#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

I was talking with some other GM's about how to get some more action in the league. Many ideas were floated, and many were bad, but I had one I wanted to toss out that seemed to get some traction.

To set the table, I want to let you know the underlying principle I'm trying to hold to. John Rawls, a political philosopher, says that inequities in society are ok when they are arranged in a way that benefits the least advantaged in society. He also specifies that, roughly speaking, the society has to be arranged so that everyone entering the society is not systematically disadvantaged.

This led me to the amnesty idea. To be clear, this is just a rough idea; I'm sure you guys can get to a better one from it.

I'll give the rough idea, with details and discussion to follow.



Basic idea: Playoff teams can cut a player with no ill-cap effects, then lottery teams can bid on that player as a free agent.




For playoff teams:

P1) Every playoff team can amnesty one player from their playoff roster following their playoff exit, except for Conference Champions.

P2) The amnesty completely removes one player and their entire salary from the teams' books.

P3-1) The amnesty can not be used on any player who was signed to a 5 year deal, no matter how much time is left on the deal. (old version of this rule)

P3-2) The amnesty can not be used on any player who was signed to a 5 year deal, or a deal with raises exceeding 4.5%, or a matched RFA, or an extension no matter how much time is left on the deal. In other words, only open market contracts can be amnestied. (this is an updated rule proposal based on ensuing conversation).

P4) The amnesty can not be used on a player at the end of the first year of his deal.

P5) A team that uses the the amnesty on a player can not appear on that team's roster until after the following season.

P6) A team can not amnesty a player on the last year of his contract. (forgot to add this before, in other words, you can only amnesty a player after his second or third season of a contract, and maybe not then.)



For lottery teams:

L1) Amnestied players enter the Amnestied Player Pool (APP) as free agents.

L2) An APP Free Agency (AFA) is held for lottery teams and only lottery teams.

L3) AFA is held after RFA, before UFA.

L4) AFA operates just like UFA, but with a reduced bidder pool.

L5) Any player in the APP not signed to a team after APP FA enters UFA subject to P5).



The idea as certain costs and benefits:

C1) This is extra work for the staff in terms of an extra FA round, some extra tracking of first year deals, 5 year max deals, and amnestied players from the prior season. Given the small number of amnesties and that FA signings are recorded on a player's PBSL page, it should not be that bad. A new coordinator can be chosen to handle the duties and give GM's a chance to earn points through league duty.

C2) This has the potential to slow down the offseason. However, it can be done in the existing timeframe. Amnesties can take place during the Finals, since Conference Champions do not get an amnesty. Given the small scale of AFA, it can be done in the day between RFA and UFA. So, it can be done in the same length offseason while adding some excitement.



B1) Teams who build for the playoffs can shed some some salary to help remain on top, avoid some tax, or accelerate their rebuild as a reward, if they choose. However, teams can not cut an expiring player early just to avoid tax. (edited this when added P6))

B2) Lottery teams gets an extra boost through AFA to help them rebuild faster, provided they have managed their cap well.

B3) The smaller pool of AFA has to possible benefit of landing any good players on previously bad teams at a little discount.

B4) Players on big contracts who take a step back can be set to a more reasonable deal more quickly, creating a larger number of more moderately priced contracts for players on the open market, benefiting all teams in time.

B5) Teams trying to improve can take a little more salary risk because of the amnesty, but can't be reckless (since deals can't be amnestied in their first season) and does not favor those who can offer 5 year deals, so it encourages engaging in deals and trying to win.

B6) Teams who build poorly are not as likely to benefit since some success is required to gain the amnesty, so the poorest GM'ing is not systematically rewarded.

B7) Rebuilding can be accomplished in part with winning, increasing competitiveness.

B8) Winning can help eliminate "mistakes" and bad luck, reducing the tendency for bad moves to follow bad moves.



There may be more, but I'll stop here and let you guys ponder it. I hope, at the least, I spark some good conversation about the league.

Thanks for reading.

(note, this post was updated 7/24/2015)

I honestly forgot a majority of the details to this when we were all together, but very happy someone did remember

This is a great idea in my opinion. When I get home I will see if I can think of any pros and cons to this, but I really lkke the amnesty concept.

Sent from Tani via muh dik

It's a great idea, and I really love all the thought put into it.

A big con to this is something I see that people could exploit. That is FAs who are 28/29 make up majority of our free agency. When they hit that age of 30/31 people know that there is a sharp decline in skills. So my fear is that people know and will exploit resigning their own players to 3 or 4 year deals, overpaying them to keep them and go over the cap for a season or 2, then shed them at age of 30/31 when they are a semi-poopy player facing another TC that will make them poopier.

