Commisioner's Corner : Rule Breaking Edition

[MexicanMamba]

Word Count: 2009

 

Commisioner’s Corner

 

The inner workings of the league have changed yet again.  Obviously, it was a big loss when Josh decided to step down, he did a lot for the league and it likely would not have continued if he had not kept pushing forward as commissioner for as long as he did.  When he needed to step down, I remember thinking that may be the end of things because I had no interest in trying to take over and I could not think of anyone that I felt would want to step in.  Ryan would come to me soon after I had that internal debate and asked if I wanted to be a co-commissioner.  I still had reservations.  Honestly, I did not want to turn a hobby into a chore and I really don’t care about being in charge.  As a team, the league moved along just fine and I got more comfortable in the aspects that I did not think I’d grab a hold of right away.  Unfortunately for me, Ryan’s life also became more hectic and he also had to step away.  As hesitant as I had been about wanting all the responsibility on my shoulders for things, I also did not want Ryan (or anyone) to feel like they HAD to take on more of a role than they could.  This whole thing should be fun, or at least resembling fun.  I genuinely had no idea how it would all work out (still don’t) but here we are, with me being the primary figure head around here.  Thankfully Ryan, Andy and Josh still have my back to help with things whenever they can, so I am not a solo act. 

 

So, why the long introduction?  Just as a primer before stating that to this point I had not even considered rocking the boat too much.  Josh had things running smoothly, and I have been comfortable with the status quo.  I also still don’t feel in-charge, if I’m perfectly honest.  Hell, sometimes I still feel like the new guy around here even though it’s been well over 2 years since I first joined.  Where the Frye did the time go!?  Anyways, the recent 5-on-5 (or 7-on-5?) that I was involved with had a question about things everyone would like to see implemented.  When I first answered the 5-on-5 questions, I didn’t even bother much with that, instead just making a joke of it.  Reading the genuine responses from people made me consider their thoughts and my own. 

 

In this article I am going to talk about several possible rule changes which we could put into effect.  I’ll give the pros and cons of them, as I see it.  I will propose the exact format of these changes if I have them, or just general thoughts if I do not have them nailed down just yet.  Plus, whatever other things pop into my head as I am writing. 

 

I encourage everyone to read this and I invite conversation/discussion either below here in the comments or in a PM if you’d rather talk about these things privately.  If any possible rule change(s) get real traction and support from folks, I am finally ready to either put them up for a vote or simply implement them if it appears to be unanimous. 

 

Let’s begin!

 

1.  Elimination of Restricted Free Agency

 

RFA is an event that is not naturally in the off-season steps of the computer program that we use to create our results for the league.  It takes some work by the commissioner(s) to get it right and input into the game.  So, not having to do all of that would take one task away from the folks (Oh, I guess that’s me) having to run things.  RFA also is the primary home of the dreaded poison pill contracts.  People will put in max bids or close to it, on players they may not necessarily LOVE just to make other GMs make a decision, and oftentimes aren’t even interested in engaging in sign-and-trade scenarios.  So, obviously cutting RFA would do a lot to cut down on this issue.  Obviously, a major drawback on cutting RFA out is that we lose full control over players after year 4, because we are allowing them to hit the open market.  The counter-balance to that is that GMs would have that player’s bird rights and can offer 5-year extensions without needing to also give them a max contract if you wanted to do so.  There is another method that can be used to help with the idea of losing full control over your player after year 4, but that will be explored further in my next potential rule change, so, more on that later!

 

2. In-season Re-signings

 

I have seen this topic come up several times in recent seasons and I think it is one that I am very interested in finding an acceptable way to implement.  I assume the reason that these are not currently in-play in the league is that it makes UFA far less exciting because often the best players, especially the younger ones, just will not hit the open-market anymore.  That’s fair and there is no way around that problem area if we implement this rule change.  However, I also think that if GMs have done well to draft and develop players, they very much should get first crack at re-signing them long-term.  This is what I was referring to as a counter-balance to eliminating RFA in the first topic up above.  You may lose RFA rights, but if this were put in-place at the same time, now you have a shot at keeping your player before that happens. 

 

Now, I do feel like there need to be ground rules in place here.  For one, I think we should only be allowed to re-sign ONE player in-season, per season.  I also think that you only get one attempt at the bid.  So, if you try to low ball your player and they decline your offer, well, that’s it and that player will then go on to hit the open market.  You would still can bid on them that off-season as well, for sure.  I’d be open to further suggestion on how to make this one work, but I am all for it. 

