Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 19:31:59 GMT
But in the real world, it's the same. Teams don't usually get "fair value" in sign and trades. Its restricted free agency, it's not a normal situation when the player is already signed to a 3-4 year deal and the owner has all the leverage in the world to demand fair value or even a slight overpay. He has a chance to match, that in my eyes is all the power the current owner needs.
Let's look at Parsons situation. Houston thought they'll use the cap on some strong free agents, then sign Parsons using Bird rights. Dallas screwed them by offering a big overpay, and with time running out, Houston had a decision to make. Either they match it and lose all their cap space, or let him walk and try to use the same amount of money on other targets, on more players that will get them more depth. They were pushed into a corner by Mavs, removing the possibitliy of a sign and trade. Most they could hope for would be some international player rights so they get a trade exception. Was this fair? No, not at all, but it's just how the market works. You win some you lose some.
But my way of thinking in fantasy leagues always goes towards the real life imitation, is this best for this dynasty league? I don't know. We cant know for sure unless we try both versions and see how it pans out, which obviously isn't possible.
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Jul 21, 2014 23:14:40 GMT
damn, Rocky, you read my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Suns GM (Roberto) on Jul 21, 2014 23:25:46 GMT
Guys, we all get the "sign" part, but i don't understand what you're proposing for the "trade" part. To negotiate just with the highest bidder does not make sense, because he will always have an advantage. If i win a bid and just have to deal with the owner, what is my incentive to give back anything of value?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 23:26:43 GMT
Guys, we all get the "sign" part, but i don't understand what you're proposing for the "trade" part. To negotiate just with the highest bidder does not make sense, because he will always have an advantage. If i win a bid and just have to deal with the owner, what is my incentive to give back anything of value? EXACTLY
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 23:29:26 GMT
Guys, we all get the "sign" part, but i don't understand what you're proposing for the "trade" part. To negotiate just with the highest bidder does not make sense, because he will always have an advantage. If i win a bid and just have to deal with the owner, what is my incentive to give back anything of value? EXACTLY The incentive would be the original owner can still match the player so you wouldn't get him. So you either call his bluff or do a sign and trade which is interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Jul 21, 2014 23:33:18 GMT
because if you (highest bidder) really want that player and you don't want the original owner to match, you would want to give something to avoid that happen. That may not need to be a lot, maybe just a pick, a right of a drafted rookie, cap room or some players, etc. That's exactly how it works in NBA. RFA sign offer sheet, original team can either match, let him walk for nothing or try to work out a S&T deal, that's exactly what Rocky and I proposed here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 23:43:47 GMT
In your suggestion, if and when the only trade offer you have is crappy one like in my example and have no choice but to accept, I will always bring up this quote that I think fits perfectly
When "Someone receives A LOT for nothing. If thats not against the integrity of this league, I'm not sure what is".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 23:47:01 GMT
In your suggestion, if and when the only trade offer you have is crappy one like in my example, I will always bring up this quote that I think fits perfectly When "Someone receives A LOT for nothing. If thats not against the integrity of this league, I'm not sure what is". That quote was in regards to a trade (I think). A sign and trade is different. The sign and trade is to at least give the original team something in return for the player that would incentivise them not to match. I see it from both sides. I'd be fine with either proposal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 23:49:48 GMT
In your suggestion, if and when the only trade offer you have is crappy one like in my example, I will always bring up this quote that I think fits perfectly When "Someone receives A LOT for nothing. If thats not against the integrity of this league, I'm not sure what is". That quote was in regards to a trade (I think). A sign and trade is different. The sign and trade is to at least give the original team something in return for the player that would incentivise them not to match. I see it from both sides. I'd be fine with either proposal. Its not different than a trade. It still needs to be voted on and shouldn't be am excuse to have anything pass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 23:55:16 GMT
That quote was in regards to a trade (I think). A sign and trade is different. The sign and trade is to at least give the original team something in return for the player that would incentivise them not to match. I see it from both sides. I'd be fine with either proposal. Its not different than a trade. It still needs to be voted on and shouldn't be am excuse to have anything pass. Excuse??? It's not the same as a trade..A sign and trade means the original owner could match the player but is considering trading him because it might be too high of a price for him to pay so instead of just not matching to lose him for nothing, he gets the option to "sign and trade". That trade does not have to be as fair as any other trade in my opinion because it's better than the original owner losing the player for nothing which could have happened without the sign and trade option. I don't know which proposal is better, one team to trade with or all teams, because both have their pros and cons and this is where the sign and trade option might not come to life because there's just no easy way to go about it.
|
|
|
Post by Grizzlies GM (Max) on Jul 22, 2014 4:17:15 GMT
It really should be just one team for RFA and any team for UFA (goes along with my cap proposal or it doesn't make sense)
The point of an S+T, as stated, is to gain minimal incentive to not match a player. The deal will never be 100% fair when judged normally because there is a much different standard for an S+T. You see them in real life. Never in S+Ts is there a fair value deal; LeBron was traded for a couple of 1sts (albeit as a UFA).
|
|
|
Post by João on Jul 24, 2014 15:56:25 GMT
I think this is an important issue for the league, so I'll have my take at it as well:
As far as I see it, it only makes sense to have the highest bidder negotiate with the original owner. Otherwise we would be undermining the whole bidding process - owners would start bidding to be in the top N bidders, not to have the highest bid.