Not to say all players will be poopy. And not to say that everyone would do this. But it could be something that may help winning teams stay competitive and then have little reprocussion for signing bad contracts, knowing they can just cut them in year 2 or 3 of the 3 or 4 (overpay) deal.

I like this. I think the fact that only one player can be amnestied a year will hopefully prevent some of what Doug is concerned about.

In response to Doug's point, maybe you could make a rule to help that. Maybe you can't amnesty another player until that player's contract you amnestied would've run out. Or you can only use an amnesty once every other season you make the playoffs or every 3rd season you make the playoffs. But it's a fascinating idea and one we definitely should look into more.

Addressing the contract exploit: Alter the 5 year rule... If you sign a player to a contract he could not get on the open market, he can never be amnestied. So, larger raises could be included. If a guy reups on a fair market max, that is not taking advantage, it's good planning to have "home court."

This was the idea of the 5y rule, but it is perhaps better implemented by targeting any contract not available on the open market.

Bowtothebill23 wrote:In response to Doug's point, maybe you could make a rule to help that. Maybe you can't amnesty another player until that player's contract you amnestied would've run out. Or you can only use an amnesty once every other season you make the playoffs or every 3rd season you make the playoffs. But it's a fascinating idea and one we definitely should look into more.

I have been mixed feelings on this because it has the potential to overpay a player and then cut him at no cost. But the idea of not being able to amnesty until that original contract runs out is a huge deterrent for those moves. I like the addition of this option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, I want to say upfront that, if this comes to pass, I am willing not to be amnesty eligible the first year if someone feels this is self-serving. I think it is the basis of good idea for the league, and I have no care for direct benefit to me.

I dont think anyone is looking at a particular team and saying they would use this to their benefit, but when new rules or options are made us GMs like to push it to its limit to get the most benefit.

I like the idea bow threw out about "original amnesty"

Sent via Morse code

The idea is for teams to benefit and for the league to benefit. So, benefits are not bad. The question is if it accomplishes goals the league wants in a meaningful way, an implementable way, and effective way, and an entertaining way.

As I noted above, you can make the rule that a contract can not be amnestied if it is not an open market contract.

You can also try to restrict the number of amnesties, but the number is already quite low. The idea is kind based on playoff teams suffering under a bad contract getting relief while giving (well-managed) lottery teams first crack at a few favorable contracts. Once on those teams, those favorable contracts may make their way to other teams via trade. If the player is not picked up, the market resets the players rate.

It is just as much about achieving more granularity in player contracts as anything else.

We may want to add that teams who fail to pay their tax lose the amnesty.

This is a hugely complex solution looking for a problem.

It's only been the last couple of seasons that we've even had more than 1 or 2 teams entering Free Agency *without* max money to throw around.

The reason the Free Agency pool is so shallow year after year is RFA. When players aren't allowed to truly hit the open market until 9 years after being drafted (so an 18-year old draftee will be 27 before he ever comes on the open market) - and possibly "never" if they elect to sign an extension following their big payday (see also: Hardaway, Penny), you will have a crappy FA pool.

The solution is NOT amnesty. The solution is to get these players to the open market while still in their primes. Will post ideas later - no time now.

WigNosy wrote:This is a hugely complex solution looking for a problem.

It's only been the last couple of seasons that we've even had more than 1 or 2 teams entering Free Agency *without* max money to throw around.

The reason the Free Agency pool is so shallow year after year is RFA. When players aren't allowed to truly hit the open market until 9 years after being drafted (so an 18-year old draftee will be 27 before he ever comes on the open market) - and possibly "never" if they elect to sign an extension following their big payday (see also: Hardaway, Penny), you will have a crappy FA pool.

The solution is NOT amnesty. The solution is to get these players to the open market while still in their primes.Will post ideas later - no time now.

If that's the case, then maybe we should shorten the length of RFA deals. 4-year supermaxes replace 5-year ones, and can only be offered to RFAs who spent last season on one's roster. The no-trade clause is also upped to two seasons for a supermax (to make teams a bit more hesitant to give supers to those who haven't quite earned it, like Dirk and Rashard). Everybody else can only offer up to a 3-year max (or make 3-year deals the max length across the board, with only the 12.5% increase separating the incumbent teams from the other bidders). We've already seen one guy turn down the supermax for a shorter max (Big Z), maybe this would shake things up a bit more. 1-year deals can now be offered (to get some of these mid/low-level guys moving), but only up to half of the max can be offered, to prevent teams from stealing away top guys on 1-year maxes.

