|
|
Post by Logan on Nov 5, 2020 21:41:46 GMT
things i care about
1. not having to decide if i want to use my extension on an older mle or a decent looking project rookie
2. assured, cheap birds. previously that was an easy thing to accomplish. sure, i can just offer the same guy a min offer but he could just not take it. sure, i could extend a guy, but 5m per is a lot just for a shitty guy with birds.
3. being able to retain multiple good rookies if i sign more than one at <5m
things i don't care about
1. making quality of life more difficult for those over the softcap. they already have enough limitations. and as we've seen an expensive team doesn't always equal a good team.
2. a tiered extension system based on team salary rather than player salary. just seems pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 6, 2020 1:13:52 GMT
awhile ago people were talking about guaranteed player acquisition, and i've got a half baked solution to that
each team could get a territorial pick which they could use after fa day 1 on a player they scouted (either before or after fa day 1) for a set contract, and if multiple teams tried to get the same player they could each submit a bid for contracts with the highest total $ and then some other tiebreaker winning
they would also be tradeable
.
now, there's still the main problem, because here's when the ladder rookies signed:
day 1 - 1 2 5 6 7
day 5 - 3 4 8
but at least the % would be higher? not sure how else we could fine tune it but it could be something to start with
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 6, 2020 1:15:55 GMT
things i care about 1. not having to decide if i want to use my extension on an older mle or a decent looking project rookie 2. assured, cheap birds. previously that was an easy thing to accomplish. sure, i can just offer the same guy a min offer but he could just not take it. sure, i could extend a guy, but 5m per is a lot just for a shitty guy with birds. 3. being able to retain multiple good rookies if i sign more than one at <5m things i don't care about 1. making quality of life more difficult for those over the softcap. they already have enough limitations. and as we've seen an expensive team doesn't always equal a good team. 2. a tiered extension system based on team salary rather than player salary. just seems pointless. okay but again my question is if we change extensions and give teams over the cap the same ability to retain elite rookies, and the same ability to cheaply retain other rookies for birds or for projects, what's the point of rookie fa? at that point isn't it just a more convoluted/confusing way of getting what we already had with the draft? i don't get the point of it if we just end up fitting it to what we had before i feel like those new choices you describe are a feature of the system rather than a bug - a GM being able to pick only one of two good things means not all GMs will choose the same, and even the same GM could make different decisions in different scenarios. same with cheap birds, it used to be that everyone basically got those automatically with a second round pick, but now a GM has to choose whether to expend an FA bid or bids on doing that, which sometimes will be a good idea and sometimes a bad idea. i don't see how these are "quality of life" issues as much as strategy issues, you know? |
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Nov 6, 2020 1:35:59 GMT
things i care about 1. not having to decide if i want to use my extension on an older mle or a decent looking project rookie 2. assured, cheap birds. previously that was an easy thing to accomplish. sure, i can just offer the same guy a min offer but he could just not take it. sure, i could extend a guy, but 5m per is a lot just for a shitty guy with birds. 3. being able to retain multiple good rookies if i sign more than one at <5m things i don't care about 1. making quality of life more difficult for those over the softcap. they already have enough limitations. and as we've seen an expensive team doesn't always equal a good team. 2. a tiered extension system based on team salary rather than player salary. just seems pointless. okay but again my question is if we change extensions and give teams over the cap the same ability to retain elite rookies, and the same ability to cheaply retain other rookies for birds or for projects, what's the point of rookie fa? at that point isn't it just a more convoluted/confusing way of getting what we already had with the draft? i don't get the point of it if we just end up fitting it to what we had before i feel like those new choices you describe are a feature of the system rather than a bug - a GM being able to pick only one of two good things means not all GMs will choose the same, and even the same GM could make different decisions in different scenarios. same with cheap birds, it used to be that everyone basically got those automatically with a second round pick, but now a GM has to choose whether to expend an FA bid or bids on doing that, which sometimes will be a good idea and sometimes a bad idea. i don't see how these are "quality of life" issues as much as strategy issues, you know? the point of rookie fa is to give everyone a fair chance at all the rookies each year |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 6, 2020 14:33:07 GMT
okay but again my question is if we change extensions and give teams over the cap the same ability to retain elite rookies, and the same ability to cheaply retain other rookies for birds or for projects, what's the point of rookie fa? at that point isn't it just a more convoluted/confusing way of getting what we already had with the draft? i don't get the point of it if we just end up fitting it to what we had before i feel like those new choices you describe are a feature of the system rather than a bug - a GM being able to pick only one of two good things means not all GMs will choose the same, and even the same GM could make different decisions in different scenarios. same with cheap birds, it used to be that everyone basically got those automatically with a second round pick, but now a GM has to choose whether to expend an FA bid or bids on doing that, which sometimes will be a good idea and sometimes a bad idea. i don't see how these are "quality of life" issues as much as strategy issues, you know? the point of rookie fa is to give everyone a fair chance at all the rookies each year okay, is this what everyone else is looking for? i don't have firm records but i seem to remember a lot of people making a big objection to the wheel that already good teams were getting good rookies (e.g. lebron or paul to the bulls) if we're not looking to stop that and instead looking to equalize the chances at top rookies, i think we need to seriously consider having min only bids for rookies |
|
