|
|
Post by eric on Mar 16, 2020 16:06:38 GMT
current rules:
Once signed, any MLE or LLE can be extended for one year or two years.
This costs 1000 pig pennies per year for the MLE or 2500 pig pennies per year for the LLE.
In either case the years added are $4,500,000 salary.
Having any number of exceptions on the roster, extended or otherwise, is no barrier to offering or extending one.
proposed change:
Any player signed to a one year deal up to $5m can be extended for one year or two years at $5m salary.
This costs 2000 pig pennies per year, and a GM can only extend one contract per year.
.
reasoning:
it doesn't really make sense that a $4,600,000 deal can't be extended but a $4,500,000 can, but a $4,000,000 can't
but we also want to limit a GM's ability to have too many players on below market deals
so i think this is a reasonable compromise
it does reduce the number of extensions a GM can do each year from two to one, but i can't remember the last time anyone did the double anyway
thoughts welcome
|
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Mar 16, 2020 16:07:45 GMT
all extensions are flat, including LLE or MINs, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Mar 16, 2020 16:09:57 GMT
sounds like something that needs to happen immediately
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Mar 16, 2020 16:10:03 GMT
Yes, without question.
So do we keep the MLE and the LLE to the same dollar amounts?
|
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Mar 16, 2020 16:31:40 GMT
Sounds like I’m in the minority here, but I don’t fully understand the reasoning. People are only signed to $4.6m deals to beat out MLEs, and it ties the GM’s hands a bit as by offering that extra 100k in year one they lose the flexibility to extend them.
Isn’t the MLE a software feature? And therefore set at $4.5m? And isn’t the whole point of an MLE to allow a team over the soft cap to add talent? What are the work implications for you to input bids for teams over the soft cap? Or would MLE and LLE value stay the same and these deals would be entirely separate? If so, teams with soft cap space gain a big advantage in adding a player here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Mar 16, 2020 16:52:18 GMT
Sounds like I’m in the minority here, but I don’t fully understand the reasoning. People are only signed to $4.6m deals to beat out MLEs, and it ties the GM’s hands a bit as by offering that extra 100k in year one they lose the flexibility to extend them. Isn’t the MLE a software feature? And therefore set at $4.5m? And isn’t the whole point of an MLE to allow a team over the soft cap to add talent? What are the work implications for you to input bids for teams over the soft cap? Or would MLE and LLE value stay the same and these deals would be entirely separate? If so, teams with soft cap space gain a big advantage in adding a player here. maybe I misunderstood the proposal. I thought that MLE and LLE would stay the same, but you had the option to extend for 2 years. Then you also had the option to extend any 1 year contract at or below 5 million. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Mar 16, 2020 16:55:28 GMT
Sounds like I’m in the minority here, but I don’t fully understand the reasoning. People are only signed to $4.6m deals to beat out MLEs, and it ties the GM’s hands a bit as by offering that extra 100k in year one they lose the flexibility to extend them. Isn’t the MLE a software feature? And therefore set at $4.5m? And isn’t the whole point of an MLE to allow a team over the soft cap to add talent? What are the work implications for you to input bids for teams over the soft cap? Or would MLE and LLE value stay the same and these deals would be entirely separate? If so, teams with soft cap space gain a big advantage in adding a player here. maybe I misunderstood the proposal. I thought that MLE and LLE would stay the same, but you had the option to extend for 2 years. Then you also had the option to extend any 1 year contract at or below 5 million. Am I wrong? One extendable contract per year, it seems. But it's the GM's choice which sub-$5m contract it's applied to. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Mar 16, 2020 17:39:53 GMT
mle and lle would still be extendable, just at $5m instead of $4.5m
the mle is hard coded to 4.5m and same for lle, nothing about the mle/lle process is changing
teams over the soft cap would still be restricted to one year mins otherwise, and they would also be extendable
teams under the soft cap would have more flexibility but they should, they're under the soft cap
gms would be able to extend one deal per year, whether it's mle or min or $5m or whatever
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Mar 16, 2020 17:40:54 GMT
all extensions are flat, including LLE or MINs, right? yes, flat $5m |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Mar 16, 2020 17:47:00 GMT
