Posted by robusk on 6/21/2017 12:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 6/5/2017 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I wonder if having a keeper limit, or a seasons limit of having a player would help (to approximate free agency).

That is VERY interesting.

We does this for our RL Fantasy leagues and absolutely love it.
Depending on the sport we have different player and team maxes, but it is fun knowing a guy like Durant, Brady, or now Judge/Bellinger will only be on the same team for "X" years.
Does an owner keep Curry for 1 season or Dragic for (up to) 4?
Much more trade and keeper strategy involved.

Posted by eleibowitz on 6/7/2017 8:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ashamael on 6/5/2017 6:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by benhoidal on 6/5/2017 6:05:00 PM (view original):
52 mil cap is way too high. My Celtics team that won 75+ games 5 seasons in a row only exceeded that once (and just barely. I could have cut a player that never even played and got under the cap). If you're going to do a cap league, there's really no point in having it over 48 mil or at the very highest 50.

One really goid thing that would come of this: no one would have too many excess minutes so there would be a very small need for scrubs!

It'd also depend on type. That was a single-season progressive. A double year or double era would see more teams break through that, but yeah, that's a good point for sure.

And yeah, the minute distribution would be much better.

Agreed if you had a minutes cap, that would help. Maybe 21000 minutes.. So the discarded players can go into a "free agent" pool and there's a redraft starting from the worse team no lottery.

So they can potentially pick up players not scrubs and they can be a better team for it

One additional to this idea for the free agent pool based upon whats going on in ZPL is no trades .

A prog without trading is not something that sounds interesting.
A better solution is to blacklist known rulebreakers, line-pushers & otherwise overall troublemakers from progs.

Posted by ashamael on 7/30/2017 5:06:00 PM (view original):
A prog without trading is not something that sounds interesting.
A better solution is to blacklist known rulebreakers, line-pushers & otherwise overall troublemakers from progs.

Strongly 2nd both of those thoughts.

Posted by all3 on 7/30/2017 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ashamael on 7/30/2017 5:06:00 PM (view original):
A prog without trading is not something that sounds interesting.
A better solution is to blacklist known rulebreakers, line-pushers & otherwise overall troublemakers from progs.

Strongly 2nd both of those thoughts.

Mmm, who decides? Based on what evidence, and using what criteria? I'm not interested in blacklisting anyone, and one of the reasons is that I've seen owners change their ways over time once they get strong pushback from peers and commissioners.

That said, I support any commissioner's right to determine who they do and don't want in their league. I'm just not excited for the broader community of owners to develop lists of cool and uncool people. I guarantee you, some of the owners now on a typical "good" list didn't use to be there.

Posted by longtallbrad on 7/31/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 7/30/2017 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ashamael on 7/30/2017 5:06:00 PM (view original):
A prog without trading is not something that sounds interesting.
A better solution is to blacklist known rulebreakers, line-pushers & otherwise overall troublemakers from progs.

Strongly 2nd both of those thoughts.

Mmm, who decides? Based on what evidence, and using what criteria? I'm not interested in blacklisting anyone, and one of the reasons is that I've seen owners change their ways over time once they get strong pushback from peers and commissioners.

That said, I support any commissioner's right to determine who they do and don't want in their league. I'm just not excited for the broader community of owners to develop lists of cool and uncool people. I guarantee you, some of the owners now on a typical "good" list didn't use to be there.

All excellent points. I tend to go by:

Screw me once, shame on you.
Screw me twice, shame on me.
Screw me 10+ times, someone please intervene to get me out of this abusive relationship.

Well, I will say it's a good thing that progressive leagues generally seem to be getting more attentive to owner ethics, transparency of trade rationales, and how player minutes are used during season play. Some helpful cultural norms could emerge if we play the moment right, one of them being the expectation that any long-running progressive league should have both a rock solid commissioner and a fair play committee. The identity of committee members, the cases brought before them, the decisions they reach, and the reasons for those judgements should all be transparent within the league.

I'd also say it's a matter of good practice and reasonable expectation that a given owner should be maxing out the talent of the player he has, even when doing so earns him more wins than he'd refer to rack up for a rebuilding squad.

A complex question in all this is what it means for a trade to be "fair" to both teams. Obviously a very talented, experienced owner should not take advantage of a less experienced or frankly less skilled owner who doesn't have a good grasp of how to build a competitive team. But to what degree is it acceptable for an owner to use trades to expedite his team getting worse? Is there a point on the deliberately-awful spectrum that raises hackles and ignites grievances?

I'm wondering if we could develop some critieria to guide these processes, or at least some standard diagnostic questions to ask in discerning whether a trade, team management pattern, or committee decision falls within the realm of reasonable and appropriate, even if not everyone likes it.

A complex question in all this is what it means for a trade to be "fair" to both teams. Obviously a very talented, experienced owner should not take advantage of a less experienced or frankly less skilled owner who doesn't have a good grasp of how to build a competitive team. But to what degree is it acceptable for an owner to use trades to expedite his team getting worse? Is there a point on the deliberately-awful spectrum that raises hackles and ignites grievances?

I'm wondering if we could develop some critieria to guide these processes, or at least some standard diagnostic questions to ask in discerning whether a trade, team management pattern, or committee decision falls within the realm of reasonable and appropriate, even if not everyone likes it.

This is a great discussion point and right on part with what I asked originally about Bird: what is a fair trade? There is no absolute fair trade where teams are getting equal value. This is pretty similar to the NBA as well as some businesses in general. The trickiest part here is that we KNOW what happens to the players.