 

3.  Elimination of Player Training

 

I believe that there’s only one person really pushing for this, but I do think it is an interesting discussion to have.  First of all, I have no interest in cutting out ALL training.  I’d still want people to be able to do foul training and perhaps some of the athletic traits (QKN, STR, JMP, STA).  I also think training potentials for players if more than fair, because in basketball, players can focus on their skills individually and get better.  Cutting out the training of current attributes is more of what I’d be open to hearing an argument for.  Let TC do it’s work there, and your player gets better or doesn’t, but allow GMs to spend their points on what the future might hold for those players.  These are my personal feelings on this item though.  I am perfectly happy with things staying as they are in regard to training, so I cannot go too detailed into what it would or wouldn’t look like.  However, I am here to really listen to see if there is even a push for training reform and if you have specific ideas, drop them here or message me and let’s rap. 

 

4.  Insurance Adjustments

 

Another topic of discussion has been changing insurance.  I do not believe I have seen anyone suggest that we do away with it all together, and I cannot think of an argument that would move me to do so, but I am open to a shift in how its done.  Currently we have 3 insurance slots for TC which will restore potential ratings.  If we cut back on allowing player training, I could see putting in a charge for insuring players.  Perhaps 10 points for the first three players, and then 20 points for every player you chose to insure after that.  This would obviously cut into point banks, but allow teams that wanted to, to insure more than 3.  Right now, having a super young team can be problematic because of the volatile nature of TC and this would give people a chance to remedy that … if they can afford to.  There is a version of this which could be implemented as well where you still get 3 free slots, but then must pay an even higher amount to keep anything beyond that.  Say, 30 points to insure players 4+.  I even toyed with the idea of paying a HIGHER amount (50? if someone chose) to also be able to restore CURRENTS for ONE player, but that might be getting too deep into the woods. 

 

5. Trade Format

 

This one here should be relatively simple and there’s two of them that I am interested in possibly changing. 

Re-instating the 5-asset limit on trades (besides points)!

Some of these deals do get a bit messy and counting roster spaces can get silly and annoying. 

Launching the ability to do 4-Team trades!

The computer program allows them, and I think they MIGHT be fun.  Could be weird that I just wrote that I may want to eliminate something that gets messy (5-asset limits) and then go right into how I wouldn’t mind letting teams do 4-team trades … but, hell, I don’t always have to be logical.  This one would be more about engagement and fun.  I don’t know, talk to me!

 

6.  Debt Forgiveness

 

And lastly, the always entertaining debate about forgiving tax debt.  It gets brought up but I never can tell if GMs are genuinely interested in creating guidelines for this or its just discussion for discussion’s sake.  But here it is, let’s really decide if we need to explore it.  If a team genuinely is working hard at cutting down its debt, I am willing to work with that team.  I have no interest in helping teams who sit back and just wait for a timer to go off while their tax resets however.  The issue becomes then, what are the parameters?  Let me throw out an idea for the hell of it.  What if there are milestones a team has to hit?  Like, each season they have to hit a certain percentage of their debt in point collection and if they do hit those milestones for a set number of consecutive seasons, they can have their debt forgiven? And along the way, they can earn small things back as well.  For instance:

 

10 Seasons of hitting all milestones and you can be tax forgiven.

 

After 5 seasons, you can bid on your own RFAs or perform in-season re-signings (if we implement it)

 

After 7 seasons, you can use MLE

 

After 10 seasons, slate clean and you can get back to normal but also have to give up your next 1st round pick. 

 

I just came up with this idea on the fly, so I am sure there are ton of holes in it, but if there’s interest maybe we can actually hammer out the details together. 

 

 

 

For now, that is all that I have in the ole brain to share with all of you.  Like I said above, I am fine with not rocking the boat and we can certainly keep everything status quo if we’re all most comfortable with that.  If not, and change could be a good thing, here is everyone’s opportunity to chime in and see if we need to put some things up for a vote!  I know not a lot of folks actually read these articles but hopefully you can spare some of your time and get involved here.  I’m still actively learning how best to do this job the most comfortably for ME, so please continue to bear with me.  Look forward to seeing ya’ll in the comments!

 

Mamba-Commish, OUT!

[greepleairport]

First, I wouldn't mind putting all these to a vote without a discussion. I think it's a good idea to shake things up a bit, or see if the overall active GM community feels a yay or nay on these.

1 + 2
First, I was nervous about eliminating RFA mostly due to losing rights to people you built from the ground up. But if we allow in-season re-signings on RFAs, I think that is an acceptable alternative, though I don't understand limiting one per season if you have multiple players eligible for RFA.

