do we want more parity? (268 views)

[Deleted]

we were discussing changing contract length from 6/7 to 4/5 and this question came up. i honestly don't know the answer and would like to discuss it more in poll form.

this is not a vote for any changing of contract rules, i'm just trying to figure out if people are happy where things are or if more parity would be better for the league. discuss.

[TimPig]

I'm good with where we're at.

[skrouse]

more parity is good but I am not certain adjusting contract lengths is the only way to achieve that

[Mike]

fuck the wheel

[eric]

i think i misunderstood the original proposal

when we say "parity" do we mean
1. more teams will have a better chance at signing free agents away from other teams
2. more teams will have a better chance at winning titles

[Majic]

I would personally favor a change where we mirrored Sim league contract lengths with IRL NBA.

So my vote would be Yes to parity if it lead to a change in contract lengths.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2020 17:32:02 GMT skrouse said:

more parity is good but I am not certain adjusting contract lengths is the only way to achieve that

i agree and thats why we're starting with this discussion

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2020 18:22:58 GMT eric said:

i think i misunderstood the original proposal

when we say "parity" do we mean
1. more teams will have a better chance at signing free agents away from other teams
2. more teams will have a better chance at winning titles

the goal is ultimately 2. super teams are great but is a variety of title winners. i think the length of contracts we use is a factor but it is only one of many. the size of the league is most likely also a major contributing factor but that has been improved lately and there's no easy and direct way to change that anyway.

[skrouse]

mentioned it on the pod, I think limiting the size of 1 year deals would add some parity - listen to the pod to learn why

[TimPig]

One thing that might go a short way to helping with parity:

What if amnesties were escalating based on the dollar value or years left?

Last offseason, I didn't want to lose Brad Holland for nothing so I offered him a contract I knew I could amnesty later on for 50,000 bucks if I couldn't trade him. If that price were steeper, I'd definitely have been more cautious about offering him a long-term deal that assured I signed him over other teams who offered.

For escalations based on dollar value, I was thinking something like:

- Minimum of 25,000 bucks for any amnesty (the starting point is flexible)
- For amnesties of contracts over $5m, add an additional 10,000 bucks per $1m on the contract

So when I signed Brad Holland for $10 million, it would've cost 50,000 to amnesty him under the current rules. If we used my new proposal, it would've been:

25,000 base + (10,000 * 5 for each $1m over $5m) = 75,000.

It might make it a bit tougher on new GMs to get themselves out of a hole, but it seems they rarely amnesty anyway. This would at least prevent GMs who take advantage of the amnesty (i.e. me) from doing so as easily.

[eric]

Mar 29, 2020 2:16:53 GMT TimPig said:

One thing that might go a short way to helping with parity:

What if amnesties were escalating based on the dollar value or years left?

Last offseason, I didn't want to lose Brad Holland for nothing so I offered him a contract I knew I could amnesty later on for 50,000 bucks if I couldn't trade him. If that price were steeper, I'd definitely have been more cautious about offering him a long-term deal that assured I signed him over other teams who offered.

For escalations based on dollar value, I was thinking something like:

- Minimum of 25,000 bucks for any amnesty (the starting point is flexible)
- For amnesties of contracts over $5m, add an additional 10,000 bucks per $1m on the contract

So when I signed Brad Holland for $10 million, it would've cost 50,000 to amnesty him under the current rules. If we used my new proposal, it would've been:

25,000 base + (10,000 * 5 for each $1m over $5m) = 75,000.

It might make it a bit tougher on new GMs to get themselves out of a hole, but it seems they rarely amnesty anyway. This would at least prevent GMs who take advantage of the amnesty (i.e. me) from doing so as easily.

i like the escalating on years left better than on dollars, but i don't really love either

i think we're at a pretty good spot right now in terms of pig penny incentives and expenditures, i don't want to impinge on the outflow too much. not everyone has the $ to amnesty but they very easily could if they wanted to

[Majic]

I like the idea of limiting 1 year contracts. Makes it a lot harder for teams to keep guys without giving longer term deals.

Eric, I think what you just said at the end of your last post proves Tim’s point. It’s easy enough for almost anyone to afford an amnesty, so there’s not as much risk to overpaying a guy.

