Questions/Suggestions

[Billy]

Hello. Is this also true of RFA's signed before February 1st?

No. Rankings for RFAs are set in stone based on finishing rankings from previous 2 complete seasons.

[rotodojo]

1. It's the ranking as of that date that they are re-signed.

Hello. Is this also true of RFA's signed before February 1st?

[Billy]

According to league rules, if we re-sign a player after February 1st, extensions use the current season and the previous season ranking. If we decide for example to re-sign a player in mid-February, is the current season ranking the one at the date of re-signing (statistics from season start to mid-February) or the end of season ranking?
Can you also confirm if it is valid a contract extension posted between February and the end of playoffs and resulting in a team going above the cap in future years?
Thanks

1. It's the ranking as of that date that they are re-signed.

2. Yes, it is legal to go above cap in future years when resigning a player. Once we get to off-season and roster is move over, every move must be to clear some cap to get back under the cap.

[Interpaga]

According to league rules, if we re-sign a player after February 1st, extensions use the current season and the previous season ranking. If we decide for example to re-sign a player in mid-February, is the current season ranking the one at the date of re-signing (statistics from season start to mid-February) or the end of season ranking?
Can you also confirm if it is valid a contract extension posted between February and the end of playoffs and resulting in a team going above the cap in future years?
Thanks

[Billy]

You have until June 30th each off season to pick up a team option. If it?s not picked up, the player goes to FA.

[DynastyDeacon]

I have a question about the team options. Toronto has Malachi Flynn $1.6m (2024) RFA with 2023 and 2024 as team options. Is there a deadline where I would need to pick up the team option for next year? Is it an automatic pick up of the team option and I have to decline a team option by a certain deadline? Is it sort of like having a free drop anytime while the current year is a team option? I am just wondering how it will work and what if any deadlines there will be. Thank you!

[Interpaga]

We did not accuse anyone. We just reported facts:
- a trade was deleted just because it was overshadowed by an off-topic discussion
- two objectively* very comparable trades (Green and Derozan) were valued differently and we just asked for as much consistency as possible in the future.

This caused (we believe/hope unintentionally) a clear and uncalled for damage to us and potential disparity in the league, so it was important to clarify better what happened and avoid it happens again.

Happy to move on too.

*We say objectively comparable because the two most respected websites reporting free fantasy basketball dynasty ranking rank Derozan (65 and 79) and Green (72 and 89). And the small difference in ranking can easily be compensated by the difference between the two packages for Derozan (1 first round pick and 3 others players/picks) and Green (1 second round pick). Also in December 2020, at the time of the trade, FantraxHQ, Draftkings and Rotoballer ranked Draymond Green (age 30) respectively 41, 42 and 66. These were season projections (not able to find old public dynasty rankings) but still indicative of very good expected production. Anyway, we can acknowledge and accept that someone can have a different personal opinion.

[DynastyDeacon]

Thanks for the reply.

So we assume that there are no changes in the policy on trades involving old players with expensive contracts and that Derozan trade was just a one-off situation, where a trade with good chances to be approved (on the basis of previous and following trades) was removed just because it was overshadowed by an off-topic discussion.

Considering that there is not a strict written rule for approving/vetoing this type of trades, we think the valuation/veto should take into consideration a bunch of past trades comparable (Steph Curry, Draymond Green twice and now Kyle Lowry) and, considering that a degree of subjectivity in any case will remain, each voting member should at least maintain consistency with his/her previous votes

I would really like to move on from this, especially since I am now boldly being accused of purposefully torpedoing a trade. I'll give you my reasoning for the differences in the trades below briefly, but I really want the current accusations against me to stop.


Kyle Lowry trade vs. Demar DeRozan - same exact contract 4 year, $22m per year contract, DeRozan will be 35 years old at the end of the contract. There are plenty of players balling out at 35 years old, including Kyle Lowry (currently). Kyle Lowry will be 39 years old at the end of his contract. He will be 37 years old before the final two years of his contract (turning 37 years old in the 2nd year of a 4 year contract) and there were only 3 players that were even capable of playing in the NBA at the start of this season that were 37 years old or older. Only 1, Carmelo Anthony, has any value at all and on any any other team besides the dysfunctional Lakers he probably has no value either. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is only a slim chance Lowry will even be in the league or able to perform at all at the end of his contract, while DeRozan may still be a consistent top #100 player.


