#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

Was talking with NOLa about this... we only have this cap because it was implemented by AD234MVP in the previous league and that carried over. Why can't this be removed?

Only reason it wasn’t done 8 seasons ago was that I suggested it...sensing some sort of pattern here...

ANYWAYZ, i think my idea is a good one, but I would be open to evolving MY idea into more of one raising the cap to 20-25?

I heard Raby say 25 seemed like a reasonable cap, and while I disagree, I thought it should be posted up here.

ballsohard wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:00 pm I definitely don’t think it should be removed entirely. You can send cash considerations in the nba up to a set amount. There’s no reason a team like the suns should have another advantage bc they lucked out into a op who is in turn a cash cow for them. Maybe 15-20 points could be nice ?

But now that i realize Ryan wrote it and i have an overwhelming bias against him, i'm going to still vote no (bandit)

Besides the points that were brought up in the previous discussion of removing the points cap on trades worrying that teams would be able to outright "buy stars for points," from my point of view, the cap is in place to simulate the NBA's restriction on the amount of "cash considerations" that can be included in a trade. See http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q98 - the reason the amount of points doesn't "inflate" the way in-game salaries do is that the number of points awarded for stuff per season ALSO doesn't inflate the way salaries do. In other words, points-as-cash already have inflation baked into them.

WigNosy wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:40 pm Besides the points that were brought up in the previous discussion of removing the points cap on trades worrying that teams would be able to outright "buy stars for points," from my point of view, the cap is in place to simulate the NBA's restriction on the amount of "cash considerations" that can be included in a trade. See http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q98 - the reason the amount of points doesn't "inflate" the way in-game salaries do is that the number of points awarded for stuff per season ALSO doesn't inflate the way salaries do. In other words, points-as-cash already have inflation baked into them.

True, UNLESS that inflation was the byproduct of a change in the points system economy (of which we've had several in league history, the most recent being the changes to the lux-tax apron, training criteria, insurance changes, etc.) All of these things change the relative value of a 'point' which would make regular examinations reasonable, imho.

WigNosy wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:40 pm Besides the points that were brought up in the previous discussion of removing the points cap on trades worrying that teams would be able to outright "buy stars for points," from my point of view, the cap is in place to simulate the NBA's restriction on the amount of "cash considerations" that can be included in a trade. See http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q98 - the reason the amount of points doesn't "inflate" the way in-game salaries do is that the number of points awarded for stuff per season ALSO doesn't inflate the way salaries do. In other words, points-as-cash already have inflation baked into them.

Let's talk about this inflation because its a topic i brought up in skype and i think it's a huge point.

I agree with the premise but i think it's hard to say points haven';t inflated since we put this rule I completely agree about the point limit and it's purpose. So let's just talk about point inflation. I agree that a year by year inflation of points doesn't happen and therefore is unnecessary when we talk about trading points. But i do think there's another discussion that can be had that points HAVE seen inflation or at least a volume increase since inception of this league and also this rule. We've had many changes to earning points, spending points, and, of course the fining of points.

Examples:
Free Insurance
The amount of points that can be earned for media increased to 25
The amount of points earned for jobs
Sim Vegas points handed out has increased
Points for participation and team earnings has changed
The apron on the luxury tax allows more teams to stay under the tax therefore keeping more points

Now i also can say, although points are more readily available now, the "value" of points may never be higher in the trading world and the need for them in training is higher than ever. Which is why i think this is an interesting point. With that being said, i really dont really think this will have a huge impact on the league because i think people are being a lot more "point pinching" these days.

TheSyndicate wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 11:47 am I heard Raby say 25 seemed like a reasonable cap, and while I disagree, I thought it should be posted up here.

Lies.

Okay, those who want to talk inflation, I'll bite.

The NBA's number is a little over $5 million on a cap of about $100 million. In round numbers, we're looking at 5% of the cap.

The salary cap is roughly 50% of basketball related income. In other words, the players earn half, the owners (GMs) earn half. In other words, owner earnings = player earnings.

So I would submit to you that the expected annual points earnings for a GM correspond to the "owner earnings." And this doesn't count points earned from "trades" as that's taking cash from some other owner's pocket, not earning them.

So we should allow owners to spend 5% of their annual possible points earned in a single trade. 10 points is 5% of 200 points. NOBODY earns 200 points in a season. In a best-case scenario, a season in which you earned (not traded for) 100 points would be amazing. So what we really should be doing is talking about LOWERING the point threshold in trades to 5 points or so.

WigNosy wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:54 pm Okay, those who want to talk inflation, I'll bite.

The NBA's number is a little over $5 million on a cap of about $100 million. In round numbers, we're looking at 5% of the cap.

The salary cap is roughly 50% of basketball related income. In other words, the players earn half, the owners (GMs) earn half. In other words, owner earnings = player earnings.

So I would submit to you that the expected annual points earnings for a GM correspond to the "owner earnings." And this doesn't count points earned from "trades" as that's taking cash from some other owner's pocket, not earning them.

So we should allow owners to spend 5% of their annual possible points earned in a single trade. 10 points is 5% of 200 points. NOBODY earns 200 points in a season. In a best-case scenario, a season in which you earned (not traded for) 100 points would be amazing. So what we really should be doing is talking about LOWERING the point threshold in trades to 5 points or so.

That's true, if points were just like cash. But in this case, points are a lot different. Sure, they do act like cash in regards to the luxury tax. But when you take in to account player training - especially in this era of 'raw' college players if you want to make that argument - they serve a VERY different function. You're still thinking of inflation as being like cash inflation, or somehow related to salary cap. I'm saying there's POINTS inflation.

To simplify, a point today is worth a different amount than a point was in SLOE 1990 where you didn't have lux tax, and had very different player training costs, shoot, even how you GAINED points has been changed since 1990. Now I'm not saying what the right number is - though 25 seems reasonable to me - but relating it to money and saying the inflation is all relative totally misses the boat here.

Sometimes a 1 or 2 pt difference in a trade is like pulling teeth. Imagine how much more an infinite amount of allowable points would make negotiations

WigNosy wrote:Okay, those who want to talk inflation, I'll bite.

The NBA's number is a little over $5 million on a cap of about $100 million. In round numbers, we're looking at 5% of the cap.

The salary cap is roughly 50% of basketball related income. In other words, the players earn half, the owners (GMs) earn half. In other words, owner earnings = player earnings.

So I would submit to you that the expected annual points earnings for a GM correspond to the "owner earnings." And this doesn't count points earned from "trades" as that's taking cash from some other owner's pocket, not earning them.

So we should allow owners to spend 5% of their annual possible points earned in a single trade. 10 points is 5% of 200 points. NOBODY earns 200 points in a season. In a best-case scenario, a season in which you earned (not traded for) 100 points would be amazing. So what we really should be doing is talking about LOWERING the point threshold in trades to 5 points or so.

Yeah I think this is an apples to orange conversion. I totally get the points are a replacement for real dollars, but the spending of said points in trades versus dollars irl that I can’t (personally) use that conversion.

garbageman wrote:Sometimes a 1 or 2 pt difference in a trade is like pulling teeth. Imagine how much more an infinite amount of allowable points would make negotiations

Most likely has nothing to do with the point limit in a trade, rather you’re dealing with cheap GMs trying to win a trade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By increasing the point cap in trades, it could help with the tax problem.