If the cost to amnesty a guy like Holland was significantly more it then more likely he could get a reasonable contract in FA. The talent is spreading out across them the league.

[eric]

Mar 29, 2020 12:23:28 GMT Majic said:

I like the idea of limiting 1 year contracts. Makes it a lot harder for teams to keep guys without giving longer term deals.

Eric, I think what you just said at the end of your last post proves Tim’s point. It’s easy enough for almost anyone to afford an amnesty, so there’s not as much risk to overpaying a guy.

If the cost to amnesty a guy like Holland was significantly more it then more likely he could get a reasonable contract in FA. The talent is spreading out across them the league.

it's easy enough for almost anyone to afford an amnesty if they want to, i.e. by writing articles or doing pods or otherwise adding to the league. that's what i'm talking about with incentives and expenditures

and i would say brad holland did get a reasonable contract in FA, because tim didn't have to pay to get rid of him in a trade

.

the contract math works out that shorter contracts as proposed will result in LESS player movement

current situation
bird rights team can offer 28% more total money on first max
first max on a keep ends at $21.875m in year 11, keeper has a $23m to $17.5m advantage in keeping on second max
first max on a steal ends at $18.75m in year 10, stealer has a $19.7m to $17.5m advantage in keeping on second max

proposed situation
bird rights team can offer 31% more total money on first max
first max on a keep ends at $20.3125m in year 10, keeper has a $21m to $17.5m advantage in keeping on second max
first max on a steal ends at $17.5m in year 9, keeper has a $18.4m to $15m advantage in keeping on second max, only $15m because the player doesn't have 10 years experience yet

we let the bird team offer more total money on first maxes - less movement
we technically reduce a bird team's advantage in keeping on a second max but nobody ever offers more than $21m anyway - no change in movement
if a team steals a max player, we increase their advantage in keeping on a second max which people absolutely do use - less movement

even on a double steal the earliest a player will be available for a third max will be in year 15, and even if the player hasn't retired nobody cares at that point. as proof kyrie put up 1.092 pts/tsa in year 15 and a year later delap got him back on a measly little 36/2 deal. this means even though a given player is likely to enter FA more often, it's not at a point that's relevant to league parity

[Mike]

We want more party

[Deleted]

i have little reason to doubt players hitting fa more often will result in more movement even if the former team has a few more % ti their advantage

also bird years are stupid

so is heavy reign

and the assertion that limiting one year contracts will increase player movement

[eric]

Mar 29, 2020 17:32:28 GMT @odin said:

i have little reason to doubt players hitting fa more often will result in more movement even if the former team has a few more % ti their advantage

also bird years are stupid

so is heavy reign

and the assertion that limiting one year contracts will increase player movement

to be clear, it will result in more movement... for players with 15+ years of experience (if they haven't retired)

what i'm saying is that if people are imagining that they would have a better shot at LeBron, they are mistaken

[eric]

Mar 29, 2020 17:29:40 GMT Mike said:

We want more party

then send power hour songs

[eric]

Mar 29, 2020 14:38:17 GMT eric said:

the contract math works out that shorter contracts as proposed will result in LESS player movement

current situation
bird rights team can offer 28% more total money on first max
first max on a keep ends at $21.875m in year 11, keeper has a $23m to $17.5m advantage in keeping on second max
first max on a steal ends at $18.75m in year 10, stealer has a $19.7m to $17.5m advantage in keeping on second max

proposed situation
bird rights team can offer 31% more total money on first max
first max on a keep ends at $20.3125m in year 10, keeper has a $21m to $17.5m advantage in keeping on second max
first max on a steal ends at $17.5m in year 9, keeper has a $18.4m to $15m advantage in keeping on second max, only $15m because the player doesn't have 10 years experience yet

we let the bird team offer more total money on first maxes - less movement
we technically reduce a bird team's advantage in keeping on a second max but nobody ever offers more than $21m anyway - no change in movement
if a team steals a max player, we increase their advantage in keeping on a second max which people absolutely do use - less movement

even on a double steal the earliest a player will be available for a third max will be in year 15, and even if the player hasn't retired nobody cares at that point. as proof kyrie put up 1.092 pts/tsa in year 15 and a year later delap got him back on a measly little 36/2 deal. this means even though a given player is likely to enter FA more often, it's not at a point that's relevant to league parity

bump for killybing