|
Post by Alex English on Dec 16, 2018 22:21:09 GMT
So for the first time a team was restricted by the hard cap. To me that makes now as good time as any to start a thread to go over what we can expect as the hard cap really comes into affect next offseason. The basics have been worked out, but things aren't entirely clear to me how certain situations will be handled, so I'm sure that's true for others as well. A lot of weird situations are hard to predict and, like with most things in D5, we'll address many of these issues as they come up. However, I think if we have a thread where people can ask questions as they think of them then we can anticipate a lot of possible problems. So first of all, here's what the rules say currently: Hard Cap2019/20: 150% of Salary Cap
2018/19: $178,270,750 (175% of Salary Cap)
2017/18: $198,186,000 (200% of Salary Cap) 2016/17: $207,114,600 (220% of Salary Cap) 2015/16: $161,000,000 (230% of Salary Cap)
Every trade must decrease your team's salary if you are over the Hard Cap.
Teams cannot re-sign even Bird Rights players if they over the Hard Cap. The only time a player can be signed is if a team is under the 12 player roster limit for the league minimum.
Teams forfeit the rookie picks they own in the year they enter Off Season Free Agency over the hard cap. Link: dynasty5ive.proboards.com/thread/4/salary-cap-hard
Given the NBA's current projection of a $109 million cap for the 2019-20 season, our hard cap will drop to $163.5 million this upcoming offseason. This puts the following team over the hard cap: Charlotte Hornets - $185,543,978 Denver Nuggets - $175,260,339 Orlando Magic - $168,408,647and the Bulls are right up against it: Chicago Bulls - $162,003,457As the rules state this means that James Kay Blake Bowman and myself will all forfeit our draft picks for the 2019 draft, and none of us will be able to re-sign our free agents or sign new players (with the exception of minimum contracts if required to reach the roster limit). Shane Battier could face these consequences too if the cap comes in slightly lower than the projection. Ok, all good so far, now for the things that haven't been addressed: What about team options?Can a team that's over the hard cap exercise team options on their players? They're technically under contract already so it's not re-signing a player, but it's also a choice made by a GM that is at odds with the hard cap rule. To me the answer should be no. Teams should lose the right to exercise team options on a player if after doing so they're above the hard cap limit. This point is probably worth discussing, Ian Noble what do you think? If this is the case, then Charlotte would lose Damyean Dotson, and I would lose OG Anunoby, Josh Hart and Tony Bradley. What about player options?Can a player exercise a player option if their team would be over the hard cap after? To me the answer here is yes. A player shouldn't be limited due to the GMs decisions. This is similar to how waived players automatically exercise player option when cut. Player's are entitled to what their contract states. Not doing this would also make a loophole where teams could chase overpaid players with player options (ex: Bismack Biyombo) to help escape the hard cap. Can teams trade forfeited draft picks?If the draft started tomorrow and I lost my 1st round pick due to being over the hard cap, could I trade it to another team so they could use the pick? I think the answer here should be yes. The pick doesn't really stop existing and it's still technically an asset owned by a team above the hard cap. So teams should be able to trade for a future pick, or something else, and the team receiving the forfeited pick should then be able to use it. What if the real cap comes in below the projection?Let's consider the Bulls, as things currently stand they are $1.5 mil under the hard cap. That means they are entitled to their draft picks so long as the salary is than $1.5 mil, which I guess means the Bulls could get their late 1st round pick, but not any second round picks. So what happens if the Bulls draft a player then the real hard cap number comes in $3 million lower than the projection? Do the Bulls lose the right to the player they just drafted? I'd say the Bulls (or any other teams in this situation) should be able to keep their drafted player, but I'm sure there's room for discussion here. In my mind, at the point in time when the pick was made if the team is entitled to their pick, then they should get the player. If afterward new information comes and the team is now above the hard cap, we should not retroactively change any decisions.
Anybody have other situations where it's not clear how the hard cap impacts things? What do people think about what I've brought up here? Ian Noble do you have all the answers to these questions? What about the answer to life, the universe and everything?
