Serious Dynasty League - Back to Back Champ

[LamarMatic7]

I'm restricting Brandon Knight.

[BlackOutBuzz]

Any thoughts on the best way to handle this? I know there were some gripes last year. I think one way to handle the mass bidding and over bidding is to make a teams bid amount a cap hold. If a team bids on Rudy Gobert for $5 then they have $5 added until they are outbid.

Yeah, one shouldn't have outstanding bids greater than their available cap space. In the dynasty football league I run owners can NEVER exceed their cap space with a bid. If they want to, they have to cut players to make room BEFORE even making a bid. My $0.02.

Without rehashing too much of last year's issues, the main thing was the timing of the deadlines. I think there should be two set deadlines: one where owners preliminarily "sign" RFAs (to offer sheets, if you will), and a second by which preceding owners have to determine whether or not to match.

We do this in the aforementioned football league, the only exception though is that every player has his own clock that resets with each bid, then once X amount of time passes (in our case, 12 hours), the top bidder quotes his time-stamped winning bid from before and then the original owner has a couple hours to determine whether to keep them or not.

Because of this, the bidding on one FA could end much earlier than another, so for that reason I'm not advocating that exact system for this league. But still, I think the idea of having the bidding separate from the "matching" makes sense and could prevent future problems.

Or, at the very least, I think we should add a couple minutes after last second sniping bids or matches (not unlike most other auctions, fantasy or otherwise) to give owners a little bit of time to consider their options.

[fatlever]

good point Blackout. I agree.

[chabber]

Any thoughts on the best way to handle this? I know there were some gripes last year. I think one way to handle the mass bidding and over bidding is to make a teams bid amount a cap hold. If a team bids on Rudy Gobert for $5 then they have $5 added until they are outbid.

Yeah, one shouldn't have outstanding bids greater than their available cap space. In the dynasty football league I run owners can NEVER exceed their cap space with a bid. If they want to, they have to cut players to make room BEFORE even making a bid. My $0.02.

Without rehashing too much of last year's issues, the main thing was the timing of the deadlines. I think there should be two set deadlines: one where owners preliminarily "sign" RFAs (to offer sheets, if you will), and a second by which preceding owners have to determine whether or not to match.

We do this in the aforementioned football league, the only exception though is that every player has his own clock that resets with each bid, then once X amount of time passes (in our case, 12 hours), the top bidder quotes his time-stamped winning bid from before and then the original owner has a couple hours to determine whether to keep them or not.

Because of this, the bidding on one FA could end much earlier than another, so for that reason I'm not advocating that exact system for this league. But still, I think the idea of having the bidding separate from the "matching" makes sense and could prevent future problems.

Or, at the very least, I think we should add a couple minutes after last second sniping bids or matches (not unlike most other auctions, fantasy or otherwise) to give owners a little bit of time to consider their options.

Honestly, all excellent ideas.

I don't mind the idea of being bound to cut a player when placing a bid, but I much prefer that you have to cut the player before you make the bid.

Also I think the RFA system definitely needs an over haul. The reset clock on the players seems like it would work pretty well. We can only restrict 1 player each. I'm not sure how long this would actually take but I'm not really seeing a large downside to how it would perform. How long does this usually last in your other league?

[fatlever]

If everyone is cool with it, I'm fine with us making it a hard cap in RFA and you can't go over no matter what. It would probably make things a lot easier to deal with.

However, we have to give the current owner some kind of advantage or there is no point of RFA, right?

[EwingSweatsALot]

I think the hard cap would work best. If you want to bid $40 on a player. You have to have that amount of salary at that time, if you don't you have to take a risk and cut players before you make that bid.

I also think that if you bid on a player, that is placed on your cap until you are outbid. This protects owners bidding on multiple players at once hoping to hit one. Allows for more strategy.

I like the time concept for RFA. Blackout make sure I have this correct. It's 12 hours from when it starts and every bid restarts the 12 hour clock. If no bid is placed within a12 hour span, the original then has 12 hours to determine if they want to keep or not?

