|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 19, 2010 9:56:34 GMT
OSFA Discussion[/size]
Analysing the OSFA process is pretty much an annual tradition now. And even though there's the usual host of unhappy GMs this off season, which is an unfortunate but nevertheless inevitable part of the process, I think we did a pretty decent job of the whole thing.
Big thanks go to the Player Agents; New Jersey, Memphis and Orlando for their help.
However, there's always potential ways of improving. I was thinking perhaps re-arranging the process:
[red]MOST IMPORTANT 1. Contract must be realistic (edited by Player Agent). 2. Team must offer acceptable playing time.[/red]
SEMI-IMPORTANT 3. Teams with more talent on their roster have a better chance of signing the player. 4. Teams who have won more games have a better chance. 5. Player Agent judges the player's personality.[/color]
LEAST-IMPORTANT 6. Is the team a historically successful team (e.g. Lakers/Celtics)? 7. Is the team in a big market (New York, LA, Chicago)? 8. Is the team in a nice location (Miami, LA, Orlando)?
If we add the last 3, least important, factors it could cut down on the 'injustice' some teams feel and at least GMs will know where they stand as soon as they enter OSFA. It would also add to the realism of the league, but the question is; should it? Is it unfair that the Lakers should have bigger Free Agent pulling power than the Timberwolves, for instance?
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Aug 19, 2010 10:53:54 GMT
[/size] LEAST-IMPORTANT6. Is the team a historically successful team (e.g. Lakers/Celtics)? 7. Is the team in a big market (New York, LA, Chicago)? 8. Is the team in a nice location (Miami, LA, Orlando)? Is it unfair that the Lakers should have bigger Free Agent pulling power than the Timberwolves, for instance?[/quote] Yes, I do think it's unfair. Why should this factor into the decision-making process? Perhaps then we would all choose the 'bigger' teams then? However, I do think it's acceptable to include team roster/structure (player talent, age etc etc) and team's winning history in D5. On a sidenote, I think both Sacramento and I are very disappointed that Rondo resigned with LA, with the apparent reason being he wants to stay put.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 19, 2010 11:20:53 GMT
Re: The Rondo matter.
A lot of the time our concern as Player Agents is also not to decimate teams who make attempts at re-signing their players. Maybe we should factor that into the process. LAL would've been significantly harmed by Rondo leaving. Also, Sacramento and yourself are more talented, promising teams than the Lakers currently are, but the Lakers have showed allegiance to Rondo and have had him for almost year (since September 2009). And that's also a factor.
Detroit, this off season, is a difficult one though. I don't know how Memphis conducted the negotiations for Ray Allen (who played for Detroit last season), but that loss certainly gutted their already poor lineup. The appeal of NJN though, could certainly be enough to lure Ray from Detroit, and why not? However, the blow it dealt to Detroit was pretty tough. But then maybe if we had the process more planned he'd have been able to prepare for the worst?
I mean if we're going to be totally open and honest, and we should, those two things are definitely factors in whether a player leaves a team or re-signs.
Re: The system which incorporates History, Market Size and Nice Location.
Alternatively it would also add a new dimension to gameplay. Some GMs prefer to take struggling teams and build them up. If we were trying to do things realistically, teams like Minnesota, Milwaukee, Charlotte or Oklahoma would all have to build through trades and drafting, and generally lose out in OSFA unless they showed great levels of allegiance and planning to re-sign their stars (or we could factor in that Durant loves life in OKC at the moment, and would be likely to re-sign too). Teams like the Lakers and Heat would have things relatively easy, like they do in real life. But then that GM wouldn't garner the same level of respect that others do, and that's certainly worth something.
Bear in mind though, I'm not saying this WILL happen, I'm just asking for GMs thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Orlando Magic on Aug 19, 2010 12:16:35 GMT
Well Nuggets, about rondo. It was such a close race for him I had to consult with the other agents. They all agreed that there was no reason to leave LA.
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Aug 19, 2010 13:28:09 GMT
Alright that seems fair, regarding what you said about the Rondo matter. And Orlando, I really appreciate your effort in trying to help us, and in the process you yourself was made a Moderator;) I think having team history as a factor is quite fair, as it shows how has the team fair in four seasons of D5. For example, the Spurs have consistently challenged for the championship and that definitely should be a factor in free agency. However, I don't really agree that market size and location should matter, especially location, since I like to think that all teams in D5 are equal. And although I believe so, the teams that are traditionally strong already have an upper hand since the first season so that will definitely affect the winning record through the years. Well, I've put my thoughts out there, and probably because I'm worried Melo will not resign next year, partly because of the 'location' and also because he wants to leave IRL.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 19, 2010 14:14:07 GMT
Well, I've put my thoughts out there, and probably because I'm worried Melo will not resign next year, partly because of the 'location' and also because he wants to leave IRL. Actually I'd be very confident in re-signing Melo next off season. He, along with Dwight Howard and Tim Duncan, are one of the VERY few big-name players to remain with their original team from the start. Even if we did factor in location, you're pretty much a lock to re-sign Melo so long as you have the sufficient cap space.
