Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 21:43:22 GMT 2
Hi all,
the committee has been holding an ongoing discussion regarding the RFA process (submitting offers, decision making process, etc.). More details on the overall process will be announced right after the Reload Draft is concluded.
Part of the discussion has been the Constitution rule that states "You can "technically" get over the cap when biding for RFA's but you should be aware that you will lose any bid that you win and actually puts you over the salary cap and the next bidder in line (with the better yearly offer) will win that player".
Given that, based on the rule above, a manager will be able to submit bids for all available players regardless of his available salary cap (under the mindset "I will bid, who cares if I do not have the cap space? - Worst case, my bid will not get through"), the committee wants to put forward a poll for changing the above rule. Here are the 2 options:
-Keep rule as it is
-Allow total bids up to the offseason $120.000.000 salary cap
The poll will end on Friday, June 2nd, at midnight. In order to approve a rule change, we will need at least 75% of the managers to vote and at least 66% of the votes to be for the rule change.
Thank you all for your active participation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portland TrailBlazers on Jun 1, 2017 23:03:59 GMT 2
I'm gonna vote "keep rule as it is" on the principle that rule changes shouldn't be implemented now that the league has started but at a later stage (maybe the All Star break). I would hate for someone to come up and say that they have planned their team selection and made some of their moves based on the understanding that they could go way over the cap during the offer sheet period and to be honest that could hurt the league's credibility.
Other than that I'm fine with both options:
• If we keep it as it is we give plenty of freedom for spenders to go all in and try to get as much fish as they want and everybody already understands that it's ok to go over the $110m during the offseason but you have to come down to that threshold before the season begins.
- If there is a ceiling ($120m) on the other hand, managers will have to make a much thoroghout research before they bid and be more cautious with their offer sheets although technically the RFA owners have a clear advantage either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Jun 1, 2017 23:10:49 GMT 2
I think that there should be a ceiling or else biddings could go crazy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 23:14:33 GMT 2
So, are we going to give more money to the rich? I don't understand why this is even a debate. Of course we should keep the rule as it is.
What you said is wrong: "a manager will be able to submit bids for all available players regardless of his available salary cap (under the mindset "I will bid, who cares if I do not have the cap space? - Worst case, my bid will not get through")".
There is also another rule (The Constitution-->Salary Cap, Contracts and Free agency-->Free Agency): You cannot bid over your salary cap even if you expect to lose the bid.
1st Violation - 1M cap fine
2nd Violation- 3M cap fine
3rd Violation - 5M cap fine
This rule includes both RFA's and UFA's. So, nobody can bid over the salary cap and get away with it. Don't allow the rich to become richer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia 76ers on Jun 2, 2017 5:41:49 GMT 2
Hi all, the committee has been holding an ongoing discussion regarding the RFA process (submitting offers, decision making process, etc.). More details on the overall process will be announced right after the Reload Draft is concluded. Part of the discussion has been the Constitution rule that states "You can "technically" get over the cap when biding for RFA's but you should be aware that you will lose any bid that you win and actually puts you over the salary cap and the next bidder in line (with the better yearly offer) will win that player". Given that, based on the rule above, a manager will be able to submit bids for all available players regardless of his available salary cap (under the mindset "I will bid, who cares if I do not have the cap space? - Worst case, my bid will not get through"), the committee wants to put forward a poll for changing the above rule. Here are the 2 options: -Keep rule as it is -Allow total bids up to the offseason $120.000.000 salary cap The poll will end on Friday, June 2nd, at midnight. In order to approve a rule change, we will need at least 75% of the managers to vote and at least 66% of the votes to be for the rule change. Thank you all for your active participation. Hi boston, May I ask why do we need this poll ? There was a period when we could make our suggestions about the rules. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 7:14:13 GMT 2
Hi all, the committee has been holding an ongoing discussion regarding the RFA process (submitting offers, decision making process, etc.). More details on the overall process will be announced right after the Reload Draft is concluded. Part of the discussion has been the Constitution rule that states "You can "technically" get over the cap when biding for RFA's but you should be aware that you will lose any bid that you win and actually puts you over the salary cap and the next bidder in line (with the better yearly offer) will win that player". Given that, based on the rule above, a manager will be able to submit bids for all available players regardless of his available salary cap (under the mindset "I will bid, who cares if I do not have the cap space? - Worst case, my bid will not get through"), the committee wants to put forward a poll for changing the above rule. Here are the 2 options: -Keep rule as it is -Allow total bids up to the offseason $120.000.000 salary cap The poll will end on Friday, June 2nd, at midnight. In order to approve a rule change, we will need at least 75% of the managers to vote and at least 66% of the votes to be for the rule change. Thank you all for your active participation. Hi boston, May I ask why do we need this poll ? There was a period when we could make our suggestions about the rules. Hi New Orleans, this discussion is happening to improve the league's functions and encourage active participation of the league members. I am happy to see that you are participating, would also like to actively offer your insights on the matter in hand? |
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Pacers on Jun 2, 2017 7:27:48 GMT 2
greetings from DC... keep rules as it is guys and keep up the good work..
