|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 2, 2006 1:41:10 GMT -5
We need to figure out what we are doing with the Free agency system, The two major questions are:
1.What do we do when two people offer the max?
2. How do we ensure that there is at least some player movement?
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 2, 2006 1:46:49 GMT -5
I still haven't figured out what the answer should be to question #1, but I have thought up several possible solutions for Problem #2. They are:
1. Only allowing Bird rights to be used on one player when exceeding the cap. So if a player is under the cap they can use bird rights to offer an extra year to as many resignees as they like, but if resigning sends them over the cap they may only use Bird rights for one player.
OR
2. A hard cap over the soft cap. So everything would wor the same, with the 60 mil soft cap, but with a hard cap at say 70 or 75 million which teams could not go over for any reason.
OR
3. A luxury tax system, this would penalize teams over the cap, So a team less than 10 or 15 million over the cap pays no penalty. 15-20 is a penalty, whether it be draft picks or whatnot. Then 20-30 would be a more severe punishment, and over 30 more severe still.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Jul 2, 2006 1:47:11 GMT -5
1. If one of the two people is the owner, they can take that person, because they can offer an extra year. Otherwise, who ever pursues the player first wins, first come first serve. Or we can do a games-won method, whoever won the most (and offers atleast the max) wins?
2. We don't ensure it I guess. It worked out last year, to an extent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 2, 2006 1:50:45 GMT -5
last year I think people got scared off by the insane bidding, under the false impression that it mattered if they went over the cap, we really need to do this in my opinion because the league has a decent amount of teams that are a mess with no hope of real improvement. I mean look at Washington, he has no players, but a ton of cap room. In real life an NBA team like that would get 2 top tier free agents but in here it isn't going to happen noone better than midlevel exception is going to be available.
Edit- as to the first thing, I don't have a big problem with that, though the league vote thing someone suggested is kind of novel, have teams make their pitch in a poll thread then let the league vote on which a player would more likely pick due to playing time things like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Jul 2, 2006 2:01:53 GMT -5
last year I think people got scared off by the insane bidding, under the false impression that it mattered if they went over the cap, we really need to do this in my opinion because the league has a decent amount of teams that are a mess with no hope of real improvement. I mean look at Washington, he has no players, but a ton of cap room. In real life an NBA team like that would get 2 top tier free agents but in here it isn't going to happen noone better than midlevel exception is going to be available. Edit- as to the first thing, I don't have a big problem with that, though the league vote thing someone suggested is kind of novel, have teams make their pitch in a poll thread then let the league vote on which a player would more likely pick due to playing time things like that. Not true, if a GM did that to that team, no players would want to go there, not for any price, rookies would refuse to play for them, and the team would be moved to Las Vegas and become an expansion team. |
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 2, 2006 2:13:14 GMT -5
last year I think people got scared off by the insane bidding, under the false impression that it mattered if they went over the cap, we really need to do this in my opinion because the league has a decent amount of teams that are a mess with no hope of real improvement. I mean look at Washington, he has no players, but a ton of cap room. In real life an NBA team like that would get 2 top tier free agents but in here it isn't going to happen noone better than midlevel exception is going to be available. Edit- as to the first thing, I don't have a big problem with that, though the league vote thing someone suggested is kind of novel, have teams make their pitch in a poll thread then let the league vote on which a player would more likely pick due to playing time things like that. Not true, if a GM did that to that team, no players would want to go there, not for any price, rookies would refuse to play for them, and the team would be moved to Las Vegas and become an expansion team. Look at the HAwks they had nobody, but tons of cap room and a new owner, and they got Joe Johnson, NOOK had very little, made a lucky draft pick, cleared cap space now they get Peja. The point I was making was that in real life bigtime players come to teams with cap space, because the luxury tax restricts their team from resigning them for that much money, here we have no tax or other impediment so teams will just outbid any teams with cap room, and go way over the cap with no concern. |
|
|
|
Post by Washington Wizards on Jul 2, 2006 3:07:44 GMT -5
i know it sucks for the likes of me b/c i didnt put this team in this mess, but u said players wont go play for owners that are shitty, correct? well consider me the marc cuban of this league, trying to turn a crappy team into something competitive! just hope i have a chance to do that!
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 2, 2006 3:33:40 GMT -5
I believe that teams over the cap should only be allowed the MLE. I was previously under the impression that the only way I could go over the salary cap would be if i was resigning a restricted free agent. Any of my unrestricted free agents I would have to pay with the MLE or LLE.
