|
|
Post by orangeparka (MIA) on Jan 19, 2014 8:45:30 GMT -5
I'm just concerned because this kind of thing is way too subjective and I foresee a lot of butthurtedness.
Will players be able to negotiate though? That'S the biggest thing IMO.
As long as there's active two way communication people won't get mad (they'll know what's going on and whatnot), but this is pretty difficult to do and would take a lot on the part of the GMs acting as agents IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by jake0890 (MIN) on Jan 19, 2014 8:52:15 GMT -5
Oh, and I should also add that before free agency, we post the list of players we've assigned to each agency and ask if there's any conflicts where an agency has a player on their list they plan to pursue in FA. If there are, then we swap players between agencies so that none of the PAs have a client they themselves plan to go after in free agency. Yeah, this will be the case as well. There will absolutely be no conflicts of interest, if there is a player that a certain agent is planning on pursuing, he will not represent that player. I would guess that this also means the commishes could not "oversee" negotiations on their own players as well? So you couldn't oversee the Shawn Marion's negotiations (to prevent seeing the exact value/pitch) and the same would go for Dylan and Gordon Hayward, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Dylan (SAC) on Jan 19, 2014 12:01:18 GMT -5
Yeah, this will be the case as well. There will absolutely be no conflicts of interest, if there is a player that a certain agent is planning on pursuing, he will not represent that player. I would guess that this also means the commishes could not "oversee" negotiations on their own players as well? So you couldn't oversee the Shawn Marion's negotiations (to prevent seeing the exact value/pitch) and the same would go for Dylan and Gordon Hayward, right? There's two of us. Therefore if Myles is negotiating with Marion, I would oversee it for instance (doesn't mean I'd be the agent for that player, or an agent at all). If I'm negotiating with Hayward Myles could oversee that negotiation with the agent. |
|
|
|
Post by jake0890 (MIN) on Jan 19, 2014 12:35:10 GMT -5
I would guess that this also means the commishes could not "oversee" negotiations on their own players as well? So you couldn't oversee the Shawn Marion's negotiations (to prevent seeing the exact value/pitch) and the same would go for Dylan and Gordon Hayward, right? There's two of us. Therefore if Myles is negotiating with Marion, I would oversee it for instance (doesn't mean I'd be the agent for that player, or an agent at all). If I'm negotiating with Hayward Myles could oversee that negotiation with the agent. Right, that's what I meant. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Myles (SAS) on Jan 19, 2014 12:40:26 GMT -5
Seems my question has been overseen. Obviously because I wrote so much. Myles (SAS): You said we would be able to extend palyers if its possible ingame. So it doesnt matter if they arent in their last year or not? The rule currently states that if the player is extendable in game, you can extend him. That's how it's always been. |
|
dennisj (BOS)
General Manager
Schröder | Hill | DeRozan | Johnson | Vucevic
Posts: 311 
|
Post by dennisj (BOS) on Jan 19, 2014 12:46:03 GMT -5
Seems my question has been overseen. Obviously because I wrote so much. Myles (SAS): You said we would be able to extend palyers if its possible ingame. So it doesnt matter if they arent in their last year or not? The rule currently states that if the player is extendable in game, you can extend him. That's how it's always been. Oh okay, so I got the following wrong. Vuc has 2 years left but my game says he is extendable (atleast its seems as if he's extendable). So I will offer him a new 4 year for what he damands within the next days. Thanks! Seems Im a bit confused. Sorry for bothering you  |
|
|
|
Post by Myles (SAS) on Jan 19, 2014 13:02:48 GMT -5
Oh my bad, I thought I wrote or there. Yeah, if they are extendable in game they are extendable. If we move to PAs I think we'll make it the last year of their deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by jestor on Jan 19, 2014 19:00:25 GMT -5
I'm just concerned because this kind of thing is way too subjective and I foresee a lot of butthurtedness. Will players be able to negotiate though? That'S the biggest thing IMO. As long as there's active two way communication people won't get mad (they'll know what's going on and whatnot), but this is pretty difficult to do and would take a lot on the part of the GMs acting as agents IMO. Do you mean players, or GMs? |
|
|
|
Post by kgdobby (OKC) on Jan 19, 2014 20:47:36 GMT -5
This is a bad idea. Fights will start and people will leave. We may all be adults, but cooler heads rarely prevail when you get a group of guys in a competitive setting where they all think they are right.
