|
Post by Stephen on Apr 20, 2013 15:56:29 GMT
IMO years should be weighted more than cash. Like 3 years at $7M per is much more appealing than 1 year at $8M and 1 year with a team option for a 2nd year is more appealing than just a 1 year deal.
|
|
|
Post by Pistons GM (Anthony) on Jun 3, 2013 19:59:24 GMT
i have to agree with Steven on this...... the years of commitment are very important & should be factored heavily.
|
|
|
Post by Domingo on Jun 3, 2013 20:28:58 GMT
Yep agreed w/ the year suggestion
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jun 3, 2013 23:29:07 GMT
I agree with Steven, Anthony, and Domingo... just wonder though how complicated it would get to implement that. Just another question/suggestion: The rules state regarding dropped pleyers: If he is not claimed, he is said to have "cleared waivers", and is treated like any unrestricted free agent, able to sign with any team other than the team that waived him. Read more: dynastyleaguebball.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rules&action=display&thread=1593#ixzz2VCN3t0HzWould it be possible to limit this restriction only to the current season? It would make it easier to keep track of this. (And allow me to bid on the likes of Corey Joseph or Drew Gooden) Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jun 4, 2013 10:10:35 GMT
About the contracts, that is the one issue we have been discussing all year long.
Obviously we agree that 4 years/8M is better than 1year/9M in the real world. But we haven't yet find a system that works well AND is possible to implement.
Feel free to post here the system you are thinking about (not the point system years+salary, that we don't agree at all also).
Yes, ADAM that is the idea. That rule was meant to be for that season only.
thanks, we will change the rule.
|
|
|
Post by Lakers GM (Renato) on Jun 5, 2013 12:18:25 GMT
Idea:
(number of years x 0.1) x salary
Example
(4 y x 0.1) x 8M = 2.4 (3 y x 0.1) x 9M = 2.7 (3 y x 0.1) x 10M = 3 (3 y x 0.1) x 11M = 3.3 (4 y x 0.1) x 9M = 3.6
33M in 3 years > 30M in 3 > 27M in 3 > 24M in 4
However, 36M in 4 is more money overall than 33M in 3. One may argue that a player would get a better contract than those extra 3M in free agency but that's only true for the upcoming players. Players on the decline often sign lesser contracts...
|
|
|
Post by Lakers GM (Renato) on Jun 5, 2013 12:20:09 GMT
We can obviously remove the constant.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jun 6, 2013 14:01:57 GMT
(4 x 8 = ?)
I love the idea, but just another thing to consider is that we have escalating salaries further complicating the math. However, isn't this the same as just using total contract value to determine the winner?
|
|
|
Post by Lakers GM (Renato) on Jun 6, 2013 15:04:58 GMT
It is... I was inserting several constants into an equation and then I realized it was too complicated. Started to simplify and the end result was this mess...
PLEASE IGNORE IT!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2013 19:01:02 GMT
My football league uses a points system for contracts..It works well on there, giving a higher multiplyer based on how many years. Obviously basketball contracts are differant than NFL contracts, but the idea works well there. The basic idea of it is that you offer a certain amount of money (I.E. a 5M deal), then multiply the base salary by 1 (if a 1 year deal), 1.2 (if a 2 year deal, 1.4 (if a 3 year deal) and 1.6 (if a 4 year deal) to give you a certain amount of "points" and whoever has the higher offer in points wins the player. It's made for pretty sensible contracts in there. I'm not sure how options and backloaded contracts can be worked into the formula however. A system like that seems pretty fair to me. Could be something to work off of.
|
|
|
Post by Domingo on Jun 6, 2013 22:32:08 GMT
My football league uses a points system for contracts..It works well on there, giving a higher multiplyer based on how many years. Obviously basketball contracts are differant than NFL contracts, but the idea works well there. The basic idea of it is that you offer a certain amount of money (I.E. a 5M deal), then multiply the base salary by 1 (if a 1 year deal), 1.2 (if a 2 year deal, 1.4 (if a 3 year deal) and 1.6 (if a 4 year deal) to give you a certain amount of "points" and whoever has the higher offer in points wins the player. It's made for pretty sensible contracts in there. I'm not sure how options and backloaded contracts can be worked into the formula however. A system like that seems pretty fair to me. Could be something to work off of. I was thinking the same thing, its working out there and is fair
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jul 19, 2013 20:18:22 GMT
The RFA discussion got me thinking about a couple of questions regarding September 10th unrestricted free agency.
1. Since there is discussion of a schedule for restricted free agents, are there any plans for scheduling the UFA candidates? Or can we expect it to be the same system as last year? If there is going to be a schedule for the top unrestricted free agents, it would be useful to know the order as soon as possible.
2. The more I look at Jesse's suggestion, the more it makes sense. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work other than creating a little more math for us to do. (But number crunching is why some of us are here in the first place, right?) It offers some nice advantages. Even if it can't be implemented this year, I was wondering if its worth reviving this conversation.
Just a couple of examples using the points rates he lists: a. Currently a 3 yr. bid starting at $5m has an AAV at $5.52. Using the 1.4x multiplier, that same contract would have a point value of 7. b. A 3 yr. $20m bid has an AAV at $22.07, but a point value of $28.
On the one hand, I think it could have an overall negative effect in terms of price control because it encourages the use of longer contracts which carry more risk. However, my opinion is that it would also do more good than harm by promoting a dynasty feel to the league rather than see a lot of top free agents sign huge one year deals.
As always, I'm perfectly happy with the way things are, but if there's evidence that this has worked well in other leagues, it seems like an interesting idea to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 19, 2013 21:06:12 GMT
We already come up with a formula that we think works fine
For multiyear contracts:
Value of contract = 1,x*avg salary
Where x=2*years of contract
The people I talked with think this works. What you guys think.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jul 19, 2013 21:44:43 GMT
Now this is just embarrassing. After talking about number crunching, I'm not sure how to work out the formula. Does the comma represent a decimal (.)? I've been out if school for 18 yrs. now, there's probably some other use for a comma in a formula like this that I'm forgetting. It doesn't seem to work as a plus sign or a simple (1x). If it is a decimal, then this formula gives a little more value to the length of contract than the point system mentioned by Jesse. However, its fairly close, and would get my vote. If its not a decimal....then I apologize for being forgetful. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Lakers GM (Renato) on Jul 19, 2013 22:03:54 GMT
Pretty sure it is a decimal, in which case i agree with the change...
|
|