Post by Rog on Aug 31, 2019 19:03:16 GMT
So the idea here is simple, its like the competition committee in the NFL. I pulled together 6 GMs(+Silver), 3 from each conference, to have a discussion, submit proposals, and vote on the proposals of potential rule changes we can institute in the future. I want to be very, very clear here... this is a MOCK RULES COMMITTEE, this is not real, these are not real votes. My hope is that this can become a thing in the future that is real, but that is up to A. Silver overall. The GMs in this are carmelo115 ucfinfan86 pjclippers bigthunder JCog72 and myself, plus of course Silver. Here is how this worked overall:
How It Works
Phase 1) Start with some discussion. Where does the league fail/need improvement/Could be tweaked/Needs Major Overhaul, ect. This does not have to be well thought out ideas, just basic things such as "I don't like the new cap system, lets tweak it, anyone have thoughts on how to do that?" or "I think we should implement a new rule that limits post FA trades" or something like that. It can be, if you want.
Phase 2) After some basic conversation, maybe get some basic ideas of what we want to address, I'll ask for specifics. This is where we'll propose specific rule changes "Lets change FA to make 1 year contracts max out at 15 million" or "Recently signed free agents can't be traded until Day 30, unless they ended the previous season on the team they signed with" or anything. This part needs to be specific. And this could be another day or two. Again, THESE NEED TO BE SPECIFIC. You can start as specific in phase 1 as you want, but phase 2 needs all the rules thought out. It doesn't need to be from one person and we can tweak after initial proposal but you need to be specific with what you want.
Phase 3) I will gather all the specific rule changes idea, as many as they will be and post them here or in a separate PM with everyone in it. I'm not sure, depends on how cluttered things look. Regardless everyone will get a PM with all the committees proposed changes, as many as that is. Could be a hundred, I hope not but if thats what it is then cool. Depending on how the conversation went, I will set a number and everyone will vote. For example, if the conversation was vibrant and a lot of changes were proposed with a lot of support, I may say "vote for your top 5 from this list", maybe never that many but just as an example. I will then tally those up and take an additional amount off(if its vote for your top 5, the top 3 vote getters will go through).
Phase 4) The top vote getters will then be posted. For this, and maybe if this happens in the future for real, I will post as an article. If a specific idea is proposed by a person, and that idea is put through they will be the "sponsor" of the bill. They will do a short writeup of pros/cons for the bill, and why they support it. If an idea is proposed, tweaked, and submitted by the group I'll ask people/group of us to do the above. I will also take conversation from here and post in article format. Each idea will be posted as a poll separate from the article(because you can't post multiple polls in 1 post). Obviously this is fake, with no rule changes actually going through but in the future as said in the original PM i sent to everyone, something between 70-80% of the vote will be needed league wide to make a change go through officially, if this ever becomes an actual thing in the league. I am purposely not setting a specific amount here, as no rules will come out of this and I want to see the results and how things go before determining this.
The Proposals
Putting a Max On 1 Year FA Offers, Based on Experience
0-5 years experience - 12.5 million
6-9 - 15 million
10+ - 20 million
This one is very simple, and does not require to be talked about a lot. There was a ton of talk about this when the new cap system was implemented and a ton of people asked for it. It was one of the easiest proposals to come through, and the vote had twice the amount of support as any other proposals. The pros and cons here are very simple and this will be the shortest section here.
Pros
- More varied FA bids. Eliminating top end 1 year bids will push for more creative bids.
- Helps cover a flaw in the game that favors higher per year deals over total amount. Does not fix it entirely, but helps mask it.
Cons
- Limits the types of offers that can be made and potentially pushes higher value offers to guys that don't deserve it.
