|
|
Post by aar on Jun 14, 2015 18:46:20 GMT
Hi everyone.
Here are some ideas for the new CBA.
I'd love to hear everyone's input and ideas regarding this, so please contribute.
I will hold votes on each individual amendment beginning soon.
Here is what I've thought of so far:
Trade camps: Teams that make three blockbuster trades get a trade camp. It will apply to any of the players acquired in one of those trades. Why? Because it will encourage trades, which leads to more activity. A blockbuster will be considered a trade involving a top-10 pick from the past two or three drafts or a player averaging at least 30 mpg with at least two previous seasons where they averaged 30 mpg. Each player will be allowed one trade camp in their career.
2nd round lottery: 2nd rounders are basically useless right now. We will change that by having an annual 2nd round lottery. Everyone who has a 2nd round player on their roster after the 1st sim gets entered into a 2nd round lottery. Whoever wins gets +5 added to any three categories and +10 potential added to their 2nd round pick.
Steeper prices for RFA matching or abolition of RFA altogether: If you RFA your player, it will cost you a 1st round pick in the next three seasons and $500 to match. RFA hurts the fun of free agency in my opinion, so I would also consider the outright abolition of RFA if the majority of GMs were into it.
Better NBADSL sports book: a sports book bot will offer more frequent betting lines for GMs to bet their money. Every bet will have a vig that will go to the house. The money that the sports book earns over the season will be split 50/50 by the championship winner and whoever made the most money at the sports book during the season.
Partial salary waiver claims: to add incentive to putting someone on waivers, GMs would have the option of taking on some of a player's salary to sweeten the deal. This would also take a player with a bad contract and turn it into a great contract. For example, if I put Bill Walton on waivers and say it will cost $1,000 to claim him, but I will also absorb 60% of his salary to my cut salary, it will give him one of the best contracts in the league.
Get rid of potential in scouting: Giving away a player's potential makes drafts a lot less interesting and hurts the end of the 1st round. It would be great to see the occasional late 1st round stud, but having their potential available to scout takes away a lot of intrigue about certain players.
Play through the pain: If it's the playoffs and a player has an injury that's 50 days or less, you can get rid of it for $500, but it will also cause the player to lose 10 potential points and lose 10 points in their two best categories until the end of the playoffs. This avoids teams from losing a series due to injuries of one of their best players.
Quadruple Doubles: They are so rare that they should be worth $300 cash if your player has one.
No Draft List Penalty: If you do not submit a draft list, you are not able to send your player to the D-League and your pick will be auto'd
More fun expansion draft: Hold the expansion draft before preseason when rosters are full. More talent will be available for new teams and they will have a full empty roster heading into FA.
Would love to hear more ideas and people's thoughts about these ones.
I want to get the new CBA ratified before there is a lockout.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flip on Jun 14, 2015 21:28:37 GMT
Trade camps: Each player that is traded or just the star will get the trade camp? How many + attributes are given? Can we choose which attributes they are?
2nd round lottery: how will the lottery play out? A random generator?
Steeper prices for RFA matching or abolition of RFA altogether: i like it, but a first rounder could also hurt a team. I say $800 to RFA. $800 to keep your player and of the team decides to let the player go and not match the contract, then the team that signed your player wins $500.
Better NBADSL sports book: love the idea. We need this to be active so we can win money. We also need it based on the games during the sim, not IRL games. We need big odds as well, not just 1:1 or 2:1. We should also be able to have an unlimited max bet.
Partial salary waiver claims: dont like this much. It will kind of ruin a GM's ability to budget.
Get rid of potential in scouting: this sounds like a great idea, but maybe we can still keep potential scouting, but get rid of draft notes? And maybe add great potential to players who are not really known, that way we can have late 1st round studs.
Play through the pain: great idea, but I think losing 10 from the best attribute will still hurt a team.
Quadruple Doubles: should be $750 IMO.
No Draft List Penalty: life can sometimes get in the way of things, especially if you're not in the lotto, sometimes GMs don't care. We shouldn't be penalized.