That's my take. If a huge UFA peaces out on a max offer, I can't blame someone for throwing a fit, so why would we even put them in that situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei (POR) on Jan 20, 2014 12:06:07 GMT -5
Here are my thoughts:
First off, would like to echo Dennis in thanking the Commissioners for their work. You guys are great – I think you should delegate a bit more but that’s a different discussion. Making the game more realistic is what I like to see
Now, I think this is a very good idea but will be tough to execute.
There are certain realities in DDS and CSL that we are used to. These realities currently prevent us from running CSL more like RL NBA.
One of the main differences I see is that our players are 1’s and 0’s – not real people. So you don’t have to treat them like people. I think this is because the engine does not really have a good chemistry attribute that actually works. A good example is UTAH this year – essentially changed 80% of their starting lineup midseason yet started playing great together from day one – I just don’t see it happening in RL. That’s why you can trade and sign and waive and do whatever….
I read some of the posts and I think GMs that are against this are used to how easy it is to resign players in CSL/DDS. You don’t have to deal with relationships, feelings, comfort levels and all other crap that happens in RL. To me, if we adopt PAs then we have to also introduce new player attributes that will be managed by CSL, outside of DDS. I think DDS’s Relationship attribute (Coach/Team/Org) has been somewhat of a failure so far in a sense that it really does not create any major problems for GMs, so I do not even want to look at it.
I disagree that we now have to extend all of our FAs to rip off deals as they will ask more in the offseason. If they are loyal and enjoy playing for you, why won’t they resign with you?
Yes, some players will leave. But that’s life. DAL GM mentioned LeBron leaving OKC. Well, he left Cleveland… OKC can write a public angry letter about LeBron quitting his team but otherwise will have to move on. I hope people that have superstar players are not getting too used to easy life. Rebuilding is also an interesting challenge
Myles mentioned that PAs will look at player’s Loyalty, Greed, Play for Winner, Playing Time etc attributes but we could also introduce some more attributes like Comfort level (if the team trades all the time and has no consistent strategy, then how comfortable are you being part of that team – would you resign with them?) and Relationships (the longer you stay with the team the more you get used to the city, players, people around you, your neighbour’s dog, kid’s school etc so you have better relationships and are happier there – less chance of you leaving). Just a few thoughts on this – bring in more human attributes. This is something that can be easily managed in a spreadsheet
Also, something that I think is important to discuss is the ATLANTA HAWKS EXCEPTION. If I am an agent, I don’t know what kind of shit I should be smoking to recommend to my client to sign with ATL. I know for a fact that my client is going to be traded God knows where within a few months so why would anybody sign with them? Should we get the Haws to significantly overpay or just ignore the revolving door?
Sign and trades are also important whereby an agent should agree to sign with both teams or at least with the team their client is being traded to.
Bottom line: this is difficult to implement but something worth doing in my opinion. There are a lot of issues that we can bring up but we need to see how it works in practice.
How about we run a pilot this FA period? We can run two processes in parallel and see how the new process works. We use the old process but also start negotiating with the PAs on our FAs. The decisions will still be made by the engine. As we go along we make the necessary tweaks and get feedback from PAs and GMs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sun Scorched (CHA) on Jan 20, 2014 12:15:17 GMT -5
Here's my quick take:
I've seen this done in other formats with great success. I personally like this approach due to the realism it offers and the negotiation aspect. I would be in support if the format actually offered negotiation - this is what I mean: If we truly are doing this for the sake of realism, then there needs to be feedback from the agencies during the process. If I submit an offer for Danny Granger that is $1m lower than the highest offer, I would expect feedback like "Danny is leaning towards other offers." It gives me an opportunity to up my offer if I'm willing, but it ALSO begins to set my expectations appropriately. By that I mean, I'm aware that Danny may be more interested in other offers, so I can begin planning alternatively. I think the whole "butthurt" thing happens when the decisions come as a shock and when you have no insight into why certain decisions were made.