Changing the Max Amount of Years Offered in FA
Current system - Max with Bird Rights = 7 years, Max Without Bird Rights = 6 years
Proposed System - Max With Bird Rights = 5 years, Max Without Bird Rights = 4 years
The idea here is to limit the back end issues that a deal or two saw in FA, and will inevitably keep seeing. Paying Baylor 39 and 42 million towards the end of his deal in his age 33/34 seasons is not sustainable in my opinion on guys that aren't Baylor good. This is my proposal and one I'm very high on. It also gets things to be more realistic as in real life, these are the length caps for offers.
Pros
- Once again, this would limit some of the huge offers we've seen with the new max years. You put bigger amounts of money on the table with the same increases and they will increase harder, faster. The Baylor deal is the prime example here.
- Keeps franchises a bit safer, filling teams with these long contracts would be tough if they become absolute albatrosses. This means that these contracts last around 4-5 months at most, real time, rather than 6 and 7 months.
- Promotes the player movement I envisioned when I proposed the salary cap change. Players would switch teams more often, GMs would need to have plans in place sooner for potentially losing players.
Cons
- "Dumbs down" the league, holding GMs hands in making FA offers. Game allows for the 6/7 max, why change it if GMs should just not be stupid enough top put themselves in those situations?
- The risk/reward gets taken down some on these big FA offers, on guys like Mannion and Baylor. The risk is far, far greater with the 2-3 additional years. You can pretty much guarantee a guy that is amazing now, will be at least decent in 4 years, even maybe 5. You can't guarantee that in 6 or 7 years.
Other
- This one I'm not sure which place I'd put this in, but a consequence of this change would be that resigning would become exceptionally valuable. Guys offering to resign on 6 year deals at reasonable rates(happens) would be a huge boon, assuming we didn't change that as well(cutting offer the last 2 years of every offer if its beyond 4 years). This is one thing I'm not sure where I stand, as I have said in other discussions where resignings get brought up.
Change the Lottery Odds
Current System - The current system is outdated by about 20 years, haha, and puts the #1 pick at 25% for the worst team, and goes down from there. It puts the top 3 at a much, much higher chance to get the top pick and a super high chance of getting a top 3 pick. The real life NBA changed from this system to something less highly weighted a while back, and then changed it again last year going to a pretty even all the way down system.
Proposed System - The odds of each pick getting the #1 pick would go to this(note the number is the worst records):
1 14.00%
2 14.00%
3 14.00%
4 12.50%
5 10.50%
6 9.00%
7 6.00%
8 6.00%
9 6.00%
10 3.00%
11 2.00%
12 1.00%
13 1.00%
So as you can see above the top topic was free agency. Not far behind that though was trying to prevent some tanking. Not the quick rebuild, gather assets, and tank for 2 seasons that some have done, but the habitual, league wide tanking we've seen a lot of recently. I think the proposals were split down the middle between FA and tanking. This is the one that made it through on tanking. This would prevent the drop out, full on tanking because the chance of you getting the top pick is only 8% higher than if you finished as the 7th, 8th, or 9th worst team. The end of the lottery teams have a non insignificant chance to win the lottery as well.
Pros
- Does its job, would at least put a thought in a tankers head about how far down they want to fall, and how hard they want to strip their team if they have such a decent chance to fall out of the top 3.
- Would create some fun possible lottery outcomes that would create some chaotic situations. I like this, others may not.
- Would potentially reward some down on their luck, probable playoff teams that miss out on the playoffs due to one reason or another.
- An overall lack of tanking would create an environment of parity between divisions.
Cons
- Once again, not allowing GMs to do what they want with their team is not necessarily a good thing.
- Could harm bottom teams to a point of not wanting to be iin the league anymore. I say fuck em, get better and not rely on luck, but could be an issue that should be discussed.
- Would require additional work for Silver, also would have to be done outside of game.
Anote note: Votes will get you $25 additional on this. Please state you voted or you will not get the additional $25($50 total for the comment+vote). I can check IPs on the poll vs your IP if I so choose, so please vote and just not say you voted.
Vote Here:
www.surveymonkey.com/r/2B299M5
*
