increase in revenue and 2) influx of talent. Meaning each year we keep getting more and more top end talent so compensations need to increase. With a flood of talent coming in from the non owner teams we are dealing with this influx on a larger scale because these are proven players in the league. the nba only increases cap because of revenue though, it has nothing to do with talent. the nba didn't get twice as talented from 2014 to 2018, you know what i mean? and the cap barely budged in 2004 with one of the all time great draft classes. we definitely have concrete negative consequences for changing the cap here, i'm very hesitant to do that unless we come up with a really tangible reason to. as to 'fair' we're giving first crack to teams with the worst win % anyways, so we're already in the paradigm of evening out the league. it doesn't make sense to do that AND give a cap bump, those moves are at cross purposes. i agree that waivers work mostly the same as a draft. the upside to doing waivers is we will be completely done in exactly 24 hours, nobody will ever be on the clock since waivers are computed simultaneously, we can run the rookie draft at the same time, and we don't have to worry about changing any player's contract. |
|
Norman Dale
New Member
Posts: 449
Likes: 108
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by Norman Dale on Jan 9, 2019 19:51:36 GMT
I will be more than happy to conduct the draft. I can start the draft right after trade deadline. So we should have it concluded by playoffs or shortly after.
In regards to the cap, let me know if this makes anymore sense to you. We are going to have less teams with more talent in the league, I feel in this type of scenario, I would compare to the nba and aba merger, they had a merger draft and there were spikes in salaries that eventually forced the cap. I feel a slight accommodation should be made to give teams some flexibility that are on the higher end of the cap. I will point out that I am not arguing for my own selfish reasons, I will have a ton of cap room.
|
|
