|
|
Post by New York Knicks on Nov 27, 2006 16:22:26 GMT -5
so u are sayin u would trade maurbury for a second round pick and a low 70s player
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Nov 27, 2006 16:23:24 GMT -5
Thats true too. Well you might have to sacrifice big salaries for less talent if it means saving cap. I do too. Thats what I am trying to say. Hypothetically speaking if we put this rule in affect for this upcoming offseason, I would have to get rid of at least Kevin Garnett. I could either trade him for a cheaper talent like Dwight Howard if that team had the salary room and was willing to do that trade, or for a player like Grant Hill, where Hills contract is expiring. Sometimes you have to give up a little, to get a little. In this case giving up talent, to get cap space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Nov 27, 2006 16:24:28 GMT -5
so u are sayin u would trade maurbury for a second round pick and a low 70s player not necessarily, it would depend on alot of things.but unless it was a top rookie no, but I have to think you could get more than that, but les than another star. Marbury at 20,000,000 isn't worth a star, he's worth a good player who is cheap and maybe a pick. Or a decent player with an expiring deal and a pick. |
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Nov 27, 2006 16:25:01 GMT -5
Thats true too. Well you might have to sacrifice big salaries for less talent if it means saving cap. I do too. Thats what I am trying to say. Hypothetically speaking if we put this rule in affect for this upcoming offseason, I would have to get rid of at least Kevin Garnett. I could either trade him for a cheaper talent like Dwight Howard if that team had the salary room and was willing to do that trade, or for a player like Grant Hill, where Hills contract is expiring. Sometimes you have to give up a little, to get a little. In this case giving up talent, to get cap space. I'll do that ;D Edit- ironically, even though I think we should keep the rules we made last offseason i'd probably benefit from a hard cap more than anyone else, as i have cap space an expiring deal that's huge, and all my best players are locked up for cheap for several more years. |
|
|
|
Post by New York Knicks on Nov 27, 2006 16:29:10 GMT -5
i agree with you guys but when people are coming to you with deals for your main player on a team you dont want to get a player back that is the 8th or 9th man on there team unless its like San Antonio
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Nov 27, 2006 16:33:35 GMT -5
i agree with you guys but when people are coming to you with deals for your main player on a team you dont want to get a player back that is the 8th or 9th man on there team unless its like San Antonio True, but the problem is that marbury isn't great, he's not KG at 20,000,000. You're not gonna get anyone who's a star for that. and since there aren't many big expiring deals around you are asking the person to take on most of the 20 mil this year. In that case the best you can hope for is a guy in the mid 70's, a stephen jackson type, and then use the cap room you got to sign someone come offseason. |
|
|
|
Post by Orlando Magic on Nov 27, 2006 16:55:54 GMT -5
I have the best idea yet!!!
The hard cap idea is not fair.
Elimination is not fair.
Maybe this is better....
Instead of completely preventing teams from going over the "hard cap", lets just get rid of the fact that you can resign your free agents and go over the cap at all, unless they are restricted. Like this offseason, I can offer only up to MLE money on Maurice Williams, I can not go over that. Detroit, you can match any offer for Hinrich and Diaw, because they are restricted, but you can't spend more than the MLE on anyone else, because you are over the cap. This makes perfect sense, just stop people from spending more than 1 MLE to resign their players, but still allow them a chance to resign someone/few people for MLE/LLE money and to keep their restricted free agents. This idea should please everyone.
Also, Detroit, your example was stupid. You are not going to go from Garnett / Diaw / Artest / Kobe / Hinrich to losing all 5 of them in one offseason. First of all, if you DID trade Garnett and Kobe, you would get plent of talent in return. Second of all, why would you be unable to resign Diaw and Hinrich if you did dump Kobe and Garnett? And, why would you choose Diaw @ $15m over Garnett @ $20m. Whatever though, I proposed a better idea than anyone else has so far. Think about it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Miami Heat on Nov 27, 2006 16:59:02 GMT -5
i dont really find hard cap that unfair. why is it unfair to even the playing field. and i realize your point that your already over, but then you just have to trade some players for smaller contracts. and your idea is a good idea to you because it favors you the most, since you dont have any good FA. what about teams like mine with Billups. How is that fair
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Nov 27, 2006 17:04:11 GMT -5
out of curiosity...