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 16, 2018 22:31:24 GMT
What about team options? Can a team that's over the hard cap exercise team options on their players? They're technically under contract already so it's not re-signing a player, but it's also a choice made by a GM that is at odds with the hard cap rule. To me the answer should be no. Teams should lose the right to exercise team options on a player if after doing so they're above the hard cap limit. This point is probably worth discussing, Ian Noble what do you think? If this is the case, then Charlotte would lose Damyean Dotson, and I would lose OG Anunoby, Josh Hart and Tony Bradley. [...] Can teams trade forfeited draft picks? If the draft started tomorrow and I lost my 1st round pick due to being over the hard cap, could I trade it to another team so they could use the pick? I think the answer here should be yes. The pick doesn't really stop existing and it's still technically an asset owned by a team above the hard cap. So teams should be able to trade for a future pick, or something else, and the team receiving the forfeited pick should then be able to use it. To your first point, I think that team options should not be affected by the Hard Cap. I know the terms are "pick up" a team option, or "exercise" a team option, but functionally, team options allow a team to sever an already existing contract. Contracts that contain team options are already agreed upon and choosing not to dismiss a player shouldn't be regarded as creating a new signing. Even more, this wasn't clear in the rules and I don't think it would be fair to retroactively implement it without proper notice. We gave teams so many years to get ready for the hard cap, so obviously notice is important, and this is a pretty big aspect of the hard cap to re-interpret one season before the hard cap becomes just 150% of the salary cap. However, regarding your second point, I think that teams affected by the Hard Cap should definitely not be able to trade their draft picks. The round should just be one pick shorter. Further, I think this mitigates the punishment that the Hard Cap is intended to provide - moving a forfeited pick for another asset does away with that completely. It's hardly a punishment, then.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 16, 2018 22:56:56 GMT
James Kay messaged me earlier asking for clarification on some of these points and you guys are absolutely right, there needs to be extra clarification on all these scenarios. I should've anticipated these nuances would arise! It happens with every new element of D5 "gameplay" that is introduced. It's late here so I will hopefully get back to this tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 16, 2018 23:36:51 GMT
To your first point, I think that team options should not be affected by the Hard Cap. I know the terms are "pick up" a team option, or "exercise" a team option, but functionally, team options allow a team to sever an already existing contract. Contracts that contain team options are already agreed upon and choosing not to dismiss a player shouldn't be regarded as creating a new signing. Even more, this wasn't clear in the rules and I don't think it would be fair to retroactively implement it without proper notice. We gave teams so many years to get ready for the hard cap, so obviously notice is important, and this is a pretty big aspect of the hard cap to re-interpret one season before the hard cap becomes just 150% of the salary cap. For the team options, I can see that argument, but I'm of the opinion that the hard cap should be as hard and inflexible as possible. Teams should feel the pain when they reach it otherwise what's the point? It should be as brutal as possible to best help the current competitive imbalance we have. Also I'm not sure how it would be retroactive. It's an issue that's never come up before and is currently an undefined gray area that's never been interpreted in the first place. It's also like 7 months from when the possible impacts will be felt, that's a lot of time for us to react and plan accordingly. However, regarding your second point, I think that teams affected by the Hard Cap should definitely not be able to trade their draft picks. The round should just be one pick shorter. Further, I think this mitigates the punishment that the Hard Cap is intended to provide - moving a forfeited pick for another asset does away with that completely. It's hardly a punishment, then. For the same reasons above, I'm open to this argument as it's a harder punishment, but then it opens a whole other can of worms. Phoenix currently owns your 2020 1st round pick, should that pick be forfeited? If not, why not? You're set to be over the hard cap. I assume we all agree Phoenix should get that pick, because they shouldn't be punished for your decisions. But then if Phoenix gets to keep that pick, then clearly a pick from a team over the hard cap can be picked by someone else depending on the circumstances. So then when is the line for trading a pick? A year before the draft? A day before? There isn't really a clean or simple answer that I can see. If we can come up with a simple answer that doesn't leave a hundred different loopholes, then I'm for it, but currently for the sake of simplicity, I think teams should just be able to trade these picks.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 16, 2018 23:54:12 GMT
If teams over the hard cap can pick up team options we might as well abolish it, as it'll be nothing more than symbolic. The same goes for trading draft picks, if a team trades a draft pick they should lose next year's pick, not escape the penalty. Otherwise the rule is toothless and will not increase parity at all.
IMO D5 should either have a hard cap with legitimate penalties or not have one at all
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 17, 2018 0:37:27 GMT
We also need to clarify the trading in the month of June. What is the official salary being counted there? The current season or the following season?
