|
Rules?
Jul 2, 2006 19:57:03 GMT -5
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 2, 2006 19:57:03 GMT -5
"Just so happens that his FA he wants to keep, Dunleavy, is a RFA, and his FA that no one wants (Ratliff) is an UFA" I dont want to keep Dunleavy that bad. If he goes over a certain amount, which is pretty low, I'm letting him walk. I have Francisco Garcia for backup SF now. I would rather keep Ratliff then Dunleavy. My proposal wasnt biased, it was what I thought was best for the league in general. Honestly I'm more interested in Ratliff than Dunleavey
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 2, 2006 20:01:07 GMT -5
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 2, 2006 20:01:07 GMT -5
Yeah thats what I said. Cleveland was assuming that I want to give an outrageous contract to Dunleavy so I can keep him, and I dont really care if I resign him or not. I am very confident and I like Francisco Garcia very much and I want him as my primary SF backup so if Dunleavy gets to expensive for my taste I wont have a problem letting him go. Ratliff however I want to hold on to, I need a center.
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 0:16:05 GMT -5
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Jul 3, 2006 0:16:05 GMT -5
Bottom line is if you start changing rules now then it's only fair to go back and redo trades that were done with the knowledge of how the rule works now.
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 0:18:32 GMT -5
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Jul 3, 2006 0:18:32 GMT -5
so like I have no chance at amare, yao, shaq, prince, ben wallace for that matter, peja, none of the good free agents I have 0 chance for even if I free some cap space up and offer them the max. But you can max out every player on your team to resign them. I mean what stops a team like the spurs from maxing nazr muhhamoud just so he doesnt lose him? Nothing What stops teams from doing that is that they can't sign any other players if they go over the cap to resign their own guy. I had over 30 mill. at the beginning of the offseason and I chose not to use any of that on any FA's in order to keep my guys. This is how it worked last year and I'm sure it's how it will work this year.
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 0:27:45 GMT -5
Post by New Jersey Nets on Jul 3, 2006 0:27:45 GMT -5
so like I have no chance at amare, yao, shaq, prince, ben wallace for that matter, peja, none of the good free agents I have 0 chance for even if I free some cap space up and offer them the max. But you can max out every player on your team to resign them. I mean what stops a team like the spurs from maxing nazr muhhamoud just so he doesnt lose him? Nothing Yea, but if someone max's out a player who should not get the max that team will be in a cap bind for years. It's that simple, nothing to cry about.
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 1:07:59 GMT -5
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 3, 2006 1:07:59 GMT -5
so like I have no chance at amare, yao, shaq, prince, ben wallace for that matter, peja, none of the good free agents I have 0 chance for even if I free some cap space up and offer them the max. But you can max out every player on your team to resign them. I mean what stops a team like the spurs from maxing nazr muhhamoud just so he doesnt lose him? Nothing What stops teams from doing that is that they can't sign any other players if they go over the cap to resign their own guy. I had over 30 mill. at the beginning of the offseason and I chose not to use any of that on any FA's in order to keep my guys. This is how it worked last year and I'm sure it's how it will work this year. Ok but you are saying they can only go over the cap to sign their own guys.... then why wouldn't anyone let someone decent go from their team. Like if I had the spurs (just example) what would stop me besides retirement for ever breaking up my team. I could max out even my 12th man. Like why would a team let a half decent player go when they could just max him and get him back. Like nothing will stop a team from maxing their own players as long as they want to keep them even if they dont deserve a max deal. I mean nothing will stop the spurs from having 12 guys all max players.
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 1:08:24 GMT -5
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 3, 2006 1:08:24 GMT -5
was just using the spurs for example purposes nothing against them.
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 1:15:14 GMT -5
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Jul 3, 2006 1:15:14 GMT -5
This is guy is going to keep saying the same crap. There will be plenty of FA's for you to waste money on, don't worry. Teams went through the same problems last year so I'm sure they can go through it again. This kid just keeps crying about the rules. Get over it buddy.
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 1:22:46 GMT -5
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 3, 2006 1:22:46 GMT -5
Because you still havent answered me. What free agents will be even avaiable. The only reason you say I am crying is because you have 2 big name free agents and can automatically get them back just because you want them. Answer to me how will any team with cap room be able to sign a good free agent?
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 2:11:54 GMT -5
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 3, 2006 2:11:54 GMT -5
This is guy is going to keep saying the same crap. There will be plenty of FA's for you to waste money on, don't worry. Teams went through the same problems last year so I'm sure they can go through it again. This kid just keeps crying about the rules. Get over it buddy. Look at the Free Agent list and show me one guy who is going to really improve someone's team who will be available. The problem is that we need some way to simulate the effect of the luxury tax, if not no real impact players will switch teams, this will leave us with a very segmented league where a few teams will stay good, and a bunch of teams will stay bad. Then the bad teams GMs will cycle, it isn't a coincidence that pretty much all the new managers are on teams that were not very good last year
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 2:43:10 GMT -5
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 3, 2006 2:43:10 GMT -5
There are basically two sides to this if you think about it. Right now all the "powerhouse" clubs OR those teams with unrestricted free agents that they want to keep (New Jersey, Cleveland, etc.) are not supporting a rule change to make it more fair and even. All of the "rebuilding" clubs that have alot of cap room and no stars want a rule change ro make it more fair and even. You guys have to compromise. You guys have to look at it from the other teams perspectives. Cleveland and New Jersey could potentially lose Ben Wallace and Shaquille O'Neal with my suggestion. (My suggestion allowed you to go over the cap to resign your own RFA but not your own UFA. Therefore if all you have is the MLE then thats all you can offer your own UFA.) They dont want that to happen so of course they wont support any rule change. Utah and Charlotte have alot of cap room and need a star. If every big name free agent is locked up (like New Jersey will lock up Ben Wallace and Cleveland with Shaq) then how can they improve at all?
I'm with the rebuilding teams on this one, we do need a change because we dont actually have to PAY these people the salary. In the NBA its real money you have to pay, here it isnt. I believe you should be allowed to go over the cap to sign your own RFA but not your own UFA.
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 3:01:40 GMT -5
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 3, 2006 3:01:40 GMT -5
I agree with detroit 100%
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 10:50:05 GMT -5
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Jul 3, 2006 10:50:05 GMT -5
We know you agree with Detroit 100%, but rules are rules so get over it. Last year with the same rules in place a lot big name FA's switched teams.
Ray Allen: switched teams Michael Redd: switched teams Larry Hughes: switched teams Tyson Chandler: stayed with team Samuel Dalembert: stayed with team Joe Johnson: switched teams
|
|
|
Rules?
Jul 3, 2006 10:57:22 GMT -5
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 3, 2006 10:57:22 GMT -5
We know you agree with Detroit 100%, but rules are rules so get over it. Last year with the same rules in place a lot big name FA's switched teams well it looks like the rules are going to be changed in some way, i suggest you vote for your favorite option in the Final Free Angency poll.
|
|