Moderators: Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36, j4remi, HerSports85, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23
Im Coming Home wrote:Exclusive: Shai Gilgeous-Alexander signed a $28M endorsement deal for a "no-show job" with a fraudulent tree-planting company funded by $50M from Hornets owner, according to documents obtained by @PabloTorre.
"It was to circumvent the salary cap," an inside source says.
) I'd like to know whether you'd support the rule either as presented or with modifications (possibly including one or more of the options below.) If something seems viable, I will submit a proposal at the end of the 2025-26 season. Busta Bucket wrote:Draft Rule Change Proposal: Minimum Free Agent Salary
Hey all, for the past few weeks I have been workshopping a rule change with a few GMs and have also run the idea by bish, and I’ve been encouraged to go ahead and throw it out to the BAF community to get additional feedback.
If you have any thoughts/concerns/suggestions at all, please send them directly to me via PM (I do not want to derail this thread with discussion/debate!
Thank you to the GMs who have provided feedback so far!Spoiler:
Busta Bucket wrote:Draft Rule Change Proposal: Minimum Free Agent Salary
Hey all, for the past few weeks I have been workshopping a rule change with a few GMs and have also run the idea by bish, and I’ve been encouraged to go ahead and throw it out to the BAF community to get additional feedback.
If you have any thoughts/concerns/suggestions at all, please send them directly to me via PM (I do not want to derail this thread with discussion/debate!
Thank you to the GMs who have provided feedback so far!Spoiler:
HEZI wrote:Busta Bucket wrote:Draft Rule Change Proposal: Minimum Free Agent Salary
Hey all, for the past few weeks I have been workshopping a rule change with a few GMs and have also run the idea by bish, and I’ve been encouraged to go ahead and throw it out to the BAF community to get additional feedback.
If you have any thoughts/concerns/suggestions at all, please send them directly to me via PM (I do not want to derail this thread with discussion/debate!
Thank you to the GMs who have provided feedback so far!Spoiler:
I think rookie scale extensions add less realism than those minimum deals so if anything was to change then it would have to start with those rookie scale extensions. They are set way too low right now. For example your player Scottie Barnes is making $90 which is equal to a 9 mil per contract in the NBA whereas in the real NBA he’s going to be making 38 mil per which would be more like $380 in BAF. That’s not realistic. So before we tackle minimum salary guys maybe we should start with the salaries of more impactful guys like actual All Stars making chump change
Capn'O wrote:HEZI wrote:Busta Bucket wrote:Draft Rule Change Proposal: Minimum Free Agent Salary
Hey all, for the past few weeks I have been workshopping a rule change with a few GMs and have also run the idea by bish, and I’ve been encouraged to go ahead and throw it out to the BAF community to get additional feedback.
If you have any thoughts/concerns/suggestions at all, please send them directly to me via PM (I do not want to derail this thread with discussion/debate!
Thank you to the GMs who have provided feedback so far!Spoiler:
I think rookie scale extensions add less realism than those minimum deals so if anything was to change then it would have to start with those rookie scale extensions. They are set way too low right now. For example your player Scottie Barnes is making $90 which is equal to a 9 mil per contract in the NBA whereas in the real NBA he’s going to be making 38 mil per which would be more like $380 in BAF. That’s not realistic. So before we tackle minimum salary guys maybe we should start with the salaries of more impactful guys like actual All Stars making chump change
You're not wrong about the extensions but... why not both?
HEZI wrote:Capn'O wrote:HEZI wrote:
I think rookie scale extensions add less realism than those minimum deals so if anything was to change then it would have to start with those rookie scale extensions. They are set way too low right now. For example your player Scottie Barnes is making $90 which is equal to a 9 mil per contract in the NBA whereas in the real NBA he’s going to be making 38 mil per which would be more like $380 in BAF. That’s not realistic. So before we tackle minimum salary guys maybe we should start with the salaries of more impactful guys like actual All Stars making chump change
You're not wrong about the extensions but... why not both?
Horse before the carriage. Not that both can’t or shouldn’t be fixed but one certainly should be the focus and priority over the other
KnicksGadfly wrote:HEZI wrote:Capn'O wrote:
You're not wrong about the extensions but... why not both?
Horse before the carriage. Not that both can’t or shouldn’t be fixed but one certainly should be the focus and priority over the other
I don't think realism should be the driving factor for anything in this game. It's a nice-to-have, but I think it has to be acknowledged that our game doesn't adhere completely to the rules of the NBA. For example, the SGA contract that we have. Our cap rising by 1%.
To me, I think we should just go back to the problem and what we're trying to solve, rather than just going straight to a solution (by the way, I do support Busta's proposal but if there's another solution that works, I'm okay with it).
So...Problem #1: cheap player contracts devaluing second round picks
I think I don't think all $1/4 contracts are bad, but I think some of the cheaper contracts we see given out are not because someone did some crafty scouting. I think it's because there's a loophole in the FA rules that lets contenders sign key players for cheap. I'd argue that a player like PJ Washington, who signed for $10/4, fits into this because I submitted a bigger bid for him but was constrained by other bids. Basically, what's happening is that the cap space teams usually have to spend time fighting over the top FAs. The losers of that battle are doubly screwed. If 10 teams are duking it out for 4 all stars, then the 6 losers will be left with scraps...they won't even get to fight for PJ Washington because a contender will steal him in the meantime.