Take my Bird example... at this stage in his career (85-86), he looks like the GOAT. Now, we all know that he has two elite seasons after this one but then hurts his back, sits out a year, has 1 meh (by his standards) season & 2 partial seasons.

During my scenario, it was the 84-85 version about to begin the 85-86 offseason (all of the above still applies). If this were RL, I could easily have gotten the #1 pick for him as well as multiple future picks & players, because IRL people wouldn't know that a) he's going to hurt his back and b) Karl Malone is going to play for 20 years and be an absolute stud in them.

Because we DO know the future with these guys, it complicates things a bit further. It makes many aspects much less subjective. Since we know what happens to Bird & what Mailman is going to do, there is no combination that makes is even close to fair in a Bird for the #1 pick (Mailman), as there is nothing I could add to Bird to equal value of what Mailman is going to bring to that franchise (don't forget! Mailman isn't going to turn that franchise around in 1 season, so that team will likely have another solid guy to pair with him!).

It's a double edged sword, though. Since we do know the future, we know there's no debate between LBJ, Wade, Melo & Bosh, for example. We know there's no debate between Shaq & Zo. That's helpful knowledge in making fair & balanced trades.

I could go on at length about some things, but I want to wait for discussion from others. So far, all I've really brought up are problems; not solutions. It's too late for me to go down that rabbit hole, so, I'll hop back into this tomorrow, hopefully with some input from others!

Posted by longtallbrad on 7/31/2017 11:59:00 PM (view original):
Well, I will say it's a good thing that progressive leagues generally seem to be getting more attentive to owner ethics, transparency of trade rationales, and how player minutes are used during season play. Some helpful cultural norms could emerge if we play the moment right, one of them being the expectation that any long-running progressive league should have both a rock solid commissioner and a fair play committee. The identity of committee members, the cases brought before them, the decisions they reach, and the reasons for those judgements should all be transparent within the league.

I'd also say it's a matter of good practice and reasonable expectation that a given owner should be maxing out the talent of the player he has, even when doing so earns him more wins than he'd refer to rack up for a rebuilding squad.

A complex question in all this is what it means for a trade to be "fair" to both teams. Obviously a very talented, experienced owner should not take advantage of a less experienced or frankly less skilled owner who doesn't have a good grasp of how to build a competitive team. But to what degree is it acceptable for an owner to use trades to expedite his team getting worse? Is there a point on the deliberately-awful spectrum that raises hackles and ignites grievances?

I'm wondering if we could develop some critieria to guide these processes, or at least some standard diagnostic questions to ask in discerning whether a trade, team management pattern, or committee decision falls within the realm of reasonable and appropriate, even if not everyone likes it.

The one thing it's hard to value trades because the value is truly not known until after the trade is done. This is of course when your including draft picks in trade.

Per LTB we to diagnose the intent of the trade on each side and see if there's flawed logic. For example let's say we trade a good player to a team that has had a bad season this year but is posed to do much better. This season draft pick maybe good but next season draft pick is not going to bring back equal value.

I think if you are going to trade a player like Bird (for example), you need players and draft picks. Just draft picks, unless top 3, won't be enough.

A lot of owners want their cake and eat it to, is not to give up any now/future talent and give up a draft pick which will be pretty much worthless to them.

I think it's a lot easier to have balanced trades in a triple era progressive than a single or double season progressive.

A lot of owners want their cake and eat it to, is not to give up any now/future talent and give up a draft pick which will be pretty much worthless to them.

This is the crux of the issue, and we let it happen over & over in certain leagues.

I think it's a lot easier to have balanced trades in a triple era progressive than a single or double season progressive.

It's definitely easier the bigger the talent pool is. Single progs tend to be the worst balanced in almost every way you want to look at them.

Per LTB we need to diagnose the intent of the trade on each side and see if there's flawed logic. For example let's say we trade a good player to a team that has had a bad season this year but is posed to do much better. This season draft pick maybe good but next season draft pick is not going to bring back equal value.

This for sure. I think a fair play committee should be present in every prog and be ready to step in to quickly discuss, evaluate & ultimately rule on any trade.

If you're going to have that committee, I don't think it's a bad idea to have trades submitted to that committee via sitemail instead of publicly so they can discuss the trade before it becomes a public blow up. Not sure it's feasible, but it works in my utopia.

I disagree. The committee should only even really be used for when there is concern over a trade. 90% of trades nobody bats an eyelash at, and it would just waste everyone's time. Just my opinion.

FWIW...I've played in progs for a while and think it's a matter of strategy. WIS is not called canasy or SIM sports..it's call a "management model" and progs are where this is strongly reflected. First i would traxe my team xown to a lottery team..this gets you extra 11st & 2nd rou d picks and aand a shot at the first pick. Then start traxing for players.before your team is too good and your picks are no worrth a dann. It'd a timi g thing..you want to.be in.the lottery for 2 seasons anyway.. You want to.be in.a.position to only need your bench when your not a lottery team anymore.Then draft and trade to finish your team. When I drafted Bird and the team wasnt really ready to go so I traded him for
players that produced 2 mid 70 win seasons which are still my PB's. I got 2 players and and 7th pick for him . Didnt win it all, but had a great time anyway. So in the zpl2 I may have kept the ayers you traded and traded Bird for player(s) to go after that bastard who got Jordan! FWIW... ;)

c'mon, smokey, use English, man.