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Aug 19, 2010 14:19:09 GMT
I think free agency was an overall success this season. There were a lot more teams with cap space than usual, likely because so many big name free agents expired. With only a limited number of players available, it was only natural that most teams would end up dissapointed. These extra teams led to tons of offers flowing into the PAs. I only had one division and it was sometimes hard to keep track of all the offers, so I can only imagine how hard Indiana/Orlando and Memphis had it.
As for players like Rondo, I believe there should be at least some kind of reward for teams who take the time to plan ahead and guarantee themselves the cap room to resign a player. The Lakers obviously knew Rondo/Gay would be expensive and acquired a ton of expiring contracts to accomodate his players. The resigning team should always have an advantage in these kind of situations, unless it just flat out doesn't make sense for a player to resign with his old team, such as Ray Allen, who at 35 would never want to sign to a rebuilding team with really nothing in place to compete.
As a last note, I think Boston hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that a team is better off to build through trading and the draft than through free agency. As we saw this year, only one team was able to significantly improve this offseason (Dallas). All the other teams just resigned their player(s) or got replacements. If you really think about it, Dallas only ended up stealing one player, Lebron James, who was not going back to Chicago anytime soon. Steve Nash and Vince Carter were his own free agents, so he naturally had some sort of advantage resigning them. But going back to the main point, although there was one winner of the offseson, there were about 10 non-winners, who would have been much better off trading their expiring contracts to Utah for Josh Smith (+1 Toronto).
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 19, 2010 14:50:12 GMT
The resigning team should always have an advantage in these kind of situations, unless it just flat out doesn't make sense for a player to resign with his old team, such as Ray Allen, who at 35 would never want to sign to a rebuilding team with really nothing in place to compete. I agree, but I think GMs should know that they have to plan ahead for that though, we didn't state it explicitly, but that thinking was definitely there as we progressed, and always has been really. What's missing is the pre-warning, which is what I'm trying to achieve with this thread I suppose
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Aug 19, 2010 15:37:28 GMT
next season ill have like 4 players,would that help or hurt my chances, since I could offer to at least 2 stars and some role players?
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Aug 19, 2010 16:03:23 GMT
If the resigning team has bird rights, I remember we can exceed the salary cap, just not the hard cap of $90 million yes?
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 19, 2010 16:09:10 GMT
If the resigning team has bird rights, I remember we can exceed the salary cap, just not the hard cap of $90 million yes? That's correct. Loyalty to players should not only give you a boost with the use of Bird Rights though, Player Agents should recognise it too.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 19, 2010 16:11:08 GMT
next season ill have like 4 players,would that help or hurt my chances, since I could offer to at least 2 stars and some role players? It doesn't necessarily help or hinder your chances, although it might be better to appeal to other players when there's at least a structure of a lineup already in place in which to slot them. I think more open-ended situations aren't as appealing for PAs.
|
|
|
Post by Memphis Grizzlies on Aug 19, 2010 17:47:47 GMT
I think this is the way it should be. I think the cities of where teams play should be factored and that Detroit, Cleveland, Memphis and New Orleans should have a dissadvantage when it comes to a tie breaker for where the FA will sign. This doesn't mean noone will sign there because winning cures all, the players will go to Boise, Idaho if that is where the best team is. Pretty much the only way to build a team in a small/mid market is within the system, through the draft and when possible through trades. This is what San Antonio did and what Oklahoma City and Sacramento are doing. So going into free agancy thinking you will sign two superstars and now you have your team is unrealistic. That is how it is in real life and I think that is how it should be here.
Oppositely, New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Toronto are repeatedly said to be the best cities in the NBA. The interesting thing with Toronto is that everyone loves going to Toronto but noone loves playing in Toronto. Well that is with American players. Europeans love the city, Turkoglu left Portland standing at the altar because he would rather play in Toronto. So those teams should have the advantage in tie breaking situations for free agents.
I am not saying it should define free agency just that it should be considered when it is not otherwise obvious where the player should sign. It is a very real part of the NBA so it should play some part in here, whether it be fair or not.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 19, 2010 18:47:22 GMT
I like all that you're saying Memphis.
