#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

Posting for @greepleairport since the forum isn't letting him post.

greepleairport wrote:Piggybacking off a chat I had with @LazyTitanSmash, I agree that we could take a look at overhauling the tax system.

The NBA has just overhauled their tax to penalize teams like my Warriors for building super teams. Moving forward, they will have to pay such a premium that it behooved them to make a choice between the future and present (even though saying goodbye to Poole was not the worst thing in the world...).

For a start, I suggest that we half the tax penalty as is for the first 2 years, and double the tax as is for 3rd yr repeater tax and triple for 4th yr repeater tax.

The main goal here is to encourage teams to swing big in developing a super good team quickly - especially newer teams that have smaller point banks - and forcing teams who have built dynastic teams to pay a serious premium for them, or incentivize diversifying talent throughout the league by getting out of the repeater tax.

At a minimum I think it is a worthy discussion...

As a guy who is balls deep in tax issues, I feel like this might be a good reference:

I don't think it will matter if you adjust the tax in the way you're suggesting, and I'm not upset about it.
My observation is that there are a hand full of GM's playing this game on another level, yourself included.
The rest of us are stung quite hard enough by the tax that already exists, and the ones who play to win will find different tactics on how to dance.
If the game becomes rotating contracts, you'll find a way to do it.
And everybody will find the new trend, and compete to do it better than everyone else.
That's the name of the game.
As much as I heard about the next Lake Show dynasty, I'm not certain the Mamba can even realistically think about so much as a three peat. It's getting pretty competitive very fast.
I'm just taking it as a learning lesson that I got myself in tax trouble trying to compete with a half-hearted effort.
If I want to compete, I'll have to get active in the forums to keep up with the tax toll.
If not, I shouldn't be surprised if the regular crew takes turns winning ships.

So basically, I'm just saying, it ain't broke, nobody is above being shocked out the tournament, and you gotta really be in it to win it.

Congratulations to you again, while you're still the reigning champ.
You shot yo shit boy!

No matter what the state of the rules is, a CHAMP is a CHAMP.

Heard, @Mike Lowry, and thank you. I was hoping to encourage @LazyTitanSmash to jump in and share his thoughts but he might be dad'ing too hard in the offseason this year. But what I said, I think he said it better when we were talking. I was convinced enough to bring it up.

I think we should raise the tax on 3 and 4 repeaters. I argue that forcing teams to rebuild sooner makes for a better game. One of the best parts of the game is putting together a killer team. The problem is that once you put together that super team, you are not motivated to break it up. So GMs just sit on their killer team. Increasing taxes on year 3 and 4 repeaters would force them into rebuild mode sooner. Instead of going into 3rd and 4th-year repeater statues, teams would trade more players, and the dynasty would likely be shorter.

There are too many points available. Teams that go into years 3 and 4 should not have enough points to pay their taxes and still be able to train players. It doesn't make sense that a team can pay 3rd-year repeater taxes and train young players. Being able to do both significantly contributes to being dominant and never having to go into tanking mode. Everyone should have to tank at some point. Young talent should primarily come through the draft, not training by teams that are 3rd or 4th-year tax repeaters.

The solution is simple. Significantly increase taxes for year 3 and 4 repeaters. Implementing it in a few seasons would make it fair for everyone.

I'll preface this by saying that how I personally feel doesn't necessarily impact possible changes. If it seems there's a league-wide craving for any change, I always look into it.

That being said, no, I'm not in the camp of feeling like we need to make tax penalties harsher.

The only major dynasty we've seen maintain their series of players and dominate is the recent Pistons. Josh has won many titles but often did it with a lot of moving and shaking. Carlos rotated role players around Yandell and company. I've had a nice run but 0 titles so far to show for it.

Would this kind of threat of tax jumps even have the desired impact? Teams have to be willing to trade for guys before teams can sell off. I offered up three of my quality players this past off-season, for instance, in different ways, but no one was willing to really engage. So, in a similar scenario under new rules, we're asking a GM to either give good players away or go into crazy tax hell simply because they couldn't find trade partners.

As the commish, I want to encourage more active people, not put in so many restrictive rules that put more GMs in position to not be able to engage with the game at full capacity.

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

I pretty much try to avoid year 3 and especially year 4 tax as it is. I'd be worried about teams that aren't quite tax savvy yet getting decimated if they ran into a higher tax structure. Like, the Heat probably weren't TRYING to go all out with this team to the point where they wanted to be in the tax. If this was implemented, the Heat would be in tax jail for a looooong time. I don't think this proposition would change my strategy much, but I can see it getting teams in deep trouble that they might not come back from.