The complexity is overstated, as is the simplicity of changing RFA.

Contacts from one group become free agents, with one small additional bidding period added. That is the essence of amnesty.

Reducing RFA is off-topic, but if you do that, you directly and specifically reduce the value of draft picks, for better or worse at least. We can discuss the separate suggestion and separate problem in a separate thread.

I like it

You think this is a min or max league now. Wait until GMs can void max contracts. lol

I vote no on amnesty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I updated the proposal based on the ensuing conversation . . . which is one reason this was posed.

Let's walk through an example.

Last season, the following teams would have gotten an amnesty:

Wizards, Raptors, Hornets, Bulls, 76'ers, Pistons, Celtics, Lakers, Jazz, Trailblazers, Warriors, Supersonics, Kinds, Spurs.

And the following teams would not have gotten an amnesty:

Hawks, Mavericks, Heat, Nets, Pacers, Magic, Knicks, Bucks, Cavaliers, Clippers, Grizzlies, Timberwolves, Suns, Rockets, Nuggets.


Walking through the teams, and you may come to another conclusion, the likely amnesty considerations would be:

Wizards: Stackhouse (he picked up Mills' option, but maybe him; note, Stackhouse was traded so maybe not even Stackhouse)

Raptors: Mashburn (he kept Ratliff, and Mashburn has been traded.)

Hornets: Popeye Jones or Davis Wesley (Jones was traded)

Bulls: None

Sixers: Dampier

Pistons: None

Celtics: Phills

Lakers: None

Jazz: None

Trailblazers: None

Warriors: None

Supersonics: None

Kings: None

Spurs: None


So, of 14 possible candidates, maybe 5 amnesties happen? Wizards, Hornets, Raptors, Sixers, Celtics. Note, I did not go back in time to see these guys were restricted or whatever, as those specifics are fungible. I'm just running through the basic idea.

Each of those teams is ramping up or made a nice push last year. Each of the candidates for amnesty would not necessarily have been amnestied and none is on a crazy deal. Rather, the players are simply overvalued or jamming up the cap when a team's needs are elsewhere.

Looking at these 5 cases (again, you guys may see something different):

Wizards: They were looking to move Mills, and did, but it cost them a pick. The Wolves certainly benefited from holding back their cap space, but a chance to bid on Mills on a more reasonable deal is a different gamble than a draft pick. Also, the Wizards, a division champ, would have had space to use this season to accelerate their growth.

Raptors: They were slated to start the offseason capped out. They could have traded to improve the roster, or get some space to do some creative stuff or go after non-min free agents to bolster the bench.

Hornets: The Hornets decided to rebuild. They traded their best players to get some picks, but maybe the space to make max offers would have suited this guys better after trying his best to win.

Sixers: The Sixers did a good bit to clear some glut, and they still managed to win. With the amnesty, maybe they play that a little differently, maybe not. Dampier isn't killing them given their salary situation, but he is clearly punting this season. Without Dampier, maybe we have one more competitive team one year sooner, and Dampier is on a more reasonable deal on another team.

Celtics: The Celtics are a respected franchise who is trying to rebuild. Phills' contract is gumming up the works a bit at that price, given that he is almost $10,000,000 more for the next two seasons than the team's second highest salary. Send Phills off to a better contract on a team he can legitimately help, and the Celtics get to take a swing at a bigger free agent . . . or not, their choice.


At any rate, I encourage people to consider what having 3 more competitive teams (looks like in the East mostly, and i'm not counting all 5) from last season's playoff contenders would do for the league, and how these 3-5 contracts would benefit the same number of lottery teams who have tried to get their way into the playoffs. Also, consider just how much extra work this would really entail. Looks like not much, but with decent benefit to a league that is talking about reorganizing conferences for some vague reason that seems to be a hybrid of excitement / fun / kickstart.

We can speculate about how contracts would be offered differently and there being an explosion of max deals, but there are a few angles here. First, you have to win, so you have to get the right players. Second, you can't amnesty the biggest contracts . . . so maybe some deals go DOWN to retain that option, adding to market competition, as well. Third, you have live with a contract for 2 seasons at least. If you offer a guy a market-max to win him and cut him after two seasons at which point he gets signed to a more reasonable deal by a lotto team . . . is that really so bad if it added more competitive teams?

I could go on, but this is a discussion, not a monologue, but I do want to add that there could be a little more management cost in the case that tax teams amnesty low salary guys to avoid tax. In doing so, they may be hurting themselves in the long run if they have no mechanism to add players back, so this also may not be a big problem. It nevertheless also returns players to the player pool and maybe worth the added work given the other benefits.