Something should be done about the cap, I agree. Also, something should be settled about the max deals and who gets who.
How about if a team is over the cap, or the deal will take them over the cap, then they are not allowed to give their OWN players the max? Something like this:
Toronto Raptors have a cap of $52,000,000. His own unrestricted free agent, Peja Stojakovic is a hot target. With our current rule the Raptors would be allowed to exceed the salary cap to resign Peja, but would not be allowed to pursue other free agents. My suggestion is Toronto would not be allowed to exceed the cap to resign his own restricted free agent, meaning the highest offer he could give for Peja would be only $8,000,000. It may seem unfair or whatever, but it gives the cap an identity and something special to have. The teams over the cap, like myself, could not resign our own UFA unless we use our MLE, which is maxed at 5.1 mil. So basically, the only way you can sign your own UFA is with the money you actually have, spare from the cap, or given to you with the MLE.
I like that idea, what do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Wizards on Jul 2, 2006 3:42:51 GMT -5
u know im for it!! just trying to get this squad competitive, which i will one way or the other!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 2, 2006 3:46:57 GMT -5
But let me point out, with my suggestion the RESTRICTED free agents you would be allowed to go over the cap to resign. So the example for that is:
The Los Angeles Lakers are at $52,000,000 and their restricted free agent Mike Dunleavy is offered a $9,000,000 contract. If the Lakers match then they exceed the cap. If Dunleavy was unrestricted he wouldnt be allowed to bid any further, but because Dunleavy is retricted he matches the offer for Dunleavy exceeding the salary cap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Wizards on Jul 2, 2006 3:53:24 GMT -5
yea i know what u mean, but the likes of shaq, ben wallace, j terry & a few others others would go to the highest bidder that could afford them correct? also what about if a team has multiple restriced FA's?
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 2, 2006 4:14:08 GMT -5
as long as they are restricted the team that is resigning them is allowed to go over the cap to keep their own restricted free agents. but if you start out under the cap, and sign your restricted free agent and end up over the cap, you have no more money therefore you cant bid on any other free agent that isnt your own restricted free agent. So as long as the free agent is your own restricted FA your allowed to go over the cap to resign him. Or we could just make it so that your only allowed to exceed the cap with 1 restricted free agent period, if you have multiple. But i like the first suggestion better
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Wizards on Jul 2, 2006 4:22:28 GMT -5
to be honest id just like some clarification one way or the other! if u want a competitive league there has to be a way for teams that lack talent w/ money to become competitive!
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 2, 2006 4:24:28 GMT -5
thats it right there. a team can not go over the cap to resign his own unrestricted free agents, but is allowed to do it for restricted free agents. thats my suggestion
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Wizards on Jul 2, 2006 4:29:05 GMT -5
like i said, that makes sense, id just like a clear cut answer so the teams that lack everything, but money have a chance!
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 2, 2006 5:34:50 GMT -5
well im sure the committee will decide what to do. they have several suggestions now, and i believe my answer is the best. we'll see what the committee decide
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Lakers on Jul 2, 2006 6:27:35 GMT -5
the problem is, the leauge will never reach an agreement. There will be some teams (who have lots of money to spend) supporting this idea, and there will be other teams (who have no cap space but have some big name free agents) opposing this idea.
No matter what the new rules are, I guess we'd need to at least set up a buffer period allowing teams to make trades with their free agents, so the teams that own the free agents would not suddenly lose them for nothing when we suddenlty apply the new rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Jul 2, 2006 8:45:51 GMT -5
that means the few teams under the cap could go around offering everyone $5,200,000 a year and steal them because we can only offer $5,100,000
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 2, 2006 9:04:33 GMT -5
Yep that does mean that. It gives what every wanted, a meaning to the salary cap. But they could only do that if the player is an unrestricted free agent. This is only a suggestion to give the salary cap something to work towards
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 2, 2006 11:07:00 GMT -5
that means the few teams under the cap could go around offering everyone $5,200,000 a year and steal them because we can only offer $5,100,000 But you forget that the people under the cap will bid against each other, so top level talent will still get big money. I don't mind this one that much, though I still prefer letting them go over for 1 player and 1 player only, but this one works as well. We could do this by making a poll two options, keep it the same or change it, then if changing wins we put up options for how to change it, and go with whatever the most people in the league want. |
|