More fun expansion draft: love this idea. You can only select a few players to keep, more to give up.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyybaseball on Jun 14, 2015 21:47:45 GMT
Don't like losing a first round pick over RFA. If anything either make it like $800 to RFA or make max years a 3 year deal or something.
I also like the idea we had once where if a GM disrespects their own FA (for example offering Hakeem Olajuwon a 5 year contract at 8 mil per year), and matches the contract, they lose a certain amount of potential in a random generator. I think 5-15 would be good.
Maybe even put a penalty of 1-5 (randomly done) from that player's potential if RFA'd. Happens in real life where players get pissed at teams for using the RFA and they decline a little bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 14, 2015 21:56:25 GMT
Trade camps: Each player that is traded or just the star will get the trade camp? How many + attributes are given? Can we choose which attributes they are? 2nd round lottery: how will the lottery play out? A random generator? Steeper prices for RFA matching or abolition of RFA altogether: i like it, but a first rounder could also hurt a team. I say $800 to RFA. $800 to keep your player and of the team decides to let the player go and not match the contract, then the team that signed your player wins $500. Better NBADSL sports book: love the idea. We need this to be active so we can win money. We also need it based on the games during the sim, not IRL games. We need big odds as well, not just 1:1 or 2:1. We should also be able to have an unlimited max bet. Partial salary waiver claims: dont like this much. It will kind of ruin a GM's ability to budget. Get rid of potential in scouting: this sounds like a great idea, but maybe we can still keep potential scouting, but get rid of draft notes? And maybe add great potential to players who are not really known, that way we can have late 1st round studs. Play through the pain: great idea, but I think losing 10 from the best attribute will still hurt a team. Quadruple Doubles: should be $750 IMO. No Draft List Penalty: life can sometimes get in the way of things, especially if you're not in the lotto, sometimes GMs don't care. We shouldn't be penalized. More fun expansion draft: love this idea. You can only select a few players to keep, more to give up. For trade camp, it would be one player acquired in all of the deals total. +5 distributed however the GM sees fit. 2nd round lottery will be a player selected by a random number generator. I appreciate your input on RFA. I was thinking another option would be that RFA matched deals are a max of two seasons. This is going to be the trickiest one to solve. I like your sports book idea of games during the sim. Maybe we have someone be the handicapper for the league and set the lines for a few games each sim. I don't like getting rid of draft notes because I think they are essential. I think getting rid of potential paves the way for more steals. |
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 14, 2015 21:58:09 GMT
Don't like losing a first round pick over RFA. If anything either make it like $800 to RFA or make max years a 3 year deal or something. I also like the idea we had once where if a GM disrespects their own FA (for example offering Hakeem Olajuwon a 5 year contract at 8 mil per year), and matches the contract, they lose a certain amount of potential in a random generator. I think 5-15 would be good. Maybe even put a penalty of 1-5 (randomly done) from that player's potential if RFA'd. Happens in real life where players get pissed at teams for using the RFA and they decline a little bit. The potential hit idea is interesting. I think limiting RFA matching to 2 years is a good idea. Maybe matching to 2 years and then also losing the bird year on the next offer. I think the RFA penalty should be steeper than it is now, right now nobody has concerned over losing rookie FAs and from my experience, they are the most valuable FAs in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Flip on Jun 14, 2015 22:25:35 GMT
I can be a capper for the sportsbook
|
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 14, 2015 22:26:45 GMT
I can be a capper for the sportsbook Sounds great. I think we should do sim games and real games. I also don't think it should be head to head betting. It should be against the sports book |
|
|
|
Post by Flip on Jun 14, 2015 22:54:36 GMT
I can be a capper for the sportsbook Sounds great. I think we should do sim games and real games. I also don't think it should be head to head betting. It should be against the sports book So lost money goes to house. We keep records of wins/loss/push, and at the end of the season, money is split between champion and best record (should have 15 winning bets minimum, including the champion. If not, house money rolls over to next season). |
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 14, 2015 23:00:38 GMT
Yeah, we do standings.
