|
Post by Boston Celtics on Jul 23, 2007 9:44:35 GMT
I'm currently tackling the problem of Contract Extensions and the Spreadsheet used to devise them. I'm looking to hear some feedback from you guys to help me iron things out properly.
I will be making separate spreadsheets that cover rating-ranges so that salaries increase realistically with player ratings. So far I've the idea of separating the rating ranges into these divisions: 90+ 82-89 76-81 68-75 67-
There are also minor issues regarding the inclusion of Team Options, no-trade clauses etc. If a Team Option is included, how much extra should the player be given? And if a no-trade-clause is included, how much less should the player be given? Should their be Team Options or No Trade Clauses at all (no trade clauses could cause the league to suffer through lack of interest if superstar players can't be traded). Are there any other factors that should be included/excluded?
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 23, 2007 13:01:23 GMT
I'd prefer not to have the no-trade clause. There are nearly no players with the clause in the NBA for a start, plus a no trade clause simply allows a player to veto a trade to certain destinations, and much like player options this is very difficult to simulate. I'm happy with the team options increasing a players salary by 10% for each season, it's an easy enough number to work with and seems realistic.
One idea we could consider, which we run in my fantasy league, is a trade demand lottery. Every offseason we run a lottery and the "winner" is given a set period of time to move a star player or lose them to FA for nothing. Both conference champions are exempt, and non-playoff teams have twice the chance of "winning" as playoff teams, but also about half the balls are left open, meaning there is also a high chance no demand is even made. We use an actual lottery site to simulate it. It'd need modifying for this league, to determine which player is demanding the trade and to allow for 30 teams, my league has 18. It makes for an interesting day in the offseason, but not sure if there is support for it here or not.
J
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Jul 23, 2007 13:56:36 GMT
One idea we could consider, which we run in my fantasy league, is a trade demand lottery. Every offseason we run a lottery and the "winner" is given a set period of time to move a star player or lose them to FA for nothing. Both conference champions are exempt, and non-playoff teams have twice the chance of "winning" as playoff teams, but also about half the balls are left open, meaning there is also a high chance no demand is even made. We use an actual lottery site to simulate it. It'd need modifying for this league, to determine which player is demanding the trade and to allow for 30 teams, my league has 18. It makes for an interesting day in the offseason, but not sure if there is support for it here or not. J I think that's worth considering!
|
|
|
Post by redstorm177 on Jul 23, 2007 15:24:25 GMT
That's an awesome idea Philly. I wouldn't mind doing that in this league since it takes in account the real-life "unhappy superstar effect". However, I would lower the number of "no player demand" balls to around 10% or so since there is always AT LEAST one star trade demand every offseason in real life. By the way, what constitutes as a "star" player? Is it a certain rating or one of the top 2 or 3 players on a team? If I were to "win" the lottery, I guess my "star" would be Marbury, even though he's only an 84. Regardless, I really hope we use that idea in this league.
As for the contract extensions, I would leave out the "No trade" clauses since I don't see how we could work that anyway. I suppose we could do a league-wide poll everytime that player is included in a trade and determine whether or not the player would accept the trade, but I'd rather just forget about it altogether. Like Philly said, its not common in the league anyway (only Kobe, right?). Regarding team options, I'm fine with a 10% increase, but I would rather raise that up to around 15% or so. I just think that would possibly make the "pick up/decline" decisions a little more difficult for the GM's.
Anyway, nice work Boston and great idea Philly (hope we use it here).
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 23, 2007 17:30:47 GMT
Re the trade demand lottery I'd use a website like this www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/home/home.doThe Bonus Ball on the left is the only ball that matters. Announce a date and allocate 1 ball for each playoff team, and 2 balls for each lottery team. With the two conference champions exempted this would make 42 balls, the lottery goes 1-49 so 7 balls would be left empty. Any "winner" would be forced to move his highest ranked player within ie. 1 week. The team must field offers and announce the deal by the end of the week or admin will assume decision making, field offers and process what it thinks is the best trade available. Also, the team may not reacquire the player for one entire season. Jerry
|
|
|
Post by Erik Lassen on Jul 23, 2007 18:08:20 GMT
Good idea. Although I have an idea that could help it.
A player whose team improved by 10 or more wins the previous season is exempt. (as they will want to stay, ala Chris Bosh this season in real life this season)
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 24, 2007 6:46:12 GMT
That's a good call too. Although I guess that wouldn't matter in the coming offseason, just from the one after.
J
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Jul 24, 2007 15:56:42 GMT
I dont like it. As we see with Kobe, he wanted out of Los Angeles but he is under contract and I bet money that he is going to suit up next season.