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 17, 2018 0:44:36 GMT
]For the team options, I can see that argument, but I'm of the opinion that the hard cap should be as hard and inflexible as possible. Teams should feel the pain when they reach it otherwise what's the point? It should be as brutal as possible to best help the current competitive imbalance we have. If teams over the hard cap can pick up team options we might as well abolish it, as it'll be nothing more than symbolic. The same goes for trading draft picks, if a team trades a draft pick they should lose next year's pick, not escape the penalty. Otherwise the rule is toothless and will not increase parity at all. IMO D5 should either have a hard cap with legitimate penalties or not have one at all Why is prohibiting team options for over-the-cap teams necessary to give the hard cap any bite? The demand for every trade to decrease your team's salary (not even even exchanges allowed), the forfeiture of picks, and the inability to re-sign BRs players are significant disincentives, IMO. Adding in a rule against team options isn't necessary. ] Also I'm not sure how it would be retroactive. It's an issue that's never come up before and is currently an undefined gray area that's never been interpreted in the first place. It's also like 7 months from when the possible impacts will be felt, that's a lot of time for us to react and plan accordingly. I think its pretty clear that interpreting "Teams cannot re-sign even Bird Rights players if they over the Hard Cap" to include a prohibition on team options is a big stretch. This isn't really even "an undefined gray area," it's plainly not within the language of the rule as it's currently written. Accepting a team option is not "re-signing" a player. And sure, 7 months is a decent amount of time, but we gave the big salaried teams FIVE years before bringing the hard cap down to 150%. Making this drastic an re-interpretation just as it is going to start having an impact makes no sense with how long we originally gave teams to prepare. Phoenix currently owns your 2020 1st round pick, should that pick be forfeited? If not, why not? You're set to be over the hard cap. I assume we all agree Phoenix should get that pick, because they shouldn't be punished for your decisions. But then if Phoenix gets to keep that pick, then clearly a pick from a team over the hard cap can be picked by someone else depending on the circumstances. So then when is the line for trading a pick? A year before the draft? A day before? There isn't really a clean or simple answer that I can see. If we can come up with a simple answer that doesn't leave a hundred different loopholes, then I'm for it, but currently for the sake of simplicity, I think teams should just be able to trade these picks. What's wrong with a bright-line rule that prohibits trading draft picks if you're over the hard cap? Including the following seasons - meaning, if you're over the cap for 2019-2020, you can't trade 2019-2020 picks, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 17, 2018 1:39:13 GMT
The rule is pointing to picks that you "own". The moment you trade it, it is not your own anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 17, 2018 2:37:53 GMT
Why is prohibiting team options for over-the-cap teams necessary to give the hard cap any bite? The demand for every trade to decrease your team's salary (not even even exchanges allowed), the forfeiture of picks, and the inability to re-sign BRs players are significant disincentives, IMO. Adding in a rule against team options isn't necessary. Why wouldn't you want the hard cap to have the hardest bite possible? The hard cap by definition shouldn't really have any exceptions. Short of forcibly removing players from teams, everything should be on the table imo. I think its pretty clear that interpreting "Teams cannot re-sign even Bird Rights players if they over the Hard Cap" to include a prohibition on team options is a big stretch. This isn't really even "an undefined gray area," it's plainly not within the language of the rule as it's currently written. Accepting a team option is not "re-signing" a player. And sure, 7 months is a decent amount of time, but we gave the big salaried teams FIVE years before bringing the hard cap down to 150%. Making this drastic an re-interpretation just as it is going to start having an impact makes no sense with how long we originally gave teams to prepare. I don't really see how the length of time it's taken for the hard cap to come into play is important here. I think most people would agree it's taken way longer than necessary for us to lower the hard cap to a level where it's now finally making an impact. Either we think there's enough time for people to plan accordingly or we don't, and as someone that could hypothetically lose two of my best young players, I think there's lots of time. What's wrong with a bright-line rule that prohibits trading draft picks if you're over the hard cap? Including the following seasons - meaning, if you're over the cap for 2019-2020, you can't trade 2019-2020 picks, etc. Ok lets break it down. Here's a scenario: 2018 Hard cap: $150 mil
Team Salaries:
Team A 2018-19: $140 mil 2019-20: $155 mil 2020-21: $130 mil
Team B 2018-19: $160 mil 2019-20: $125 mil 2020-21: $120 mil
Can Team A trade their 2019 draft picks? What about their 2020 draft picks? Can Team B trade their 2019 draft picks? What about their 2020 draft picks? If we're banning teams from trading future picks then doesn't it have to be based on the current hard cap since the future level of the hard cap is unknown? So if we don't allow Team A to trade their 2019 picks because they're over the $150 mil hard cap, then what happens if the cap jumps for the next year and the 2019 hard cap becomes $160 mil? Now we've punished Team A for no reason. Then Team B is currently over the hard cap, but won't be following the next draft. Does it make sense to ban them from trading 2019 and 2020 picks? But then if we don't, what kind of punishment are they really facing in this area? I'm not saying we couldn't make these rules, because we could and ideally we should. I'm just saying that things get muddy really quickly when we're trying to make hard-line rules that apply to a moving target, especially when that moving target isn't really known in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 17, 2018 3:13:35 GMT
The point of the hard cap was to promote parity. Allowing hard cap teams to exercise team options and trade their draft picks instead of just losing them goes against this goal. If we really want the hard cap to make a difference it needs to be comprehensive, otherwise parity will remain as stratified in D5 in the future as it is now.