3
Not opposed to modification of Player Training, but fully opposed to eliminating it.

4
Charging for insurance works for me, but I think the numbers are a bit expensive. 5pts to insure 3, additional 10 for a 4th, 15 for a 5th, etc

5
Asset limit acceptable, but 3 team trades have been abused already (mostly due to no limit of assets). 3 team trades are advanced, and I think 4 is crazy and only some GMs (read: commishes current or former (correct me if i'm wrong)) will be able to negotiate them.

6
Progressive debt forgiveness makes sense, but I think the real idea here is increasing engagement. If a gm is consistently active despite a huge tax bill, I think forgiving debt based on that GM's merit works for me, i.e. put their debt forgiveness up for a league vote. K100 went nuts with his debt but has remained active and I respect that, but I also think the sting of debt is still important...

[greepleairport]

also +7pts for 'berto

[AngryBanana]

1. I think the current RFA structure is important because it protects the GMs who struggle to keep or sign FAs. I remember I had a run where I got RFAs in back to back seasons that were purple players (He Hor and I think Sneed I think). If it was just straight FA I would have kept those players and the richer get richer while the poorer get poorer. I realize that the GMs in this situation were not exactly a shining example of activeness. None the less if a team that struggles for a few seasons strikes gold and gets a great player just to loose them four years in to a team like the Spurs who always strikes gold, and happen to have cap space that season, I think is a little unfair when we have a current system that will prevent that from happening straight out (they at least have the opportunity to retain the player, or trade for assets in that situation.)

2. From what I understand of talking to the old heads around here. The problem with in season re-sigining is that you run into players signing for way less than they would in the open market. You could effectivley get a player that should get a $60mm contract, for potentially $40mm type situation. I would like to hear again what more senior GM's think on that topic before implementing.

3. Im actually all about the idea of getting rid of paid training for currents.

4. This would be implemented I think if we got rid of paid training for currents to avoid a jump in point banks.

5. I say let the teams capable of trading only be limited by how many the system allows. I highly doubt we will see that many four way trades anyway.

[garbageman]

Mostly, I could go either way on any rule.

1. Aside from TC insurance, RFA is one of the most cumbersome practices from an implementation standpoint in PBSL..especially if you factor in all the manual work Ryan does to get the RFA threads up. Still, I think Charlie's point is important that removing RFA hurts teams that don't have the best standing. I think that poison pill contracts have greatly decreased, and they'll continue to if GMs are more willing to decline a bad contract.

2. I do think that disallowing in season resignings helps UFA stay more interesting. If people want in season resignings, I like Roberto's limit of 1 per year, and I believe when this was talked about before, we only allow resignings on players who request a resigning (via the team's inbox in TV) for the amount that player requested (I think this was an idea talked about in the Wig days). Since I wasn't around when we allowed in season resignings, I don't know the logistics of implementation. This would surely take some fun out of UFA. Another thing we'd have to consider is its effect on tax delinquint teams. Should a tax delinquint team be allowed to resign players? Probably not.

3. I think that if you train someone in a certain area (in real life), it arguably WOULD make them better at it currently, probably more likely than potentially. Overall, though, I might be one of the few people who would be fine with eliminating training completely. I think that's probably the area where having main node access gives you an edge. Once you know how the rating system works (and it's not like it hasn't been shared--INS and 3PS give the biggest gains to overall score, boosting QKN/JMP on guys who are tall for their positions makes them monsters), you can crank out purple players via training.

4. The rule used to be a flat 10 points per insured guy, and I'd be more than happy to go back to that. It'd get pretty expensive to insure 5 guys as it is if you're not making big points as a competing team, and it just generally makes perma-tanking a less attractive option. It forces decisions between protecting your future, boosting your present with training, and respecting the tax. I don't think protecting currents is worth the hassle since most guys that get protected gain in current, and the rest of them will be given the ability to bounce back in future sessions. This means there will be a lot more TC deaths, but we're in era where we've safeguarded ourselves from having to deal with setbacks (like bad TCs). I also think that if we don't have a landscape of so many superstar level players, it'll make the trade market more important, but it's all relative anyway.

5. I didn't know we couldn't already do 4 team trades. I don't see the need for them much, but it seems fine. As for the 5 player/pick thing, not really sure why that's an issue. With the 60-day wait on in-season signings in effect (which I will defend until death), I don't think the trade limit has been (or really can be) abused.