Maybe if a player had a player option it would work, but if a player is under contract then you shouldnt be forced to move them anywhere
|
|
|
Post by redstorm177 on Jul 24, 2007 17:09:44 GMT
Looking back at the last few years, this is the list I was able to come up with regarding "star" player trade demands. Here are the players that were granted a trade: Vince Carter Shaquille O' Neal Allen Iverson Peja Stojakovic Ron Artest Tracy McGrady (?) Joe Johnson (*) Those who so far haven't been granted their requested trade: Kobe Bryant Corey Maggette Pau Gasol Kevin Garnett (?) Jermaine O' Neal (?) ------------------------------- (*): Requested that Phoenix not match his offer sheet from Atlanta. Phoenix worked out a sign-and-trade. (?): I'm not sure if they officially asked to be traded or not. Some reports state that they did, while others contradict. ------------------------------- To be honest, when I first started this post, my intent was to sway New Jersey's opinion by proving that of all the "star" players that have asked to be traded, a trade happens more often than not. Unfortunately, from my short list of results (feel free to add to the list or correct it), it looks somewhat even in terms of those that actually get their trade, opposed to those that don't.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Jul 25, 2007 0:20:57 GMT
I've actually managed to create a spreadsheet for all ratings that might work. Here's how it breaks down: Player Rating - First Year of a 5 year Contract97 - $21.5m 94 - $20.9m 92 - $19.3m 91 - $17.6m 89 - $15.8m 86 - $13.5m 84 - $11.8m 81 - $9.4m 79 - $8.1m 76 - $6.4m 72 - $4.6m 68 - $3.3m 64 - $2.3m 59 - $1.4m 53 - $744k I have a few problems with it though. - I think the amount should level off around 92 ($20m).
- There should be slightly more dramatic decreases in salary when levels pass-under the 90 and 80 thresholds (ie. 70s rated players should earn significantly less than 80s. And 80s less than 90s).
I'd prefer something more like this: 97 - $21.5m 94 - $21.0m 92 - $20.3m 91 - $19.0m 89 - $15.6m (drop off after the 90 threshold) 86 - $11.5m 84 - $10.1m 81 - $7.2m (drop off toward the early 80s) 79 - $6.1m 76 - $5.0m 72 - $3.9m (sharp decrease from early 80s to early 70s) 68 - $2.6m 64 - $2.3m 59 - $1.4m 53 - $744k
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 25, 2007 9:39:42 GMT
I think anyone wearing a Philly uniform should get a discount, other than that I'm down with it.
J
|
|
|
Post by Erik Lassen on Jul 25, 2007 16:18:56 GMT
Looks good. (both ideas) Extending Deng this offseason has been my first concern, and now I have the digits to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by ryanhall1991 - MEM on Jul 25, 2007 21:43:06 GMT
I've actually managed to create a spreadsheet for all ratings that might work. Here's how it breaks down: Player Rating - First Year of a 5 year Contract97 - $21.5m 94 - $20.9m 92 - $19.3m 91 - $17.6m 89 - $15.8m 86 - $13.5m 84 - $11.8m 81 - $9.4m 79 - $8.1m 76 - $6.4m 72 - $4.6m 68 - $3.3m 64 - $2.3m 59 - $1.4m 53 - $744k I have a few problems with it though. - I think the amount should level off around 92 ($20m).
- There should be slightly more dramatic decreases in salary when levels pass-under the 90 and 80 thresholds (ie. 70s rated players should earn significantly less than 80s. And 80s less than 90s).
I'd prefer something more like this: 97 - $21.5m 94 - $21.0m 92 - $20.3m 91 - $19.0m 89 - $15.6m (drop off after the 90 threshold) 86 - $11.5m 84 - $10.1m 81 - $7.2m (drop off toward the early 80s) 79 - $6.1m 76 - $5.0m 72 - $3.9m (sharp decrease from early 80s to early 70s) 68 - $2.6m 64 - $2.3m 59 - $1.4m 53 - $744k does this mean i can extend my guys now?
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Jul 25, 2007 21:44:32 GMT
No not yet.
|
|
|
Post by ryanhall1991 - MEM on Jul 25, 2007 21:45:18 GMT
o thats fine, it doesn't really matter actually lol
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Jul 25, 2007 22:07:32 GMT
I've actually managed to create a spreadsheet for all ratings that might work. Here's how it breaks down: Player Rating - First Year of a 5 year Contract97 - $27.9m 94 - $23.1m 92 - $19.3m 91 - $19.0m 89 - $16.6m 86 - $13.5m 84 - $11.8m 81 - $9.4m 79 - $8.1m 76 - $6.4m 72 - $4.6m 68 - $3.3m 64 - $2.3m 59 - $1.4m 53 - $744k I have a few problems with it though. - I think the amount should level off around 92 ($20m).