Fats, the benefit is that the previous owner basically reserves the right to keep the player if they want. They have that advantage over everyone. Last year I believe we did impose a 10% increase on the final bid though. If the winning bid is $20 then the previous owner can keep at $22.

[LamarMatic7]

Honestly, I think that the draft is as important as the RFA system overhaul.

Liver Pooty, per example, has gone the "rebuilding through draft" direction. He gets to pick three young players who should help him turn his ship around and be a contender when they pan out.

Given how many true superstars there are in each draft class and with many of them being freshmen nowadays, he'll be very fortunate to draft one guy who is a true impact player during the two years he gets to spend on Pooty's team on his rookie contract.

In 2017, he won't have any advantage over other teams to sign at least two of those players. The best case for him is that he'll be able to keep one through restricted free agency and if one of them does indeed pan out, it's likely that he'll meet some hefty bid for said impact player (obviously, this is an area where both rookie AND RFA rule problems intertwine)

So he basically gets to start the 2017-18 season with only one of those rookies (unless he signs any of the other two through unrestricted free agency). AND that rookie has a salary dictated by the open market.

I do think that this is too harsh. Especially since we have a rookie scale that pays those young guys higher than market value (I rather have Joe Johnson, Brandon Knight and Isaiah Thomas for $3 combined as I did last year than Wiggins for $3 himself). Which is like the exact opposite of real life NBA.

Either we give teams the possibility to give out up to four-year contracts to rookies or use my previous idea of unguaranteed contracts + being to able to hold rights, yet not sign a rookie until someone forces you to match or give up those rights by signing him as a FA. Or we can either do both.

Otherwise.. the teams that don't make the playoffs are put in a spot where they have to be very, very skilful when making use of their draft picks. You basically have to draft the right exact guy and chances are that you still are over-paying him for his first two years (as he is likely to have been a top3 pick) and will do so once he hits RFA before his third year.

Obviously, we want to make the league open for transactions and prohibit teams from being able to hoard superstars. But I think it's open enough already. One RFA per year is not much and we already saw that the market forced Chabber to pay a pretty huge sum for keeping LeBron.

Drafting a rookie and then being able to have some saying of keeping him around as a cornerstone would be sensible.

[Liver_Pooty]

Lol so basically I'm screwed.

[LamarMatic7]

Random thought that I now came up with that wouldn't be all that radical - all rookie contracts have a "team restriction option" before their third year. Then you would be able to at least restrict more than one before they hit free agency. Obviously, someone then would be more able (it wouldn't be his only restriction of the summer) to keep the next AD on his team the first six years of his career. Or two such great rookies if he manages to draft so well. If he does so, I say - let him enjoy the benefits of that.

So that's another idea I propose. Previous ones, as stated above:

ability to sign a rookie to an unguaranteed deal (becomes guaranteed at January, 10th) or not sign him, yet keep his rights for those two years for either trading purposes or the ability to match anyone who picks him up in free agency.

being able to sign rookies to more than two-year deals.

[chabber]

Different side of RFA issue, but while we're talking, what about limits on how many times you can make someone a RFA and contract lengths in general. These items really revolve around whether or not you believe we will have enough player movement to keep the league interesting, but it'd be good to discuss them before RFA starts and we start getting big names in 4 year contracts. I didn't do that with Lebron last year, I know, but we don't know how this will play yet.

What do you guys think of the idea of only allowing an owner to restrict a player once. Afterwards that player has go into the FA pool. If you retain that player from the FA pool, then you are free to restrict him once more.

Also what about having RFA contract lengths being shorter than FA players won on the auction?

RFA: 1-2 years
FA: 1-3 years

or

RFA: 1-3 years
FA: 1-4 years

Any thoughts or are most people good with the contract lengths?

