Economy

[fauxcreative]

Well, I don't like to just throw out suggestions without analyzing anything, so I looked at the cap space per-team, and focused on the teams that have a lot and their situation.

Miami (rebuilding/stockpiling)
Washington (rebuilding/stockpiling)
Clippers (rebuilding/stockpiling >> also spending/pushing in free agency)
Phoenix (rebuilding I guess? not overly sure here)

Memphis (in between, could push or rebuild)

New Orleans (stockpiling things, trying to convert into a star)
San Antonio (spending/pushing in free agency)
New York (spending/pushing in free agency)
Atlanta (spending/pushing in free agency)

... the rest of the teams are in the 0-12M in cap range, and the competitive teams are trying to snap up free agents in the 3-8M range but are outbid by the teams like SA/LAC/etc with cap. That's how it's supposed to work.

So, I don't really see an issue with unused cap, as there's just 4.5 teams with a LOT of it, and no incentive to use much of it b/c (a) they want to save it to absorb bad contracts in exchange for assets and (b) they can use it to snag old free agents, but they need to find a willing trade partner or they're stuck with the deal, so it's risky in that sense. Rebuilding teams understandably prefer (a) to (b) as there's always teams looking to dump mistakes.

I think it's fine for a lot/most teams to have 4-8M in unused cap. That gives them some flexibility with trades, and allows for a few aggressive in-season FA bids if a hot player comes up. That's what I usually use mine for unless I get a good vet in the off-season on a reasonable deal.

It seems the focus is coming back to the continual question in leagues like this, namely "What's the best/most efficient way to encourage talent to be properly churned while still maintaining the real life GM feel of the game?"

(1) If you want to try and create more "available free agents" then the extensions need to be more forceful, or we'll just have everyone continuing to re-sign their guys. I would adjust it to be the highest of:

(a) Highest Year (of previous 2)
(b) 120% of previous year's salary (can exceed the top extension for 1-5 even)

Basically, give the guy a raise or let him walk. If you're not willing to give your player a raise to keep him, then you need to let the market figure out the player's value on its own based on available cap. This is also very similar to real life, as very rarely would a player take a below-market deal, or sign a contract that doesn't give him a raise, especially if it's a 27-30 year old veteran that we jump at re-signing b/c the "Brilliant Almighty FanTrax Score" says they had a bad season (sorry, I hate that thing). In real life, there's no way they do a 66% extension. They'll walk and go find another team. The same principle could apply here. 

You could also add a "Franchise Tag" of sorts, where you tag a guy at 150% of his current salary, or 125% of his extension value, and then let him hit restricted free agency. The offers have to start above the tag amount. Anyone who bids on him and wins owes you a RD1 pick if you choose not to match. Just a fun add.

(2) Additionally, I would look at options for teams to get out of bad contracts easier, as teams that have a Kemba Walker contract can't do anything with it. Same with D'Angelo Russell. You can't really even trade them b/c nobody wants 50% or 25% of 30M on their books. Those contracts are just team destroyers.

Maybe allow more cash to be covered on contracts like in LOTR2 (something I made good use of for example). Obviously risky, and you could add a prepayment of entry fees caveat if cash coverage in future years exceeds 30% of cap to offset that.

You could also allow each team one amnesty every 3-years.

Bad contracts are just improperly valued assets on a team's books. They need to be pushed back into the market more easily in order to have their value redetermined.

(3) I would focus on stuff like that, which push forcing player movement in a more direct way, than smaller adjustments to the extensions. As long as teams can re-sign their players for a discount (66% or where their extension/ranking value is less than previous annual value), they'll likely keep doing so. I don't like stuff that says "one extension per-year" b/c I'd like the option to keep my players as long as I'm willing to pay the price. That price just needs to be higher than it is right now if you want to force free agents to hit the market.