Kings are honored to be on the list of no amnesties, as we give value contracts to the top players and regret no bid ever made.

Sent via Morse code

I really love this idea. I don't think it's complex at all.

I like it

I like the Idea of amnesty, but amnesty is not just something you throw around for team improvement sake. Amnesty as a lot to do with a team inability to afford players without going into luxury tax, but since we are in a league where we don't deal with the budgeting options in the sim itself, we should more implement the amnesty clause towards a team's soft cap issues.

Meaning we should implement the Amnesty clause, but it should function more as a bail out for teams going into the Season at the soft cap, where they will not be able to participate in UFA, but by landing minimum contracts. Being able to amnesty one contract give those teams a chance to equally participate in UFA.

Now the AFA should be done after the RFA in my opinion, as everyone likes to know what's going on with the RFAs, before making any other move.

When a team Amnesty's a player, it should work something like Waivers. The team picking up the amnestied player, should also be picking up his contract somewhat. But since it will be a bidding process, with the highest bidder can claim the player, it should be in the following conditions:

1- If a player earning 10 mil per season for 2 seasons and the highest bidder is 9 mil, then 9 mil bidder wins, so the team who amnestied the player saves 9 mil, but is penalized for the additional 1 mil for the next 2 seasons, in order to cover the player's contract of 10 mil per season.

2- A player is earning 10 mil per season for the next 2 season and the highest bid is equal to or more than the 10 mil, required to take on the player's full contract, this means the team requesting amnesty is 100% clear of that player's contract and pays no penalties.

3- No AFA bids can exceed the years remaining on the player's current contract. This ensure the player will enter UFA or RFA in the same time frame as expected.

4- A team requesting to amnesty a player's contract, can also bid on this same contract to ensure that the minimum bid is not less than the 10 mil required for him to not get penalize as stated in point 1. Meaning if the player's salary is 10 mil, then the team requesting amnesty can bid $9,999,999 to ensure the next bid is 10 mil or above. If team wins back the player his salary remains as is and he return to his regular duties.

5- league must assign a minimum % which one can bid on an Amnestied player's contract, whether 50%, 60% or 75% of that player's current salary etc...

6- Aside from being penalized GMs should pay a cost to amnesty a players contract. This cost should be significant enough, in points, to cause a GM to think twice before applying for Amnesty.

7- Players receiving no bids according to the guidelines set, then at the end AFA we will consider them as "Amnesty Application Denied" and they return to duty as normal... meaning not because you apply for amnesty means it will actually happen.

So in revision to what I am thinking, Amnesty will not get too crazy, with the various penalties, which can apply. It also mean amnesty can be cancelled out by team bidding on their own player, in fear of being penalized. Players, won in AFA, are set to re-enter UFA/RFA the same time as they were, before being picked up as an AFA. Finally if Amnestied player is not picked up, he does not got to FA, but the team request for amnesty is Denied.

If it is something along these lines I am for Amnesty if not, then I pass.

What is this bidding process and list of penalties intended to accomplish? How is it better suited to those purposes than a limited scope free agency? I understand the process you lay out, but I do not clearly see the net benefits.

I will say that the departure from the original idea is large enough to consider it a separate idea, which I why I want to know the why.

42PhD wrote:What is this bidding process and list of penalties intended to accomplish? How is it better suited to those purposes than a limited scope free agency? I understand the process you lay out, but I do not clearly see the net benefits.

I will say that the departure from the original idea is large enough to consider it a separate idea, which I why I want to know the why.

Because amnesty to me should not be a free for all... just because you ask for amnesty does not mean you should get it . If you just add amnesty as a free for all, all I see is us creating a bigger mess. As with any new rules GMs will find a way to out smart this amnesty clause and make a mess. I feel the bidding more like as we do for RFA, but for all teams to participate, makes it more challenging, So I am saying if you ask for amnesty on a 10 mil contract player, and in AFA the player only gets pick up for 8 mil, then the 8 mil is amnestied from your team's cap, but since you could not dump his full salary you will pay him his additional 2 mil and be relieved of the 8 mil. So You got 8 mil to spend.

I went this way as Amnesty is normally a relief tied to luxury taxes, but I don't see how to link it to the Luxury Tax in this league. All in all I don't think Amnesty should be Free and it should be something difficult to get. In fact my process says if you can help yourself get out the shit you created, then amnesty is granted and if you can't then hold on to your shit.