[BlackOutBuzz]

Any thoughts on the best way to handle this? I know there were some gripes last year. I think one way to handle the mass bidding and over bidding is to make a teams bid amount a cap hold. If a team bids on Rudy Gobert for $5 then they have $5 added until they are outbid.

Yeah, one shouldn't have outstanding bids greater than their available cap space. In the dynasty football league I run owners can NEVER exceed their cap space with a bid. If they want to, they have to cut players to make room BEFORE even making a bid. My $0.02.

Without rehashing too much of last year's issues, the main thing was the timing of the deadlines. I think there should be two set deadlines: one where owners preliminarily "sign" RFAs (to offer sheets, if you will), and a second by which preceding owners have to determine whether or not to match.

We do this in the aforementioned football league, the only exception though is that every player has his own clock that resets with each bid, then once X amount of time passes (in our case, 12 hours), the top bidder quotes his time-stamped winning bid from before and then the original owner has a couple hours to determine whether to keep them or not.

Because of this, the bidding on one FA could end much earlier than another, so for that reason I'm not advocating that exact system for this league. But still, I think the idea of having the bidding separate from the "matching" makes sense and could prevent future problems.

Or, at the very least, I think we should add a couple minutes after last second sniping bids or matches (not unlike most other auctions, fantasy or otherwise) to give owners a little bit of time to consider their options.

Also I think the RFA system definitely needs an over haul. The reset clock on the players seems like it would work pretty well. We can only restrict 1 player each. I'm not sure how long this would actually take but I'm not really seeing a large downside to how it would perform. How long does this usually last in your other league?

Yeah with 10 players it shouldn't take too long. In the football league we have 12 teams, 26-player rosters (plus 4 IR slots), with 30+ restricted FAs each year. Because of this we do it in waves of 10-12 players, so we'd only need one "wave" here.

That forum has a "best answer" option you can use to sticky a post to the top of each page. I'd use that to list the top bids on each person. For instance:

Brandon Knight - $7 (Fats)
Enes Kanter - $4 (ESAL)

Obviously that wouldn't work here, but we could just post updates periodically.

We use a 12-hour clock, being that we also deal with various time zones. However, because the clock resets with each bid there's no reason to wait out the 12 hours. So the majority of bidding activity occurs in the first couple hours, with a few exceptions for guys who may have been asleep or at work or something.

Looking back, most auctions were done within a day or just over. The previous owner then had another 12 hours to decide whether to match or not.

[LamarMatic7]

Different side of RFA issue, but while we're talking, what about limits on how many times you can make someone a RFA and contract lengths in general. These items really revolve around whether or not you believe we will have enough player movement to keep the league interesting, but it'd be good to discuss them before RFA starts and we start getting big names in 4 year contracts. I didn't do that with Lebron last year, I know, but we don't know how this will play yet.

What do you guys think of the idea of only allowing an owner to restrict a player once. Afterwards that player has go into the FA pool. If you retain that player from the FA pool, then you are free to restrict him once more.

Also what about having RFA contract lengths being shorter than FA players won on the auction?

RFA: 1-2 years
FA: 1-3 years

or

RFA: 1-3 years
FA: 1-4 years

Any thoughts or are most people good with the contract lengths?

I think that the league is open as it is and that the ability to restrict once is a bit too much.

I'm undecided whether there needs to be more movement (as you can see, for one, I have an opinion on giving teams a bit more leverage when keeping their own rookies). The contract lengths being shorter is a good idea though. I would have no problem with that. Makes sense.

[chabber]

Very true lamar. The draft is actually a pretty large issue. The rookies, especially the top ones, perform nowhere close to their market value for an actual fantasy roster. Any true value they have lye's in their future unless you just happen to get a stud that produces from the get go. My personal thoughts are that I don't even want draft picks and would prefer to get rid of them unless I'm in the spot I am now, drafting 8th where having someone cost me $1 dollar.

[Liver_Pooty]

Let's fix those draft issues

[Liver_Pooty]

I want to restrict Victor Oladipo

I want to drop Deron Williams, Has 1 year left so shouldn't penalize me I don't think.