mle and lle would still be extendable, just at $5m instead of $4.5m the mle is hard coded to 4.5m and same for lle, nothing about the mle/lle process is changing teams over the soft cap would still be restricted to one year mins otherwise, and they would also be extendable teams under the soft cap would have more flexibility but they should, they're under the soft cap gms would be able to extend one deal per year, whether it's mle or min or $5m or whatever If Marques Johnson, for example, offers to re-sign with me at $4.07m, can he be extended? |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Mar 16, 2020 18:03:35 GMT
mle and lle would still be extendable, just at $5m instead of $4.5m the mle is hard coded to 4.5m and same for lle, nothing about the mle/lle process is changing teams over the soft cap would still be restricted to one year mins otherwise, and they would also be extendable teams under the soft cap would have more flexibility but they should, they're under the soft cap gms would be able to extend one deal per year, whether it's mle or min or $5m or whatever If Marques Johnson, for example, offers to re-sign with me at $4.07m, can he be extended? no, has to be signed on the free market, just like mle/lle |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Mar 16, 2020 18:29:28 GMT
If Marques Johnson, for example, offers to re-sign with me at $4.07m, can he be extended? no, has to be signed on the free market, just like mle/lle This makes me like it even less |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Mar 16, 2020 18:47:56 GMT
no, has to be signed on the free market, just like mle/lle This makes me like it even less Why would this matter? If he is offering to resign you get to keep him easily unless you have already extended. We have a guaranteed way to keep a player that shows they are worthy. If you want to take the chance and later have to accept or decline a resign then thats just the risk you take. |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Mar 16, 2020 19:02:14 GMT
This makes me like it even less Why would this matter? If he is offering to resign you get to keep him easily unless you have already extended. We have a guaranteed way to keep a player that shows they are worthy. If you want to take the chance and later have to accept or decline a resign then thats just the risk you take. I think you and I (and probably some others) view this in a fundamentally different way. From my perspective, if a player you signed for a min pans out and does really well, they would hit the market in real life for a huge pay raise. You, on the other hand, want to be able to keep them for below market value. If you were able to find that diamond in the rough before others, you should've offered them an MLE or LLE up front to ensure you could extend them. Let's take an expansion team, for example. If they go out and sign 12 guys to $4,000,000 one-year deals, they basically have their choice to extend any single one of those 12 players. That seems foolish to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Mar 16, 2020 19:06:28 GMT
Why would this matter? If he is offering to resign you get to keep him easily unless you have already extended. We have a guaranteed way to keep a player that shows they are worthy. If you want to take the chance and later have to accept or decline a resign then thats just the risk you take. I think you and I (and probably some others) view this in a fundamentally different way. From my perspective, if a player you signed for a min pans out and does really well, they would hit the market in real life for a huge pay raise. You, on the other hand, want to be able to keep them for below market value. If you were able to find that diamond in the rough before others, you should've offered them an MLE or LLE up front to ensure you could extend them. Let's take an expansion team, for example. If they go out and sign 12 guys to $4,000,000 one-year deals, they basically have their choice to extend any single one of those 12 players. That seems foolish to me. But this isn't real life, we don't get to watch these guys practice and then say "ooh that guy could pan out" we have to sign them and play them to find out. In real life the guy is more likely to sign w/the team that gave them a chance also. There are certain aspects of sim where what happens in real life is impossible to emulate. Like I'm starting Steve Kerr and I will most likely lose him for nothing because I figured out he's a usable player. Meanwhile teams can sit around and do jack shit and just poach players. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Mar 16, 2020 19:07:44 GMT
I understand that argument.
But in the real world if this happened teams would have the ability to negotiate and extend someone before they hit the market.
In sim league we have no advantage at all in the ability to resign.