The rationale here is that when someone wins the bidding war, he has the right to sign that player; only one other owner, the original one, still has rights to that player, namely the right to match the offer. So the owner might be willing to give up that right in exchange for something.
By no means does this "something" have to be fair value for the player; rather, it should be whatever value the original owner considers to be fair in order to give up the right to sign the player. This depends on a number of factors, such as available cap, willingness to match, etc - all of which should be part of the negotiations. It should be up to the highest bidder to try to gauge how much should be necessary to convince the original owner not to match.
As an example, consider the following situation. Owner A has RFA rights to player X, who he thinks is worth of a OCV=20 contract, and for whatever reason didn't have the highest bid (even after the 20% adjustment). Consider two scenarios:
1. Owner B wins the bidding war with a OCV=16 contract
2. Owner B wins the bidding war with a OCV=22 contract
The "fair value of player X" is the same in both situations - it depends on his stats, health, age, etc, but not on the contract offers he received. However, in situation 1, owner A might demand a 1st round pick and a role player in order to give up the right to match, because the contract is very good and he was indeed going to match it if owner B offered him nothing; whereas in situation 2, if he gets owner B to offer a 2nd round pick, he might say "hey, for this price, I was going to let this guy walk anyway, let me take the 2nd rounder and be happy". In both cases, owner B is getting what he considers fair value for player X, despite those values being entirely different.
I think this resemble the real NBA as far as possible. Of course, the main difference here is that there's no such thing as "player judgment/opinion" in this league. And unless we want to include a model to simulate that - which would be really fun, btw - we just have to take OCV calculations as the best indicator of contract value for the player.
|
|
|
Post by Lakers GM (Renato) on Aug 22, 2014 10:55:55 GMT
I just read a few things about the current CBA and here's something interesting about sign-and-trades:
"There is a rule that allows teams to re-sign their own free agents for trading purposes, called the sign-and-trade rule. Under this rule the player is re-signed and immediately traded to another team. This is done by adding a clause to the contract stipulating that the contract is null and void if the trade to the specific team is not completed within 48 hours. To qualify for a sign-and-trade, all of the following must be true:
-The player must re-sign with his prior team -- a team cannot include another team's free agent in a sign-and-trade. -The player must finish the preceding season with that team (deals are no longer allowed that sign-and-trade players who are out of the league, such as the sign-and-trade that sent Keith Van Horn from Dallas to New Jersey as part of the Jason Kidd trade in 2008). -The player cannot be a restricted free agent who has signed an offer sheet with another team (see question number 44). -Starting in 2013-14, the team receiving the player cannot be above the "apron" ($4 million above the tax level) after the trade1, 2. A team above the apron can receive a player in a sign-and-trade if the trade reduces the team's payroll and the team finishes the trade below the apron. -Starting in 2013-14, the team cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade if they have used the Taxpayer Mid-Level exception (see question number 25) that season.1 -The trade must be completed prior to the first game of the regular season (sign-and-trades are not allowed once the season begins). -The player cannot be signed using the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, the Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, or any exception that cannot be used to offer a three-year contract (see question number 25). -A sign-and-trade deal can be made with a free agent who has been renounced, as long as all the above criteria are met. Sign-and-trade contracts must be for at least three seasons (not including any option year) and no longer than four seasons3. The first year of the contract must be fully guaranteed, but the remaining seasons can be non-guaranteed. The combination of a three-year minimum with a one-year guarantee ensures that the player's new team cannot acquire the player's Bird rights any sooner than if they had signed him directly (if they wanted to re-sign him in less than three years they would first have to waive him, and lose any Bird rights -- see question number 33)."
So, as you can see by the point above, all this sign-and-trade discussion with RFA's actually puts us further away from the reality of the NBA than what we are now. THe sign-and-trade is used in conjuction with the Bird rights rather than with Qualifying Offers.
That being said, since this is fantasy and players cannot go to the destination of their preference, I'm against all sign-and-trade possibilities. Don't have the cap to keep a certain player who has a QO coming up? Trade other players to release cap space. Don't want to pay that much for a certain player? Then don't and try your luck in UFA.
The point is that while having a sign-and-trade possibility actually increases the number of trades (only slightly) it will reduce interest in RFA and will not allow some teams to actually nab a player from others (which I think is awesome).
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Aug 22, 2014 14:07:40 GMT
The thing is, if we don't implement sign and trades, I think we should also prohibit trading such players before the RFA period.
Some of those players were traded well bellow market value because of this, which I don't think it's a good thing for the league.
I've done it myself, since I couldn't afford matching Favors offers, I traded him bellow his market value.
But what you talk about is my MAJOR concern about sign and trades. We can't reduce the interest in our RFA period, and that has been all along why I've been resistant to this subject.
|
|
|
Post by Suns GM (Roberto) on Aug 22, 2014 14:23:44 GMT
What if the S+T were only allowed during the 24h that the owner has to match the winning bid?
|
|