Is it possible to drop more than one player with a year left? If so Id like to drop Trey Burke as well. Time to get some of this garbage off my team.

Also would like to drop Mirza Teletovic

[Liver_Pooty]

I think I gave Shabazz muhammed a 2 year deal. So 2 it is.

[Liver_Pooty]

Let me know when its the 10th pick. I have no idea where we are in the draft.

[chabber]

1. Agent of Diop- Karl Anthony Towns
2. Liver Pooty- Jahlil Okafor
3. Karl Malone's Latina Safari-DeAngelo Russell
4. RGM Blackout- Emmanuel Mudiay
5. Liver Pooty- Kristaps Porzingis
6. Squirtle Squad- Myles Turner
7. Yosemite- Stanley Johnson
8. Chabber's Straw Hats- Frank Kaminsky
9. Killa Kallie- Justise Winslow
10. Liver Pooty

It's your pick.

[Liver_Pooty]

I will gladly take Mario Hezonja with the 10th pick.

[EwingSweatsALot]

So it's kinda gotten a little crazy with all the ideas and options. Not that it's a bad thing, but like in a previous post I stated in can get hectic with a bunch of things going on at once in the middle of getting the draft done and what not. As I say that, here are a couple of my opinions on some of the subjects that have been going on:

Rookie Draft
I think it is an important part of keeping this league unique. It puts in a new wrinkle into trying to build a team. I do get though that guys don't value the picks, just like actual real NBA teams (Dallas for instance), while others do value them a lot. Also I do get that the rookies in here might not be worth their rookie contracts, just like in real life, but you aren't drafting them for their rookie year, but to hold on to them and to keep them as they build up and become worth what you pay them. To have that right to have an All Star if he pans out.

I think there are issues that can be resolved to help both situations. One year guaranteed contracts with a team option after year one(if you exercise that team option the contract is guaranteed for that year). If you choose to keep the player through year 2 then you can restrict them on top of the 1 player you get to restrict that year. This allows you to not have to have a rookie for year 2 if you don't want, but it also allows guys to build through the draft if they so choose. A guy like LP this year doesn't have to worry about only keeping one of the guys he drafted this year and losing them. He has the ability if he so chooses to keep them. Also, I know people just don't want picks, well it's not hard to get rid of them. People will take them. Pooty took 2 this year, I was wanting to take Blackout's because I really wanted the Zinger, but I didn't have another pick to give him like he wanted. Picks are out there to give away if you really feel that the $1 you save is more important than that player. I truly believe that if you really want to, you can get rid of the pick.

Restricted Free Agency
I think we should go with Blackouts format. RFA starts, 12 hour intervals, restarts when a bid is placed. Once a player hasn't been bid on for 12 hours, then the previous owner has 12 hours from notification to determine if he wants to keep the player or not.

Hard cap. You can't bid for a player over your cap. If you bid on a player then it is a cap hold.

Contract Lengths

I prefer somewhat where the contracts are at. I think longer contracts punish owners for the mistakes they make. I'll use myself as an example. I gave D. Rose a 4 year deal and I have paying for it mightily. I **** up, and I deserve to be punished for it. Shorter contracts don't do that. It makes it easier for players to get out of issues they caused themselves.

I do like the idea though of staggering the lengths of contracts based on something, RFA, FA, etc. So maybe we do a 1-4 year for some players, a 1-3 for others, and the the rookie contract deal.

Blackout can probably answer it best, but at it's simplest form how do the lengths work? Isn't it if a player stays with his original team he can be offered a longer deal than if he leaves? Maybe we handle it that way no matter RFA or FA. If you keep a guy in RFA or FA, you can do a 1-4, if another player wins him then they can only offer up to 3? I'm not sure how to handle this part, I do know though that I prefer being able to offer up to 4 years in some capacity because it magnifies both mistakes and good decisions.