That's why I wanted to cap bet amounts.
|
|
tyfreak
Administrator 
Indiana Pacers
Posts: 12,962 
Staff Member
|
Post by tyfreak on Jun 14, 2015 23:08:38 GMT
Don't like losing a first round pick over RFA. If anything either make it like $800 to RFA or make max years a 3 year deal or something. I also like the idea we had once where if a GM disrespects their own FA (for example offering Hakeem Olajuwon a 5 year contract at 8 mil per year), and matches the contract, they lose a certain amount of potential in a random generator. I think 5-15 would be good. Maybe even put a penalty of 1-5 (randomly done) from that player's potential if RFA'd. Happens in real life where players get pissed at teams for using the RFA and they decline a little bit. The potential hit idea is interesting. I think limiting RFA matching to 2 years is a good idea. Maybe matching to 2 years and then also losing the bird year on the next offer. I think the RFA penalty should be steeper than it is now, right now nobody has concerned over losing rookie FAs and from my experience, they are the most valuable FAs in the league. I agree player movement is good, but your basically hurting the team using RFA. |
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 14, 2015 23:12:07 GMT
The potential hit idea is interesting. I think limiting RFA matching to 2 years is a good idea. Maybe matching to 2 years and then also losing the bird year on the next offer. I think the RFA penalty should be steeper than it is now, right now nobody has concerned over losing rookie FAs and from my experience, they are the most valuable FAs in the league. I agree player movement is good, but your basically hurting the team using RFA. What do you think is the best approach to RFA. If it were up to me, we would abolish it, but this is a democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by getbeard on Jun 14, 2015 23:17:45 GMT
Abolishing rfa would help the trade market a lot imo
|
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 14, 2015 23:19:44 GMT
Abolishing rfa would help the trade market a lot imo Agreed. But I think we are in the minority. Basically, anyone with a good rookie won't vote for that and I see where they're coming from. Not sure how to fix that. |
|
tyfreak
Administrator
Indiana Pacers
Posts: 12,962
Staff Member
|
Post by tyfreak on Jun 14, 2015 23:20:05 GMT
I agree player movement is good, but your basically hurting the team using RFA. What do you think is the best approach to RFA. If it were up to me, we would abolish it, but this is a democracy. I think we should base it off teams record. I know that sounds silly on the base, but generally not that much cash is given out throughout the season, even if you attend every Sim that's usually just a couple hundred. Making an overly expensive price for awful teams that need to develop talent just puts them in a bigger hole. Teams that are contending have more sources of income. Generally more box score claims, wins, all stars etc So for example something like 25 Wins - Pay 500 35 Wins - Pay 600 45 Wins - Pay 650 50 Wins - Pay 700 60 Wins - Pay 800 |
|
|
|
Post by getbeard on Jun 14, 2015 23:21:23 GMT
Abolishing rfa would help the trade market a lot imo Agreed. But I think we are in the minority. Basically, anyone with a good rookie won't vote for that and I see where they're coming from. Not sure how to fix that. I have a rookie Ray Allen and will have a top 5 pick in this draft most likely and I'm still for abolishing it if others would support it |
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 14, 2015 23:24:07 GMT
What do you think is the best approach to RFA. If it were up to me, we would abolish it, but this is a democracy. I think we should base it off teams record. I know that sounds silly on the base, but generally not that much cash is given out throughout the season, even if you attend every Sim that's usually just a couple hundred. Making an overly expensive price for awful teams that need to develop talent just puts them in a bigger hole. Teams that are contending have more sources of income. Generally more box score claims, wins, all stars etc So for example something like 25 Wins - Pay 500 35 Wins - Pay 600 45 Wins - Pay 650 50 Wins - Pay 700 60 Wins - Pay 800 I don't like the idea of penalizing more successful teams. Should be the opposite if anything. |
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 14, 2015 23:24:35 GMT
Agreed. But I think we are in the minority. Basically, anyone with a good rookie won't vote for that and I see where they're coming from. Not sure how to fix that. I have a rookie Ray Allen and will have a top 5 pick in this draft most likely and I'm still for abolishing it if others would support it That's good to hear. Sounds like you have the best interests of the league in mind |