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Timberwolves on Jun 2, 2017 7:34:25 GMT 2
Hi guys,
I love how you run this league, thanks for handling the matter like this.
I completely agree with the Kings GM, no need to apply this rule as the violation fine is enough to keep bidders sane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 7:34:36 GMT 2
So, are we going to give more money to the rich? I don't understand why this is even a debate. Of course we should keep the rule as it is. What you said is wrong: "a manager will be able to submit bids for all available players regardless of his available salary cap (under the mindset "I will bid, who cares if I do not have the cap space? - Worst case, my bid will not get through")". There is also another rule (The Constitution-->Salary Cap, Contracts and Free agency-->Free Agency): You cannot bid over your salary cap even if you expect to lose the bid. 1st Violation - 1M cap fine 2nd Violation- 3M cap fine 3rd Violation - 5M cap fine This rule includes both RFA's and UFA's. So, nobody can bid over the salary cap and get away with it. Don't allow the rich to become richer. Great approach Sacramento, however you have totally misunderstood the concept. You are absolutely right regarding the second rule you are mentioning, yet this rule applies to Single bids. Also, this rule is under the UFA Rules, and technically it does not apply for the RFAs. Please revisit the first rule that is under the RFA rules "You can "technically" get over the cap when biding for RFA's but you should be aware that you will lose any bid that you win and actually puts you over the salary cap and the next bidder in line (with the better yearly offer) will win that player". So, no penalty here for single bids or total bids. The discussion in this thread refers to the Total/Sum of the bids you place for RFAs only.
Here is a "real" example:
A manager has $32.000.000 of available cap space, +$10.000.000 for offseason RFA/UFA signings, total available cap space $42.000.000.Manager's Bids for RFAs Nerlens Noel: $20.000.000/year Otto Porter: $20.000.000/year KCP: $14.000.000/year Total of $54.000.000 The rule, as it is, allows the manager to bid as above, although the total/sum of his bids get him over the offseason salary cap. The suggested rule change would force the manager to rethink his total bids and come up with a solution that keeps him under the cap at all times (even if he wins all bids). That would be done, either by bidding on fewer players or by recalculating the bids so the total of them would be equal or less than $42.000.000. Let me know what you think. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 7:37:48 GMT 2
Hi guys, I love how you run this league, thanks for handling the matter like this. I completely agree with the Kings GM, no need to apply this rule as the violation fine is enough to keep bidders sane. Even if we expand the single bid rule to all, UFAs and RFAs, that does not provide a solution to potential overbidding in the RFAs process. Please keep in mind that the RFA bidding process is blind, one-off, simultaneous bids from all managers for all RFAs. PS: Thank you for the kind comments. |
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Timberwolves on Jun 2, 2017 7:38:07 GMT 2
So, are we going to give more money to the rich? I don't understand why this is even a debate. Of course we should keep the rule as it is. What you said is wrong: "a manager will be able to submit bids for all available players regardless of his available salary cap (under the mindset "I will bid, who cares if I do not have the cap space? - Worst case, my bid will not get through")". There is also another rule (The Constitution-->Salary Cap, Contracts and Free agency-->Free Agency): You cannot bid over your salary cap even if you expect to lose the bid. 1st Violation - 1M cap fine 2nd Violation- 3M cap fine 3rd Violation - 5M cap fine This rule includes both RFA's and UFA's. So, nobody can bid over the salary cap and get away with it. Don't allow the rich to become richer. Great approach Sacramento, however you have totally misunderstood the concept. You are absolutely right regarding the second rule you are mentioning, yet this rule applies to Single bids. Also, this rule is under the UFA Rules, and technically it does not apply for the RFAs. Please revisit the first rule that is under the RFA rules "You can "technically" get over the cap when biding for RFA's but you should be aware that you will lose any bid that you win and actually puts you over the salary cap and the next bidder in line (with the better yearly offer) will win that player". So, no penalty here for single bids or total bids. The discussion in this thread refers to the Total/Sum of the bids you place for RFAs only.