I'd also add: Since Scott finished his championship run we've had three different champions in that span with a solid shot at getting a 4th this season (since 2 of those 3 are out or on the brink). If parity is the goal, we're getting that right now.

Now, bringing up the points thing folks can accumulate is a very different subject. I'm all about giving people opportunities to earn. However, of course I am, I'm one of the people who are able to fully engage and write articles and all of the other avenues of earning points.

Cutting back on that stuff is something I'd be far more willing to work on (and it's way easier to do ... just stop doing Town Hall and Sim Vegas or charge points to play them again).

If you wanna know how I managed to build my point bank though:

I took a couple seasons to be a good (but not a championship level) squad while being under the tax threshold to stack cash up. I grinded out articles and all the extra stuff. Then I got into the tax and kept grinding while obviously also winning big.

I dont think we should be punishing good bookkeeping.

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

Fair enough folks. I think there's a fair amount of compelling arguments deterring this from being compelling enough for a vote. Thanks for the dialogue!

MexicanMamba wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 7:03 pm I'll preface this by saying that how I personally feel doesn't necessarily impact possible changes. If it seems there's a league-wide craving for any change, I always look into it.

That being said, no, I'm not in the camp of feeling like we need to make tax penalties harsher.

The only major dynasty we've seen maintain their series of players and dominate is the recent Pistons. Josh has won many titles but often did it with a lot of moving and shaking. Carlos rotated role players around Yandell and company. I've had a nice run but 0 titles so far to show for it.

Would this kind of threat of tax jumps even have the desired impact? Teams have to be willing to trade for guys before teams can sell off. I offered up three of my quality players this past off-season, for instance, in different ways, but no one was willing to really engage. So, in a similar scenario under new rules, we're asking a GM to either give good players away or go into crazy tax hell simply because they couldn't find trade partners.

As the commish, I want to encourage more active people, not put in so many restrictive rules that put more GMs in position to not be able to engage with the game at full capacity.

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

I cannot emphasize the bolded portion enough here. Some GMs are not looking for lopsided returns for star players. But it just seems that maybe some GMs are afraid to make a move after maybe getting burned in the past, or maybe a newer GM is still trying to learn the ropes before making a big jump to compete. I have 2 players available immediately on high dollar (relatively shorter) deals that were both top 9 in ppg (one was top 5 rpb)... and getting barely any interest from GMs.

We complain about dynasties etc, but if you wanna break up a team, put your money where your mouth is, sack up, and make an offer to break them up. Even the best GMs in this league are open to negotiations on ALL players on their rosters. Everyone has a price. Some repeatedly lotto teams have the ammunition to get some of those players. Living in the lotto for seasons and waiting for these sometimes 6-7 year developmental players will never get you anywhere... by the time they finally are worth a damn, they are about to be looking for that 3rd contract.

IamQuailman wrote: Mon Jul 24, 2023 9:37 am

MexicanMamba wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 7:03 pm I'll preface this by saying that how I personally feel doesn't necessarily impact possible changes. If it seems there's a league-wide craving for any change, I always look into it.

That being said, no, I'm not in the camp of feeling like we need to make tax penalties harsher.

The only major dynasty we've seen maintain their series of players and dominate is the recent Pistons. Josh has won many titles but often did it with a lot of moving and shaking. Carlos rotated role players around Yandell and company. I've had a nice run but 0 titles so far to show for it.

Would this kind of threat of tax jumps even have the desired impact? Teams have to be willing to trade for guys before teams can sell off. I offered up three of my quality players this past off-season, for instance, in different ways, but no one was willing to really engage. So, in a similar scenario under new rules, we're asking a GM to either give good players away or go into crazy tax hell simply because they couldn't find trade partners.

As the commish, I want to encourage more active people, not put in so many restrictive rules that put more GMs in position to not be able to engage with the game at full capacity.

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

I cannot emphasize the bolded portion enough here. Some GMs are not looking for lopsided returns for star players. But it just seems that maybe some GMs are afraid to make a move after maybe getting burned in the past, or maybe a newer GM is still trying to learn the ropes before making a big jump to compete. I have 2 players available immediately on high dollar (relatively shorter) deals that were both top 9 in ppg (one was top 5 rpb)... and getting barely any interest from GMs.

We complain about dynasties etc, but if you wanna break up a team, put your money where your mouth is, sack up, and make an offer to break them up. Even the best GMs in this league are open to negotiations on ALL players on their rosters. Everyone has a price. Some repeatedly lotto teams have the ammunition to get some of those players. Living in the lotto for seasons and waiting for these sometimes 6-7 year developmental players will never get you anywhere... by the time they finally are worth a damn, they are about to be looking for that 3rd contract.

What if we had a separate tax that only reset repeater years every time someone traded with Doug?