|
itnas123
Administrator
Charlotte Bobcats
Posts: 25,496
Staff Member
|
Post by itnas123 on Jun 14, 2015 23:26:06 GMT
fine.... I will vote to get rid of RFA. IDK but I think I said this a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by getbeard on Jun 14, 2015 23:27:38 GMT
If it's a max worthy player your RFAing then offer the extra year your allowed too because of birds, very rarely does a player turn down the extra year when offered max deals
|
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 14, 2015 23:30:20 GMT
If it's a max worthy player your RFAing then offer the extra year your allowed too because of birds, very rarely does a player turn down the extra year when offered max deals Exactly how I feel. Team with birds already has a huge advantage |
|
tyfreak
Administrator
Indiana Pacers
Posts: 12,962
Staff Member
|
Post by tyfreak on Jun 14, 2015 23:30:24 GMT
I think we should base it off teams record. I know that sounds silly on the base, but generally not that much cash is given out throughout the season, even if you attend every Sim that's usually just a couple hundred. Making an overly expensive price for awful teams that need to develop talent just puts them in a bigger hole. Teams that are contending have more sources of income. Generally more box score claims, wins, all stars etc So for example something like 25 Wins - Pay 500 35 Wins - Pay 600 45 Wins - Pay 650 50 Wins - Pay 700 60 Wins - Pay 800 I don't like the idea of penalizing more successful teams. Should be the opposite if anything. I mean every team will have to rebuild once in a while unless you just continue raping GMs or get lucky in FA |
|
|
|
Post by nyybaseball on Jun 14, 2015 23:42:44 GMT
Don't like losing a first round pick over RFA. If anything either make it like $800 to RFA or make max years a 3 year deal or something. I also like the idea we had once where if a GM disrespects their own FA (for example offering Hakeem Olajuwon a 5 year contract at 8 mil per year), and matches the contract, they lose a certain amount of potential in a random generator. I think 5-15 would be good. Maybe even put a penalty of 1-5 (randomly done) from that player's potential if RFA'd. Happens in real life where players get pissed at teams for using the RFA and they decline a little bit. The potential hit idea is interesting. I think limiting RFA matching to 2 years is a good idea. Maybe matching to 2 years and then also losing the bird year on the next offer. I think the RFA penalty should be steeper than it is now, right now nobody has concerned over losing rookie FAs and from my experience, they are the most valuable FAs in the league. Nah don't like 2 year I like 3 years. And no getting rid of bird years |
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 15, 2015 22:23:13 GMT
Anyone else have any ideas they want me to start a poll for?
I'm open to cool new ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Jun 15, 2015 22:35:40 GMT
why has RFA become a demon all of the sudden? I remember when it was first introduced a majority loved the idea.
It's fine as is, $500 GM cash is enough of a penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 15, 2015 22:44:39 GMT
why has RFA become a demon all of the sudden? I remember when it was first introduced a majority loved the idea. It's fine as is, $500 GM cash is enough of a penalty. Because it basically ruins the excitement of free agency. At least in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 15, 2015 22:45:06 GMT
What's the point of free agency if half of the players that are worth bidding big money on you have no shot of getting?
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Jun 15, 2015 23:36:39 GMT
you can still get great players from FA, they won't be as young, but usually teams use FA to get you to the next level, Benji Wilson, Gary Payton and Len Bias might not be able to do that just yet, they may one day, but they still need time before they become immediate impact players.
I managed to grab George Mikan and Moses Malone in FA that lead to a championship and a 2nd finals appearance, Ty Hudson is having the season of his life right now and I know a majority were hoping to grab him this offseason. There's plenty of great players out there to grab.
|
|
|
|
Post by aar on Jun 15, 2015 23:45:46 GMT
I see Benji Wilson mentioned and now understand your hesitation
|
|
|
|
Post by heatflash on Jun 16, 2015 1:04:43 GMT
Ty Hudson was a nice pick up in FA
|
|
tyfreak
Administrator
Indiana Pacers
Posts: 12,962
Staff Member
|
Post by tyfreak on Jun 16, 2015 1:28:15 GMT
Ty Hudson was a nice pick up in FA Fk u |
|
