|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 20, 2013 14:09:26 GMT
I'm not the one not reading.
If you picked up a rfa qo you NEED TO have at least that much available.
You don't have the option of spending all your money prior to your rfa and then releasing him to UFA.
That along with the schedule mode and the order from best to worst are the things that are not debatable.
Sent from my tmn smart a18 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2013 18:00:50 GMT
That's fine. I'm all for the QO being deducted from cap available for bidding at the start, I will update my cap accordingly.
The only reason I brought up the idea of a randomizer was because some GM's felt slighted that their players (Harden and Curry specifically) were first and they believe that will drive price up on them. I'm fine with the schedule being by player rankings - but are we ranking players by using the ESPN fantasy points from last season? As that's how it should be.
If we have QO deducted from beggining balance, use schedule based on espn fantasy point ranking from last year, and submit blind bids to an account and all bids are opened at the same time - I'm all in and I think my concerns have been addressed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2013 19:29:07 GMT
First off, I don't understand why this is being argued ONCE AGAIN! look, we all discussed this middle of last season, am i wrong? and this rules that are currently in place are exactly what we decided on. just go with it, and if were not going to go with it, Then.....
we could eliminate 90% of the issues people have by just getting rid of the current owners bid, and the 20% rule. although implemented with good intentions it just complicates the process with no real reason. can be simple:
1. the current owner accepting the QO should just count as the players cap hold. outside owners then get the chance to place bids on the player. Highest bid then goes back to the current owner who has the choice to match. if matched, then current owner keeps the player. If not matched, other team then gets him.
2. any player with no bids then gets sent back to the current owner, who then has the choice of signing the 1 year tender at the QO or extending up to 3 years at a price starting over the QO tender.
simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2013 20:06:38 GMT
I would like to know how the RFA's were ranked??
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 20, 2013 21:04:14 GMT
We used basketball monster because we can customize their ranks with with our league stats.
But if you rather use another rank that's not a biggie...
Sent from my tmn smart a18 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2013 21:07:50 GMT
I was just curious... this list seems kinda close to the ESPN player rater one... I thought you used that since that's where we score at... so yeah this is fine..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 0:04:40 GMT
Also, I've just heard rumblings and read this note regarding no trading signed RFA's for six months.... and the first thing I can think is... WHERE IN THE HECK DID THIS COME FROM??? It's nowhere to be found in the rules, and you can't just go adding in rules as we get to a portion of the off-season where it is relevant lol?? How is that at all fair for people, myself included, who traded for RFA's. The rules state that you cannot trade a signed Free Agent for ONE MONTH, so I'm not at all sure where this SIX MONTH talk came from... but it's a tad ridiculous [/u] Read more: dynastyleaguebball.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rules&action=display&thread=1589#ixzz2ZdM0q3Wj[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jul 21, 2013 2:29:14 GMT
Thank you for raising the question about the 6 month "no trade" clause Josh.
Not that its necessarily a bad idea. (I wouldn't raise too much of an issue even if the league moved to a 6 month "no trade" clause for all free agents - as long as all rule changes are made in the off-season.) I just wonder what the need is for having a different length of time for RFAs.?
|
|
|
Post by Celtics GM (Jose) on Jul 22, 2013 11:51:56 GMT
Regarding everything said and done above and to clarify the issues we picked up from your suggestions and questions:
- Open Bidding vs. Closed Bidding vs. No Bidding from original owner
We are going with the 3 options at the same time. Owners that wish to stipulate a market price for their players and make others pay above it, may make their QO's public on the "Contract Committee" thread. Owners that wish to make a closed bid must do so within the time frame of their RFA's. Finally, owners who do not want or forget to make a closed bid will be accounted as the others.
- Ordered RFA vs. Random RFA
Like in real NBA it makes sense for the best players to go out first. You may say that it will drive up the prices but that also happens in real NBA where players are overpayed every year during RFA and UFA due to the big names going off the board early and GM's panic with the lack of solutions.
The order is decided by Basketball Monsters ratings with our league settings configured on it.