Additionally, it works well when the agents reach out to you. Say I had a ton of cap space and Spencer Hawes had a low-ball offer on the table that he would never accept in real life. I may think there is some massive field of interest in him, but if his agency is doing their job, I receive an email that says "Spencer is interested in an offer from your team." As a result, I know that he may be more available than I thought and I can pursue if willing.
Ultimately, this approach creates a more efficient market for free agents, which is why I like it. It partially eliminates getting established players for $0.05 on the $1.00, but that's more realistic anyways.
Again, for it, but the process would need to be interactive towards the end goal of allowing GMs to get the kind of direction they would get from real life player agents. The real life process isn't a blind bid scenario, there is persuasion, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by LakeshowAK7 (LAL) on Jan 20, 2014 12:41:25 GMT -5
Truly there is only one major factor that will allow this to work or not, plain and simple.
Is everyone in this league willing to accept the decisions of the PA's as final? Meaning will there be griping, and moaning, and raging, and whatever else? If there is no way to mitigate this from happening, there's truly no point in doing this.
At the end of the day we all do this for fun, and frankly it's a hobby of mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Myles (SAS) on Jan 20, 2014 13:10:26 GMT -5
To answer some of Andrei and SS's points:
1) We won't be adding any other elements, because we'd essentially have to make those up for every player and that will end up being unfair. The "relationships" that you speak of sounds a lot like loyalty anyway, and the "comfort" can be a combination of play for winner and playing time, so in my opinion those are represented anyway.
2) That's a funny note on the Atlanta Hawks and not an invalid one. That may be something an agent looks at, if a player has high loyalty, I'm not sure he'd want to sign in Atlanta but players with low loyalty wouldn't care.
3) As for sign and trades, we'd have to find a way to enforce that because as the trade restrictions work in DDS, teams who sign their unrenounced FAs can just trade them straight away.
4) I don't see a reason in running both processes, because that means that negotiating with the PA is just pointless work as the computer takes none of that into account.
5) There will be 100% negotiation. It will be a back and forth, a conversation, between agent and GM. That's why we are having so many agents. If it was just picking packages/offers, we'd only need one. But this is going to be an ongoing conversation.
|
|
dennisj (BOS)
General Manager
Schröder | Hill | DeRozan | Johnson | Vucevic
Posts: 311
|
Post by dennisj (BOS) on Jan 20, 2014 13:22:14 GMT -5
Are the agents going to change year by year?
Would have some advantages IMO.
The more I think about it, I believe if its done right it could be fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei (POR) on Jan 20, 2014 14:13:36 GMT -5
To answer some of Andrei and SS's points: 1) We won't be adding any other elements, because we'd essentially have to make those up for every player and that will end up being unfair. The "relationships" that you speak of sounds a lot like loyalty anyway, and the "comfort" can be a combination of play for winner and playing time, so in my opinion those are represented anyway. 2) That's a funny note on the Atlanta Hawks and not an invalid one. That may be something an agent looks at, if a player has high loyalty, I'm not sure he'd want to sign in Atlanta but players with low loyalty wouldn't care. 3) As for sign and trades, we'd have to find a way to enforce that because as the trade restrictions work in DDS, teams who sign their unrenounced FAs can just trade them straight away. 4) I don't see a reason in running both processes, because that means that negotiating with the PA is just pointless work as the computer takes none of that into account. 5) There will be 100% negotiation. It will be a back and forth, a conversation, between agent and GM. That's why we are having so many agents. If it was just picking packages/offers, we'd only need one. But this is going to be an ongoing conversation. Thanks Myles - fair points I like SSs suggestion on communication. Is it unreasonable to expect a daily summary of where the FAs are leaning? You get these from the media in RL and there are some in the game also... |
|