6. I don't think debt forgiveness is really an issue. I'd like all teams to be active, but the ones in tax jail either are active and actively getting out of debt or aren't active and wouldn't be active even if they were out of debt. Think it might be time to open up the Hawks to a new GM unless Louie appears to be actively trying to get out of debt.

[greepleairport]

Once you know how the rating system works (and it's not like it hasn't been shared--INS and 3PS give the biggest gains to overall score, boosting QKN/JMP on guys who are tall for their positions makes them monsters), you can crank out purple players via training.

Is there a post I could be referred to on this? Or is it like, podcast knowledge or chat talk or something?

[garbageman]

Once you know how the rating system works (and it's not like it hasn't been shared--INS and 3PS give the biggest gains to overall score, boosting QKN/JMP on guys who are tall for their positions makes them monsters), you can crank out purple players via training.

Is there a post I could be referred to on this? Or is it like, podcast knowledge or chat talk or something?

It's not all in one place. A lot of it's on podcasts. There was one Wig article about color ratings, but I can't find it

[MexicanMamba]

After chatting with some folks privately and reading here, I'll drop some of my newer thoughts here:

1. As much as I would have liked to use in-season signings as a way to replace the need for RFA because of it lightening the work load for some of us, I agree that it really would hinder the teams that are not at the level of consistently winning right now. Especially early-on, it'd just be an easier avenue for the rich to get richer. So, RFA probably has to stay at this time. Also, not every rookie contract player even asks for an extension and so, hard to really use that as a full RFA replacement.

2. If RFA stays, I see the only way in-season signings Working, if there's even league-wide interest, is with these baseline guidelines (but doesnt mean we couldnt add more):

- Non-rookie contract players
- 1 per season
- 1 bid to get them to sign, otherwise they go to free agency.

3. I'm up for insurance costs, though I'm not sure I want to make it impossible for a GM like K100 to insure any folks as it further (potentially) kills their ability to trade good assets if TC murders them. Yes, punishment is needed if you go to tax hell but not so much that it drives folks completely away. So, my mind is drawn to putting it up for a vote looking something like this:

- 2-3 Free insurance slots (still)
- 15-25 points for each additional slot

By making the spots 4+ higher, you still make insuring a lot of players as much as it'd cost to insure that many at 10 points each.

4. I'm growing more open to getting rid of training in its entirety, especially since we can already insure players. So, I think the vote would be a flat Yes/No on dropping it. I enjoy having it, but could make things more interesting without.

5. Trades ... Im not passionate about either thing, but I'm in for just polling Yes/No on:

- 5 asset limits
- 4 Team trades

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[IamQuailman]

1. RFA is a necessary evil, damned if you do/damned if you don't thing. People who hate having to match a perceived overpay (which is purely based out of an individual's perspective anyway... one man's poison pill is another man's potential #2 option they're willing to pay), but people would also hate if they had to max their player to retain them outright (or let them walk for nothing). At least with RFA, despite all it's outside work required, there is some safety in knowing that you can control your young players destiny for 8-9 years.

2. In-season resignings being on really did kill a UFA pool. And there would be a bunch that would take discounts (and likewise a bunch that ask for way too much). The big thing with in-season resignings is that the game decides who offers to resign. Some teams had 5-6 players offer to re-sign, others had none. So it isn't like you can just pick one of your players and re-sign them for whatever you wanna offer.

3. I'm neither for nor against doing away with currents, although some of these players coming in that are incredibly raw take 6+ seasons to reach any kind of usability at times (stars at the top of the draft, not the y/g or g/g that have a higher floor and lower ceiling and settle in as role players for their careers). Current trainings for them are incredibly important to help expedite the process. What if you limit paid CURRENT trainings to only available to players who are red/orange/yellow current BEFORE training is initiate. No paid currents for Green/Blue. i dont mind keeping the rest of training. I think foul training should be cheaper, actually.