If the general idea gets shot down completely I would even suggest a WS related contract like we do for resignings.
|
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Mar 16, 2020 19:14:09 GMT
I think you and I (and probably some others) view this in a fundamentally different way. From my perspective, if a player you signed for a min pans out and does really well, they would hit the market in real life for a huge pay raise. You, on the other hand, want to be able to keep them for below market value. If you were able to find that diamond in the rough before others, you should've offered them an MLE or LLE up front to ensure you could extend them. Let's take an expansion team, for example. If they go out and sign 12 guys to $4,000,000 one-year deals, they basically have their choice to extend any single one of those 12 players. That seems foolish to me. But this isn't real life, we don't get to watch these guys practice and then say "ooh that guy could pan out" we have to sign them and play them to find out. In real life the guy is more likely to sign w/the team that gave them a chance also. There are certain aspects of sim where what happens in real life is impossible to emulate. Like I'm starting Steve Kerr and I will most likely lose him for nothing because I figured out he's a usable player. Meanwhile teams can sit around and do jack shit and just poach players. You have two advantages in that it's possible he offers to re-sign and then, if not, you have a single bird year that no one else does. You said yourself on the podcast when BK and I suggested he's likely to regress that you felt just fine about him as a point guard with A outside. He didn't get better during TC. You knew he had A outside when you signed him. If you felt good about that outside grade, why didn't you nab him with an LLE instead of a min so you had the opportunity to extend for two years? We have two opportunities every offseason to sign someone to a "flexible" contract that can be extended an additional two years. I don't know why we need to expand that. |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Mar 16, 2020 19:16:36 GMT
I understand that argument. But in the real world if this happened teams would have the ability to negotiate and extend someone before they hit the market. In sim league we have no advantage at all in the ability to resign. If the general idea gets shot down completely I would even suggest a WS related contract like we do for resignings. You do have an advantage because they can offer to re-sign with you and they can't offer to re-sign with anyone else. If someone doesn't re-sign and chooses to hit the FA market, you still have the ability to negotiate with them. That player isn't going to re-sign in real life for a slight increase when they could be making twice that with another team. |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Mar 16, 2020 19:24:13 GMT
But this isn't real life, we don't get to watch these guys practice and then say "ooh that guy could pan out" we have to sign them and play them to find out. In real life the guy is more likely to sign w/the team that gave them a chance also. There are certain aspects of sim where what happens in real life is impossible to emulate. Like I'm starting Steve Kerr and I will most likely lose him for nothing because I figured out he's a usable player. Meanwhile teams can sit around and do jack shit and just poach players. You have two advantages in that it's possible he offers to re-sign and then, if not, you have a single bird year that no one else does. You said yourself on the podcast when BK and I suggested he's likely to regress that you felt just fine about him as a point guard with A outside. He didn't get better during TC. You knew he had A outside when you signed him. If you felt good about that outside grade, why didn't you nab him with an LLE instead of a min so you had the opportunity to extend for two years? We have two opportunities every offseason to sign someone to a "flexible" contract that can be extended an additional two years. I don't know why we need to expand that. i had lle offers out to 5 other players at the time, i don't have a choice who signs what and when the other players signed elsewhere on a lle then i'd have offered him one, say if this was real life |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Mar 16, 2020 19:37:57 GMT
You have two advantages in that it's possible he offers to re-sign and then, if not, you have a single bird year that no one else does. You said yourself on the podcast when BK and I suggested he's likely to regress that you felt just fine about him as a point guard with A outside. He didn't get better during TC. You knew he had A outside when you signed him. If you felt good about that outside grade, why didn't you nab him with an LLE instead of a min so you had the opportunity to extend for two years? We have two opportunities every offseason to sign someone to a "flexible" contract that can be extended an additional two years. I don't know why we need to expand that. i had lle offers out to 5 other players at the time, i don't have a choice who signs what and when the other players signed elsewhere on a lle then i'd have offered him one, say if this was real life To expand upon this a bit more. MLE's, and to a lesser extent an LLE, are used more to a targeted group of people where their value is known. The purpose of this rule change would be to encourage and potentially reward a GM that is actively seeking better, undiscovered players for long term gain. |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Mar 16, 2020 19:46:36 GMT