- "No trading" deadline
This was just an error on my part since i wrote it from memory and didn't do the appropriate research. As you know, we try to mimic the NBA to its fullest extension. So, even if it was not stated before, it was always our intention to make this provision regarding Free Agency. The only thing wrong about it was the duration of this period. So, according to the NBA rule book:
"For three months or until December 15 of that season (whichever is later) after signing a contract as a free agent or matching an offer sheet to a restricted free agent."
Regarding that we already have a "1 month no trade" for other Free Agents during the season, we'll now consider December 15th as the 1st day of the season where RFA's may be traded after being signed.
- Cap Space
Teams are not allowed to go over the cap signing RFA's or UFA's. In the case of RFA, since the bids will be closed, owners of current FA's will be made accountable for the salary of their QO year (the one in orange) and can only bid on other players, as well as their own, with that in mind. Since the file takes that into consideration, it should be easy for you to know how much space everyone has available. When we open the closed bids, we'll validate each one of them against each team's cap space, so there won't be a problem there.
I hope we've made everything clear, we'll have the latest details (where to send the e-mails, tiebreaker for equal proposals that the original owner doesn't want to match, etc) in the next couple of days.
I would only like to add just one quick personal note regarding stuff that is said on this league but mostly how it is said.
Regarding this quote and the GM who made it, nowhere did i say that you had anything to do with this idea, just with pointing out the "paradox" it created.
I always assumed that when you all joined the league there was a compromise of "confiança" that we all needed to have in order for this to work since we are not an internet site you can complain to, but only 2 regular dudes with jobs and other stuff trying to make the best league they can.
I know we have a different background but i always assumed that the portuguese word i used above was the correct translation to "trust" but Jola has proven me wrong, since he says he "trusts us" but the offers need to be closed until the date because we might/would take advantage (english or american are not my native languages but there is a big difference between those two words and i've seen you use them both very lightly and without distinction between them).
Even so, I have no problem with you thinking that cause it's in your own right to think that way. We've tried to make the league the most transparent it can get and the way we've always discussed any problems, rule changes, etc, is proof of that.
However what i do personally have a problem with is the way that those opinions are posted and transmited. As we've all witnessed in the past, there are ways and there are ways of explaining yourself and making your point. And most of the best points being proven don't need to resort to insult, injury, banter, trash talk and so on. They are good just on the point they are trying to prove.
So, Jola, if you don't agree with something, just state it, make your point. There is no need for the rest.
(Edited due to an error in the RFA deadline part)
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 22, 2013 15:12:54 GMT
Another note that should be obvious.
During the RFA period those RFA players cannot be traded.
We have been in leagues that allowed it, and what that leads to is every owner facing the reality of not wanting to /not having cap for matching the bids, trading those players for peanuts, to a team that doesn't have the best bid but can match it.
Resulting in the team with the better bid never getting the player.
Sent from my tmn smart a18 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jul 22, 2013 20:47:24 GMT
Thanks once again for all the hard work you guys put into defining this process. This is an interesting solution.
Sorry about this, but just a couple more questions:
The new timetable for trading RFAs states: "we already have a "1 month no trade" for other Free Agents during the season, we'll now consider December 15th as the 1st day of the season where RFA's may be traded after being signed." Is December 15th the starting point for trading UFAs as well? If not, could I ask once again - why there's a need for a different date for the 2 types of free agents?
I posted my second question earlier, but it was just speculation. The reason that keeps being given for putting RFAs on a schedule (it resembles the real NBA, maintains activity and interest in the league) could fit UFAs as well. I'm hoping the UFA process is the same as last year, but just wanted confirmation that it won't be on a schedule. If so, its ok, but it would be helpful to know as soon as possible. I guess the question is - are there any plans to put the UFA process on a schedule?
Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 22, 2013 21:28:45 GMT
We decided against having UFA's locked until Dec, 15 because of teams that only have 3 players... Seriously, Jose wanted that, but i feel that would make the league very slow on movement and teams like yours would have a locked roster for almost half the season. There are no plans to put UFA on a schedule. Simply because the players are too many and a lot of them will not get a bid. Also, it's open biding.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jul 22, 2013 21:55:14 GMT
Thanks!
|
|