4. Insurance could use a tweak. Pick one free player to insure, then you have to pay to insure beyond that, with each incrementing by 10. Paid Insurance was something you had to put your points into action and made people really consider how they wanted to spend their precious banks. Nowadays people just splooge into their player trainings without ramification (and sometimes dont care about tax too before doing that). I think having paid insurance would curb paid trainings, and in turn would end up being better. In the beginning there were a handful of purple players... now they are a dime a dozen, and thats in large part due to the current paid training system. Having other responsibilities requiring points will help level out things. Scale? 1 insurance free, 2nd 10pts, 3rd 20pts, 4th 30pts, etc. May seem harsh, but thems the breaks

5. Big NO to 4 team trades. Im not a fan of 3-team trades to begin with.

6. Concur with Josh that maybe time to prod louie about the Hawks.

[IamQuailman]

After chatting with some folks privately and reading here, I'll drop some of my newer thoughts here:

1. As much as I would have liked to use in-season signings as a way to replace the need for RFA because of it lightening the work load for some of us, I agree that it really would hinder the teams that are not at the level of consistently winning right now. Especially early-on, it'd just be an easier avenue for the rich to get richer. So, RFA probably has to stay at this time. Also, not every rookie contract player even asks for an extension and so, hard to really use that as a full RFA replacement.

2. If RFA stays, I see the only way in-season signings Working, if there's even league-wide interest, is with these baseline guidelines (but doesnt mean we couldnt add more):

- Non-rookie contract players
- 1 per season
- 1 bid to get them to sign, otherwise they go to free agency.

3. I'm up for insurance costs, though I'm not sure I want to make it impossible for a GM like K100 to insure any folks as it further (potentially) kills their ability to trade good assets if TC murders them. Yes, punishment is needed if you go to tax hell but not so much that it drives folks completely away. So, my mind is drawn to putting it up for a vote looking something like this:

- 2-3 Free insurance slots (still)
- 15-25 points for each additional slot

By making the spots 4+ higher, you still make insuring a lot of players as much as it'd cost to insure that many at 10 points each.

4. I'm growing more open to getting rid of training in its entirety, especially since we can already insure players. So, I think the vote would be a flat Yes/No on dropping it. I enjoy having it, but could make things more interesting without.

5. Trades ... Im not passionate about either thing, but I'm in for just polling Yes/No on:

- 5 asset limits
- 4 Team trades

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Didn't see this before i posted. Sorry if it undercut anything!

[MexicanMamba]

After chatting with some folks privately and reading here, I'll drop some of my newer thoughts here:

1. As much as I would have liked to use in-season signings as a way to replace the need for RFA because of it lightening the work load for some of us, I agree that it really would hinder the teams that are not at the level of consistently winning right now. Especially early-on, it'd just be an easier avenue for the rich to get richer. So, RFA probably has to stay at this time. Also, not every rookie contract player even asks for an extension and so, hard to really use that as a full RFA replacement.

2. If RFA stays, I see the only way in-season signings Working, if there's even league-wide interest, is with these baseline guidelines (but doesnt mean we couldnt add more):

- Non-rookie contract players
- 1 per season
- 1 bid to get them to sign, otherwise they go to free agency.

3. I'm up for insurance costs, though I'm not sure I want to make it impossible for a GM like K100 to insure any folks as it further (potentially) kills their ability to trade good assets if TC murders them. Yes, punishment is needed if you go to tax hell but not so much that it drives folks completely away. So, my mind is drawn to putting it up for a vote looking something like this:

- 2-3 Free insurance slots (still)
- 15-25 points for each additional slot

By making the spots 4+ higher, you still make insuring a lot of players as much as it'd cost to insure that many at 10 points each.

4. I'm growing more open to getting rid of training in its entirety, especially since we can already insure players. So, I think the vote would be a flat Yes/No on dropping it. I enjoy having it, but could make things more interesting without.

5. Trades ... Im not passionate about either thing, but I'm in for just polling Yes/No on:

- 5 asset limits
- 4 Team trades

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Didn't see this before i posted. Sorry if it undercut anything!

Nah, all good. I appreciate the discussion brother.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[greepleairport]

3. ... some of these players coming in that are incredibly raw take 6+ seasons to reach any kind of usability at times

this

[drkavarga]

1. Keep RFA, it's working
2. In season re-signings sounds good, I like it
3. Paid player training is trash, it needs to go
4. Keep insurance the same, it's working but if you get rid of it also eliminate paid trainings too
5. Limit the amount of trades teams can make in a season to 3
6. Keep the tax debt but make it harder for them to pay off, it's too easy to get points and eliminate trading points too while I'm on that

[drkavarga]

For my full thoughts on the rules they're all on this media post...

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11170

[TheSyndicate]

One of the reasons we ditched in-season signings is that it’s totally random in which players even offer (it’s not like every player on every team COULD receive an offer). So just imagine, you have a scenario where the best players on the best teams want to re-sign for a discount while the best players on the worst teams can’t even try. Always open to discussion, but that was part of the original rationale was the inherent unfairness in the distribution of possibility. Just wanted to share!