- There should be slightly more dramatic decreases in salary when levels pass-under the 90 and 80 thresholds (ie. 70s rated players should earn significantly less than 80s. And 80s less than 90s).
I'd prefer something more like this: 97 - $21.5m 94 - $21.0m 92 - $20.3m 91 - $19.0m 89 - $15.6m (drop off after the 90 threshold) 86 - $11.5m 84 - $10.1m 81 - $7.2m (drop off toward the early 80s) 79 - $6.1m 76 - $5.0m 72 - $3.9m (sharp decrease from early 80s to early 70s) 68 - $2.6m 64 - $2.3m 59 - $1.4m 53 - $744k Ahh crap I realized I changed the first set of values to wrong ones in a fit of stupid! I corrected the list above, those are the values that the Excel Spreadsheet actually gives me. To be honest, it takes so long to get all the formulae perfect that we might as well just agree on values for each rating, to hell with formulae. What do you guys think about that?
|
|
|
Post by ryanhall1991 - MEM on Jul 25, 2007 22:15:16 GMT
i agree 100%!
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Jul 25, 2007 22:25:00 GMT
97+: $18 mil 93-96: $16 mil 90-92: $14 mil 87-89: $12 mil 84-86: $8 mil 80-83: $7 mil 77-79: $6 mil 74-76: $4 mil 71-73: $3 mil 68-70: $2 mil -67: $1 mil The ones you made were way too expensive Boston
|
|
|
Post by Erik Lassen on Jul 25, 2007 22:29:05 GMT
Problem is that bigs make more money, despite having less skill. And we also have to give "Potential" players more money too. The perfect example of both of these is Darko Milicic.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Jul 25, 2007 22:29:32 GMT
The ones you made were way too expensive Boston You sure tho? I mean, look at the top NBA payrolls (http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries.htm), there's five guys earning over 20million. If a guy is rated over 96, like Garnett or Bryant, shouldn't they reach 20million?
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Jul 25, 2007 22:30:53 GMT
Problem is that bigs make more money, despite having less skill. And we also have to give "Potential" players more money too. The perfect example of both of these is Darko Milicic. I think we perhaps should take this into account too.
|
|
|
Post by ryanhall1991 - MEM on Jul 25, 2007 22:31:21 GMT
i say we do it by rating, but have a seperate one for players under 27 (beginning of prime of one's career) where you get paid slightly more than the older guys for "potential". bigs don't always get paid alot more, so i think that will be fine
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Lakers on Jul 27, 2007 2:53:03 GMT
Would these extensions correlate to the ratings for the current NBA Live or would we have to wait until NBA Live 08 comes out to determine their salaries?
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Jul 27, 2007 8:41:33 GMT
Would these extensions correlate to the ratings for the current NBA Live or would we have to wait until NBA Live 08 comes out to determine their salaries? It would be the current Live 07 ratings we're using. Although, by the time the offseason comes around in this league, Live 08 will already be out and you'll all already know the player ratings... That would remove some of the tactical nature of resigning (ie. you'd know the exact upside/downside of each player)... hmmmm That was a good question, thx Atlanta.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Sept 10, 2007 10:45:20 GMT
It's time that I got on top of this matter!
The thing is, if we're going to have Player Agents in the offseason (anybody want to volunteer?), do we need a contract extension spreadsheet? Because surely the terms will be dictated by the Agents - using real life examples to justify their reasons possibly.
|
|
|
Post by Erik Lassen on Sept 10, 2007 13:03:10 GMT
I will be an agent. I can be the agent for all players expiring in the Central Division if you want?
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Sept 10, 2007 13:28:23 GMT
I will be an agent. I can be the agent for all players expiring in the Central Division if you want? That'd be cool. But if you're an Agent you'll be presiding over contracts probably as far away from your own division as possible, because they're your closest competitors.
|
|
|
Post by redstorm177 on Sept 10, 2007 14:16:56 GMT
I'd be willing to be a player agent for a division or however you decide to break things up. I have experience as being the player agent for an entire league but that sucked osterich balls since it was a whole lot of work. Only a division or two should be fun though since it won't be much work at all and I'm still participating as a team.
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Sept 10, 2007 17:26:58 GMT
Yea I could do it too. I have a suggestion of having possibly a max contract for free agents just so some contracts dont get to high. Free agents signing with teams should be based more on GMs ability to persuade or pitch their organization to the players agent & convince them why their team is the right place for their client not just whatever team has the most money to offer. In another league Im in we just did free agency w/ player agents & had a max contract of $15 mil & everything seemed to work out really well. Let me know what u guys think
|
|
|
Post by Erik Lassen on Sept 10, 2007 19:48:40 GMT
Alright I'll do something out west then. I'll take the Northwest if that's ok. Cause Utah can't do that one.
|
|