Perhaps, when we're dealing with offers, and we've still got a tiebreaker after considering everything else, we should both: a) Consider everything that would factor into a player's decision in real life.
b) Consider any other factors that GMs propose to us too. Not just concerning playing time, but the relative advantages and disadvantages of each individual situation, down to whatever level of detail we want.
I think I just need to send warning messages to all GMs, throughout the course of each season, to prepare and be prepared as far as their expiring players are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Orlando Magic on Aug 19, 2010 21:39:18 GMT
Well the main thing I think that needs to be addressed is a period where you can't trade a free agent.
|
|
|
Post by Memphis Grizzlies on Aug 19, 2010 21:44:12 GMT
This has already been mentioned in the staff section but I think salary dumping should be banned from the start of the playoffs until the start of free agency.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 19, 2010 21:47:29 GMT
I suppose we could enforce a ban on all trading from the moment the Finals end.
|
|
|
Post by Memphis Grizzlies on Aug 19, 2010 21:55:43 GMT
I suppose we could enforce a ban on all trading from the moment the Finals end. I wouldn't be against that. As long as the issue of last minute salary dumping to make a run at a big free agent because you didn't plan ahead is addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 19, 2010 21:59:57 GMT
I suppose we could enforce a ban on all trading from the moment the Finals end. I wouldn't be against that. As long as the issue of last minute salary dumping to make a run at a big free agent because you didn't plan ahead is addressed. Or maybe just a ban on trading expirings actually, as I now think Orlando was saying - I just didn't get it, hehe. Infact we could stop the trading of expirings as soon as the playoffs begin. GMs should be penalised for not planning ahead. And we should stop ALL trading once the Rookie Draft is done.
|
|
|
Post by Memphis Grizzlies on Aug 19, 2010 22:08:44 GMT
I like that.
Day the Playoffs start: Trading of expiring contracts is banned.
Day the Rookie draft ends: Complete trading ban until the salary charts advance/free agency begins.
So you can still make draft day (or draft week really) trades but apart from that you have to wait until free agency starts
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 19, 2010 22:19:45 GMT
Ok, that's good and settled.
It's just a matter of deciding how much depth we Player Agents can go into whilst signing. Part of me would like to bias in favor of teams like the Lakers or whoever, and make that part of how you build your team, and then at least GMs will know the score.
But I definitely understand the opposite view, especially since it's not like GMs have much of a choice in which team they choose to take.
It's just troublesome for us Player Agents because it comes down to a straight decision from us, and that's not always something that can be justified objectively.
|
|
|
Post by Washington Wizards on Aug 19, 2010 23:01:57 GMT
While I agree with the majority of what you guys are saying, I do have one beef with free agency this year.
The explanation of Stephen Jackson leaving a more succesful team for Utah for the reason of playing beside Kobe I can kind of live with. I really hated to lose Capt Jack but at least it was for playing beside a all world superstar that I don't have. Washington is argueably a better city than Utah and my offer was higher but Washington isn't LA or Boston as far as notoriety for sure. Again, I can live with that.
My beef that I really didnt like involved LeBron James. It was noted that a major determining factor was the length of time the gm had been in D5 and that was basically the tiebreak.
I think that if we want to have LA and Boston and the like get a better chance for free agents, that at least mimics the NBA. To have a player go to a franchise because the owner has been involved longer, I don't think mimics the NBA IRL at all.
I do understand the fact that dedicated owners are great to have in the league. Believe me, of all the sim leagues I am involved in, D5 is by far my favorite and I would never want to do anything to make the league less secure long term.
If this is going to be a factor, it at least needs to be discussed and documented. Thus far, I haven't seen this point even brought up at all by you guys.
Long live D5!
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Aug 20, 2010 0:59:45 GMT
Good point by Washington. But I think we could take that into account, as well as the dedication the GM has shown to his team. But I know most teams would disagree though, but long-time GMs might be upset when a player chooses a newer GM in the event of a tie-break. I can live with giving it to the supposedly 'older' GMs, if only because it mimics the situation in the NBA where Boston and the Lakers sometimes get free agents because of their history in the game.
The loyalty factor brought up by Boston should be taken into consideration as well. For example, a GM has a history of trading his newly-signed free agents, or even if he done it once or twice, I think it should affect the Player Agents' decision.
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Aug 20, 2010 1:21:50 GMT
As far as Washington's post about Lebron, I think what Boston mentioned earlier about a decision not always being justified objectively. The player agents had to examine all the factors as to where Lebron James would sign, and when multiple teams were all offering similar situations, it came down to what we felt was right, and I think most of the player agents agreed that it just felt right that Lebron would go to Dallas and that this was the correct decision.