Draymond Green trade #1 & #2 - was prior to the 2020-21 season when Green was being paid a 4 year, $24.9m per year contract after coming off finishes of #113 and #187. DeRozan has been a top 100 fixture the last 3 years at #59, #67, #85, and this year currently at #64. Green was more expensive and a lot worse/injury prone, looking like he might never be the player he once was due to injuries. According to how well DeRozan is playing and his current rank, he is still playing at a consistent high level, which is not uncommon for players in their early 30s. The primary risk to that though is injuries, which is why Draymond's worth was so low. After being traded Draymond Green was later bought out as his contract was determined to be so awful and his value so low. If Demar DeRozan is equal Interpaga should be happy his trade was vetoed and he can keep his picks and players vs. having to buy out DeRozan. After the approval of the Green trades he was bought out. After the attempted trade for DeRozan he was traded for Nikola Vucevic. That doesn't sound like two even players to me.

Dynasty Guru's top 185 dynasty rankings in December 2020 around the time Green was traded twice left Draymond Green off their list of top 185 players. I cannot find any other rankings from that time period. Draymond has significantly more value now than he did then as he started playing much better at the end of last season after being released. He was awful in the first half of last year. As Interpaga mentioned previously its important to look at the trades at the time they were made.


Steph Curry - was 32 years old at the time of the trade. Same as DeRozan is now. Curry was coming off a rank of #397 in 19-20, having only played 5 games after returning from a hand injury. He didn't look like the player he was prior to the injury and averaged only 20.8 points per game with a .402 FG%. Given his age and the injury and the little we saw of him in the 19-20 season it was fair to think that he might not go back to playing at a high level at the time the trade was made. He was also traded for the #21 and #51 picks in the 2020 NBA draft and a 1st round pick in 2021. Nobody knew how good OKC would be at the beginning of the season so the 1st round pick in 2021 had more value than it does now. Your 1st will be worst then the #21 pick, especially if getting DeRozan, and your 2nd was most likely worthless. Therefore two picks in the Curry trade had more value than your best pick in the DeRozan trade. As shown above DeRozan has been a healthy sure thing for many years now and is still playing at a consistent high level.

We could dance back and forth on player values and differences of opinions. I have no interest in that. Please stop trying to make me look bad. You were upset with my accusations and insinuations before. I get that. Please don't do the same thing to me. I apologized and tried to move on. I suggest you do the same now. I have never cast a veto vote for my own benefit or allowed a trade for my own benefit. I vote what I believe to be accurate and best based on my own evaluations. You are certainly welcome to disagree as you apparently do. Going forward I will stick to a brief paragraph like the above if I have to cast a veto vote and won't engage with a manager if they disagree and want to argue. I apologize to the league for before when I became involved in a back and forth on a trade. I am sorry for having upset you Interpaga, but please move on. We are allowed to disagree on whether a trade should be allowed or vetoed. It isn't anything personal. I recently improved a rival in the East Coast in Miami with a trade from Toronto, which will most likely hurt my New York Knicks in the playoffs. I am managing my teams with what I believe is the best for them, I suggest you do the same and put whatever feelings you have against me aside. Please, move on.

This is my last comment on here. Say whatever you want. I won't be entertaining or acknowledging any of this anymore. It's time to move on.

[Interpaga]

Thanks for the reply.

So we assume that there are no changes in the policy on trades involving old players with expensive contracts and that Derozan trade was just a one-off situation, where a trade with good chances to be approved (on the basis of previous and following trades) was removed just because it was overshadowed by an off-topic discussion.

Considering that there is not a strict written rule for approving/vetoing this type of trades, we think the valuation/veto should take into consideration a bunch of past trades comparable (Steph Curry, Draymond Green twice and now Kyle Lowry) and, considering that a degree of subjectivity in any case will remain, each voting member should at least maintain consistency with his/her previous votes

[Billy]

The trade was removed because the discussion over that trade got extremely and unnecessarily out of hand.

There will be no back and forth discussion over trades any longer. If a trade is posted, the only posts made should be a person voting. And if they veto, a simple reason for that veto.