We can close that loophole by trying to do a $15 minimum bid, but some players really do not deserve $15 minimum bids. Or we could also do a transparency rule. Any player about to sign for $15 or less should have that number show up in the FA list 1 or 2 rounds before he signs. Or we bring on another player, who serves as an agent? No idea. But I think this loophole is pretty bad because it does two things: 1) it awards inactive GMs and 2) it makes FA less fun. And any of these should help increase the value of 2nd rounders.
In terms of inactive GMs, I think the league benefits when the contenders are also active. Guys like SAS and Melo, for example...they're very active on the margins. They have their core, but they make lots of trades and communicate a lot about the rest of their roster. I think that's really healthy and good for the league. The fact is, there are always tradeoffs to be made in this league, and I'd argue those tradeoffs create the conditions for tough decisionmaking that allows GMs to shine. If you have stars in this league making lots of money and you're cap constrained...I think there should be a fair amount of pressure on you to be scrappy, not to rely upon a FA slipping through.
I think letting this loophole of players signing for cheap also hurts FA. I would argue that there's a difference between Toronto signing Green to a 1 year contract using the Wood exception and then the shotgun approach some teams are doing. I don't like a system where teams can submit 40 bids through a shotgun approach and hope that one dude slips through. I guess it's kind of like a fantasy football waiver wire scenario and you're the one dude who has 0 dollars and everyone else has $100. But yea, I think FA would improve if we had bidding wars over the mid players too.
Okay problem 2: rookie salaries too cheap?
First, I don't think Scottie Barnes should be held up as the sole example of why the rookie system is broken. One thing to also realize is the amount of risk teams are taking on when they pick high in the draft. If you draft and extend a bust, it really hurts, especially on a high pick. Take Scoot Henderson...Philly is going to have to make a tough decision on that guy. Lots of potential but he can be expensive. So yes, you'll have guys like Scottie Barnes but I think we need to consider a lot of other players, too.
Then add onto that the fact that the sim is a year slow in evaluating players. Year 1 of a rookie player is usually a wash...the sim decides how good a player actually is and it uses college stats. It's only year 2 that the sim reflects how a rookie did in year 1. Then year 3 is when you have to decide whether to extend. As a GM with a bunch of rookies, I already know I need to buy out some of my rookies at the end of this year. If I extend the wrong dude, it's going to eat up my cap.
I'd also argue that it's not really the years, but more about the salaries (viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2099633). For example, pick 1 is given a $78 salary, but pick 6 Scottie is given a $47 salary. So yes, some discrepancy there and maybe we need to consider that. But in some years, that shat can hurt. Last year was a really weak draft. Pick the wrong guy and it's going to cost a lot to buy that dude out.
But one other issue. In the NBA, we have max cats. We have rookie max cats. We don't have that here. We have a league where SGA can get over 60% of the cap or something.
But in terms of league health, I think we still see a fair amount of talent hitting FA from rookies (Deni Avdija and Kuminga come to mind). We also see a fair amount of busts...some dudes that were extended and maybe should not have been. I'd favor a proposal with some changing numbers. Or maybe something where a player who becomes an all star in real life gets an automatic salary bump the next year? No idea. But that thing where the sim is behind our league by a year complicates a lot.
. But I will say that although I've only been through one FA period, IMO a fully open system where the leading bids are a) known to all, and b) simply the most cumulative money offered (e.g. 30/3 (90) beats 40/2 (80), but not 25/4 (100)) would almost certainly lead to more reasonable outcomes overall (and, not for nothing, would also be much easier for bish to administer).Busta Bucket wrote:If you have any thoughts/concerns/suggestions at all, please send them directly to me via PM (I do not want to derail this thread with discussion/debate!
NewEra wrote:Hezi brought up something I’ve been wondering about. The whole “the sim is a year behind” thing. People have said it for years, but where did that actually come from, and is it proven?
Take Dyson Daniels for example: when the ratings drop for this upcoming season 9 of BaF, are they based on his 2023-24 stats or on this past season (2024-25), when he won Most Improved Player? If it’s always a year behind, then his breakout year wouldn’t be factored in yet.
I’m just trying to get clarity on what “a year behind” really means, how we know it, and whether it’s actually confirmed.
NewEra wrote:Hezi brought up something I’ve been wondering about. The whole “the sim is a year behind” thing. People have said it for years, but where did that actually come from, and is it proven?
Take Dyson Daniels for example: when the ratings drop for this upcoming season 9 of BaF, are they based on his 2023-24 stats or on this past season (2024-25), when he won Most Improved Player? If it’s always a year behind, then his breakout year wouldn’t be factored in yet.
I’m just trying to get clarity on what “a year behind” really means, how we know it, and whether it’s actually confirmed.
mpharris36 wrote:NewEra wrote:Hezi brought up something I’ve been wondering about. The whole “the sim is a year behind” thing. People have said it for years, but where did that actually come from, and is it proven?
Take Dyson Daniels for example: when the ratings drop for this upcoming season 9 of BaF, are they based on his 2023-24 stats or on this past season (2024-25), when he won Most Improved Player? If it’s always a year behind, then his breakout year wouldn’t be factored in yet.
I’m just trying to get clarity on what “a year behind” really means, how we know it, and whether it’s actually confirmed.
I think the "a year behind" comes from if a player breaks out early in the season and he becomes a major piece you don't reap that reward until the following year the SIM comes out because there are no in-season updates. Now the SIM seems to have rankings/potential so it does its own in season evaluation I think but based in our SIM and not real life.
For example.
Knecht might be a tough play for you this year but lets say he has a major breakout this year and is playing a 20 ppg level over 40% 3 shooting. Your not going to get any of that production in real time in our Season 9...you would have to wait until the following year to see the ratings jump.