does anyone actually have a problem with the system we were setting up for this offseason:
ie. you may only go over the cap to resign restricted free agents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miami Heat on Nov 27, 2006 17:05:55 GMT -5
i dont
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Nov 27, 2006 17:45:36 GMT -5
out of curiosity... does anyone actually have a problem with the system we were setting up for this offseason: ie. you may only go over the cap to resign restricted free agents. i dont really either. we could only limit it to 1 though again to spread talent further. SA would lose lebron or wade, i would lose hinrich or diaw and other teams would lose players too im sure. i have no problem with our current system though. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Nov 27, 2006 17:53:37 GMT -5
"Also, Detroit, your example was stupid. You are not going to go from Garnett / Diaw / Artest / Kobe / Hinrich to losing all 5 of them in one offseason. First of all, if you DID trade Garnett and Kobe, you would get plent of talent in return. Second of all, why would you be unable to resign Diaw and Hinrich if you did dump Kobe and Garnett? And, why would you choose Diaw @ $15m over Garnett @ $20m. Whatever though, I proposed a better idea than anyone else has so far. Think about it"
Im at about 80 million dollars in cap. Thats with Hinrich and Diaw earning about 4 mil combined. Lets say the hard cap is 70 mil, just for example. I have two options: trade Kobe for an expiring contract or cheaper salary, or trade Garnett for an expiring contract or cheaper salary. Lets say I trade Garnett, for Grant Hill. My cap is now around 60 million dollars. Under my proposal, you cant go over the hard cap to sign your own RFA, and so i have 10 million dollars to sign 1 RFA. Lets say I sign Hinrich for 10 million dollars, putting me at the hard cap limit. My new lineup is:
C Ratliff
PF Mcdyess
SF Artest
SG Bryant
PG Hinrich
But what if I wanted to save room further by trading Bryant for an expiring contract? I could do that too. My point is, while you guys complain how it would hurt your team, it hurts my team just as bad, if not worse. I now have no bench and my only good players are 1-3, my frontcourt is extremly weak, and I have absolutly no cap space at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Nov 27, 2006 17:55:42 GMT -5
And I believe a lineup of
C Duncan
PF Haslem
SF Granger
SG Bell
PG Terry
is better then my lineup. (SA gets rid of mohammed, boozer, other expensive players)
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 27, 2006 17:57:39 GMT -5
i dont really find hard cap that unfair. why is it unfair to even the playing field. and i realize your point that your already over, but then you just have to trade some players for smaller contracts. and your idea is a good idea to you because it favors you the most, since you dont have any good FA. what about teams like mine with Billups. How is that fair I actually like that idea, it's a compromise between both sides. Forgetting about the whole Elimination idea.. One side proposed to prevent resigning any players if you are over the cap, the other side was to be able to resign all of your players and still have the MLE. This deal would allow teams over the cap to keep their youth (restricted free agents), but most likely lose their veterans (unless they can all be resigned for a total of 1 MLE / LLE). Sure, Miami, you will most likely lose Billups (you are guaranteed to lose him the other way), but you might be able to hang on to Mason and Brown. You shot yourself in the foot with the $15,000,000 signing of Al Harrington. Detroit, you don't have to lose Hinrich and Diaw, but hey you can always trade away Garnett to someone who needs a PF just to even the playing field, you can play by your own rules in my cases, if you want to make it more competitive. |
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Nov 27, 2006 18:00:59 GMT -5
i dont really find hard cap that unfair. why is it unfair to even the playing field. and i realize your point that your already over, but then you just have to trade some players for smaller contracts. and your idea is a good idea to you because it favors you the most, since you dont have any good FA. what about teams like mine with Billups. How is that fair I actually like that idea, it's a compromise between both sides. Forgetting about the whole Elimination idea.. One side proposed to prevent resigning any players if you are over the cap, the other side was to be able to resign all of your players and still have the MLE. This deal would allow teams over the cap to keep their youth (restricted free agents), but most likely lose their veterans (unless they can all be resigned for a total of 1 MLE / LLE). Sure, Miami, you will most likely lose Billups (you are guaranteed to lose him the other way), but you might be able to hang on to Mason and Brown. You shot yourself in the foot with the $15,000,000 signing of Al Harrington. Detroit, you don't have to lose Hinrich and Diaw, but hey you can always trade away Garnett to someone who needs a PF just to even the playing field, you can play by your own rules in my cases, if you want to make it more competitive. This was exactly my point in saying we should stick to the system we agreed on for this offseason. It rewards you for drafting well by letting you keep restricted, but it keeps you from loading up on vets too. That way the established vets start moving around, but people don't have to lose a guy they drafted after 3 years. |
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 27, 2006 18:09:03 GMT -5
And I believe a lineup of C Duncan PF Haslem SF Granger SG Bell PG Terry is better then my lineup. (SA gets rid of mohammed, boozer, other expensive players) IF this rule went in to effect, I'd find a way to keep my core. I could return this lineup with a $70,000,000 cap: C: Duncan / Oberto F: Granger / Horry F: James / G: Wade / Raja Bell G: Terry / Blake Starting lineup: $61,530,987 Bench: $7,300,000 Total: $68,830,987 Under the hard cap, still a great team, just no depth. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Nov 27, 2006 23:30:01 GMT -5
like I have a ton of cap and I planned it that way because their are alot of free agents possible this off season.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 28, 2006 10:22:53 GMT -5
Boston Celtics
Phoenix Suns
Seattle Supersonics
Minnesota Timberwolves
These 4 teams still need to vote, we are pretty much going to keep the same teams no matter what and just alter the offseason rules, but I want to make sure these 4 teams are still active.
|
|
|
|
Post by brent4president on Nov 28, 2006 16:25:21 GMT -5
i think it would be fair to have a level playing field with a fantasy draft, give everyone the same chance to win as everyone else
|
|
|
|
Post by Miami Heat on Nov 28, 2006 16:29:28 GMT -5
lol, i think that we decided against that already, most of us said that we would leave if there was a fantasy draft
|
|