I don't think this should take the place of MLE and LLE extension, should compliment them.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Mar 16, 2020 19:56:28 GMT
Why would this matter? If he is offering to resign you get to keep him easily unless you have already extended. We have a guaranteed way to keep a player that shows they are worthy. If you want to take the chance and later have to accept or decline a resign then thats just the risk you take. I think you and I (and probably some others) view this in a fundamentally different way. From my perspective, if a player you signed for a min pans out and does really well, they would hit the market in real life for a huge pay raise. You, on the other hand, want to be able to keep them for below market value. If you were able to find that diamond in the rough before others, you should've offered them an MLE or LLE up front to ensure you could extend them. Let's take an expansion team, for example. If they go out and sign 12 guys to $4,000,000 one-year deals, they basically have their choice to extend any single one of those 12 players. That seems foolish to me. but if they're signing a player to a $4m tier deal then the only reason other teams aren't too is they didn't know about the player so the expansion team shouldn't be penalized for being smarter just because they couldn't possibly offer an mle/lle because they were nowhere near the soft cap |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Mar 16, 2020 19:57:23 GMT
I don't think this should take the place of MLE and LLE extension, should compliment them. to be clear, mle and lle extensions can still happen. you just have to pick between that and a min (or 3m or whatever) extension each season |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Mar 16, 2020 20:10:49 GMT
I don't think this should take the place of MLE and LLE extension, should compliment them. to be clear, mle and lle extensions can still happen. you just have to pick between that and a min (or 3m or whatever) extension each season I understand, I just don't like it. Would rather keep the MLE and LLE extensions and forego this new option. |
|
|
|
Post by wee2dee on Mar 16, 2020 20:25:42 GMT
to be clear, mle and lle extensions can still happen. you just have to pick between that and a min (or 3m or whatever) extension each season I understand, I just don't like it. Would rather keep the MLE and LLE extensions and forego this new option. my opinion as well if it's not being used as an addition. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Mar 16, 2020 21:29:12 GMT
to be clear, mle and lle extensions can still happen. you just have to pick between that and a min (or 3m or whatever) extension each season I understand, I just don't like it. Would rather keep the MLE and LLE extensions and forego this new option. if it changes your mind, the last case i can find of a GM extending an MLE and LLE in the same season was who else but bill in 2026, and before that delap in 2021, jhb in 2020, and nobody else since contraction. that's 3 times out of at least 270 GM-seasons, or 1 in 90 while i agree that option will no longer be available to you, if you and the overwhelming majority of the league haven't used it anyway, aren't you probably better off with the option that permits more contract flexibility? |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Mar 16, 2020 22:24:56 GMT
While I'm not overly fond of the idea, I could see this being a beneficial way for expansion teams to grab some additional talent which is really hard for them to do, and it would let them do so on a flexible contract while they get their feet wet.
So I guess I'll go ahead and vote yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Mar 17, 2020 4:07:56 GMT
I understand, I just don't like it. Would rather keep the MLE and LLE extensions and forego this new option. if it changes your mind, the last case i can find of a GM extending an MLE and LLE in the same season was who else but bill in 2026, and before that delap in 2021, jhb in 2020, and nobody else since contraction. that's 3 times out of at least 270 GM-seasons, or 1 in 90 while i agree that option will no longer be available to you, if you and the overwhelming majority of the league haven't used it anyway, aren't you probably better off with the option that permits more contract flexibility? I was close to extending Adrian Smith last year but due to a tight cap I didn't. Can 100% see that type of scenario occurring sans cap tightness in the future. if you want to give this option to others, make it either/or, you can extend one or both exception contracts or you can extend a single non exception contract under 5 mil. Keep the existing and add the new. and if that double is truly so rare this rule may hardly ever apply while others still get the new one. |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Mar 17, 2020 4:08:34 GMT
I did extend Noah for those missing the context in the above
|
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Mar 17, 2020 12:28:13 GMT
no, has to be signed on the free market, just like mle/lle This makes me like it even less Why? The point of this rule is to allow team control for hidden gem type players that you don't have birds on If someone is offering you a resign like that you already have birds on them and an inherent advantage in keeping them in FA. |
|