Also, I think something that helped determine my vote for where Lebron ended up was how much campaigning the team did. Dallas made it very clear that he was after a big name free agent, notably Lebron, Kobe, or Wade. He strutted around the league and around the shoutbox making sure everyone knew he had a lot of cap and that he intended to use it. On the other hand, I think everyone just kinda expected other teams with cap room to resign their own players and get on with life. There was not a lot of media hype around the situation, and I'm sure that somewhere in the back of our minds that helped lead to our decision.
So basically, write media articles, get creative, make it clear if you want a free agent. When I inquired about Ray Allen, I made it 100% clear that Ray Allen was our guy, he was my first priority, and that my team was his best choice. I also subliminally worked the player agents somewhat by making such a huge fiasco about trading Mike Dunleavy. I posted in the shoutbox at least 10 times that Mike Dunleavy was OTB and that I really wanted to get rid of him, which in turn may or may not have helped me get Ray Allen, but at least I had something to tell his agent.
So yea... try to get into your player agent's head, media articles can never hurt, and sometimes a decision comes down to a gut feeling.
|
|
|
Post by Washington Wizards on Aug 20, 2010 2:06:55 GMT
"The general concensus was between Dallas and Washington with a few other teams thrown in here and there. The tipping points for Dallas were that he is a dedicated GM (he has been around since 2007(not saying you aren't WAS but years of service accounts for something))"
I'm not trying to be arguementitive but I am simply saying that if we are outlining what is going to go into the consideration of a free agent, then we should address the fact that how long you have been a GM should be accounted for.
As far as the statement about being aggresive for the FA's goes, I probably sent 25 PM's about how I was 100% committed to bringing in Wade, Kobe or LeBron as well. Again, I'm not saying anyting was done wrong, just saying that we should spell it out as to what is going to go into the decision. The more understanding teams have of what it takes going into free agency, the less upset teams there should be.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Aug 20, 2010 2:57:57 GMT
Oh shciz, I forgot my trading rep... I'm gonna have to make serious trades this season, no dumb trades. lol
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors on Aug 20, 2010 7:53:33 GMT
[/size] [red]MOST IMPORTANT1. Contract must be realistic (edited by Player Agent). 2. Team must offer acceptable playing time.[/red] SEMI-IMPORTANT3. Teams with more talent on their roster have a better chance of signing the player. 4. Teams who have won more games have a better chance. 5. Player Agent judges the player's personality.[/color] LEAST-IMPORTANT6. Is the team a historically successful team (e.g. Lakers/Celtics)? 7. Is the team in a big market (New York, LA, Chicago)? 8. Is the team in a nice location (Miami, LA, Orlando)? If we add the last 3, least important, factors it could cut down on the 'injustice' some teams feel and at least GMs will know where they stand as soon as they enter OSFA. It would also add to the realism of the league, but the question is; should it? Is it unfair that the Lakers should have bigger Free Agent pulling power than the Timberwolves, for instance?[/quote] If this is how free agency should go then I see no reason for LeBron to Have signed in Dallas, I have a better roster then Dallas did pre Lebron signing and I'd say San Francisco is a bigger draw for location then Dallas is, and as for dedicated GMs Dallas GM has only been in this league for less then a month longer then I have. And honestly as for the comparison of a player signing in LA as oposed to MIN in a SIM league I think we need to steep back and realize everything in a sim league CAN'T be 100% realistic, if we're going to try and do so then some GMs might as well wait for a team with a bigger market to open up to try and change teams and not even try with their current smaller market teams.
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors on Aug 20, 2010 7:59:42 GMT
Also, I think something that helped determine my vote for where Lebron ended up was how much campaigning the team did. Dallas made it very clear that he was after a big name free agent, notably Lebron, Kobe, or Wade. So because I'm more of a quiet person who didn't brag about my cap space I was less deserving?
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Aug 20, 2010 8:08:51 GMT
Also, I think something that helped determine my vote for where Lebron ended up was how much campaigning the team did. Dallas made it very clear that he was after a big name free agent, notably Lebron, Kobe, or Wade. So because I'm more of a quiet person who didn't brag about my cap space I was less deserving? Let it go dude, I wasn't even bothering with Lebron... and DAL has no taxes on the money which means, he gets all the money offered, untill you count getting stuf, ie food, cars, pRon, Wait what...
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 20, 2010 12:19:51 GMT
I actually would not let media center articles sway my judgement particularly, I judged enthusiasm by the quality and level of offers and messages sent to me.
|
|