Here is a "real" example:
A manager has $32.000.000 of available cap space, +$10.000.000 for offseason RFA/UFA signings, total available cap space $42.000.000.Manager's Bids for RFAs Nerlens Noel: $20.000.000/year Otto Porter: $20.000.000/year KCP: $14.000.000/year Total of $54.000.000 The rule, as it is, allows the manager to bid as above, although the total/sum of his bids get him over the offseason salary cap. The suggested rule change would force the manager to rethink his total bids and come up with a solution that keeps him under the cap at all times (even if he wins all bids). That would be done, either by bidding on fewer players or by recalculating the bids so the total of them would be equal or less than $42.000.000. Let me know what you think. Hi there, Apparently I am another manager who misunderstood this rule. So what happens if this manager in the example wins all bids? (applying the current rules) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 7:46:02 GMT 2
That is what we are trying to identify here. If we keep the rule as it is we will need to "prioritise" the bids in some way. In other words, we will need to figure out which player the manager values most. This could be done using the email time-stamp. So this example should be modified as follows:
1st submitted bid: Nerlens Noel: $20.000.000/year
2nd submitted bid: Otto Porter: $20.000.000/year
3rd submitted bid: KCP: $14.000.000/year
If the manager wins all, he then signs Noel and Porter. KCP will be signed by the next manager/offer in line. And so on and so forth, depending on the email time-stamp of the bids that were submitted.
Can you imagine this happening for 20 managers and 10 players (let's say that 10 players in this year's RFA class, are attractive enough to get multiple high bids and offers).
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Timberwolves on Jun 2, 2017 7:53:18 GMT 2
That is what we are trying to identify here. If we keep the rule as it is we will need to "prioritise" the bids in some way. In other words, we will need to figure out which player the manager values most. This could be done using the email time-stamp. So this example should be modified as follows: 1st submitted bid: Nerlens Noel: $20.000.000/year 2nd submitted bid: Otto Porter: $20.000.000/year 3rd submitted bid: KCP: $14.000.000/year If the manager wins all, he then signs Noel and Porter. KCP will be signed by the next manager/offer in line. And so on and so forth, depending on the email time-stamp of the bids that were submitted. Can you imagine this happening for 20 managers and 10 players (let's say that 10 players in this year's RFA class, are attractive enough to get multiple high bids and offers). What do you think? Looks like this can be handled with the same violation fines as UFA. Managers would be careful not to be fined, so I don't think there would be many examples. 1. When RFA bids are opened, we can check the caps and fine the ones who are over the offseason cap (doesn't matter he won or lost the bid) 2. Check the timestamps and void the latest bids 3. Fine the manager(s) What do you think? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 7:57:26 GMT 2
That is what we are trying to identify here. If we keep the rule as it is we will need to "prioritise" the bids in some way. In other words, we will need to figure out which player the manager values most. This could be done using the email time-stamp. So this example should be modified as follows: 1st submitted bid: Nerlens Noel: $20.000.000/year 2nd submitted bid: Otto Porter: $20.000.000/year 3rd submitted bid: KCP: $14.000.000/year If the manager wins all, he then signs Noel and Porter. KCP will be signed by the next manager/offer in line. And so on and so forth, depending on the email time-stamp of the bids that were submitted. Can you imagine this happening for 20 managers and 10 players (let's say that 10 players in this year's RFA class, are attractive enough to get multiple high bids and offers). What do you think? Looks like this can be handled with the same violation fines as UFA. Managers would be careful not to be fined, so I don't think there would be many examples. 1. When RFA bids are opened, we can check the caps and fine the ones who are over the offseason cap (doesn't matter he won or lost the bid) 2. Check the timestamps and void the latest bids 3. Fine the manager(s) What do you think? Ok, this is interesting. All what you are proposing, suggest a rule change. We cannot do any of the above without changing (or adjusting) the rules, the penalties, the overall process... And this is the essence of this discussion! Keep the rule as it is or change the rule? |
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Timberwolves on Jun 2, 2017 8:02:22 GMT 2
I read the RFA rules again now. It states that overbids will be voided (checking the timestamps), so this pretty much is defined as a violation in the rules.
So I don't see the difference between the options of this poll unless the 2nd option includes a violation fine.
|
|