Half-measures won't make a meaningful difference
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 17, 2018 3:42:44 GMT
I don't really see how the length of time it's taken for the hard cap to come into play is important here. I think most people would agree it's taken way longer than necessary for us to lower the hard cap to a level where it's now finally making an impact. Either we think there's enough time for people to plan accordingly or we don't, and as someone that could hypothetically lose two of my best young players, I think there's lots of time. I'm just bringing up the length of time because it seems like we acknowledged that it was a drastic rule change (as it has no basis in the real NBA - I don't count the luxury tax because that doesn't generate the type of managerial penalties enacted here), and therefore we gave a lot of time. It just seems odd to me to depart from that and change that rule when the seasons already started, especially considering, again, how it's not at all reflected in the rule as it currently stands. I'm not saying we couldn't make these rules, because we could and ideally we should. I'm just saying that things get muddy really quickly when we're trying to make hard-line rules that apply to a moving target, especially when that moving target isn't really known in advance. Yeah, I mean that was one idea, but those problems are all super valid. What about just a complete ban on all draft pick trading if you're above the hard cap?
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Dec 17, 2018 7:54:15 GMT
I think we have made the hard cap too complex and vague at the same time. IMO it should be as simple as:
"Teams cannot enter into any transactions, of their own free will, that results in them being over the hard cap"
That means hard cap teams don't lose draft picks, as you have no choice but to make those picks and first rounders are automatically signed contracts. Unless we are interpreting this as drafting is not compulsory? I also do not believe a hard cap team should lose 2nd round picks, as it is not compulsory to sign them to a contract. They should be able to retain the draft rights until they have the cap room to sign them (or until they lose the draft rights).
It also does not impact player options, as you have no choice in the matter.
However, you cannot pick up team options, as this is your own decision. Same goes for signing bird rights players, etc. Basically, if it ends up in you being over the hard cap, you can't actively choose to do it.
|
|
Billy King
Former Jazz and Knicks GM
Rookie
Posts: 247
Oct 30, 2023 14:13:22 GMT
|
Post by Billy King on Dec 17, 2018 14:06:20 GMT
You could solve the problem by making the hard cap, well, mmm, hard.
A hard cap you can exceed isn’t a hard cap at all, just another less soft salary cap.
Anyone whose team is over the hard cap at the current time has their team placed under league control and has moves made for them until they are under the hard cap. Optionally fired if they bitch about it. If youre projected to be over the hard cap in the future, its your job to get under the hard cap before it happens. Just like its your job to make your draft picks and send bids to free agents, and if you dont do your job you get fired. We have a long waiting list.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 17, 2018 23:39:41 GMT
You could solve the problem by making the hard cap, well, mmm, hard. A hard cap you can exceed isn’t a hard cap at all, just another less soft salary cap. Anyone whose team is over the hard cap at the current time has their team placed under league control and has moves made for them until they are under the hard cap. Optionally fired if they bitch about it. If youre projected to be over the hard cap in the future, its your job to get under the hard cap before it happens. Just like its your job to make your draft picks and send bids to free agents, and if you dont do your job you get fired. We have a long waiting list. In theory I guess I agree, but in practice I don't see how putting teams under league control and forcing transactions on a team could possibly be a good idea. This is all of JR Wiles conspiracy theories come true lol. How could you do it objectively or fairly? If you had to take my team to get me under the hard cap, what would you do? Trade Lopez? Trade Aldridge? Trade Harden? All those options would work, but some fuck up my team way more than others. I'm more with Andrei Kirilenko where we should just broadly say teams cannot willingly make any transactions if the result of it puts them over the hard cap, and if they're already over for whatever reason, all transactions must reduce salary. To me draft picks fall into a voluntary transaction though, as we don't have to make a pick, teams have passed on their picks before. Following this same line, then trading draft picks would be legal if you didn't end up taking on more salary.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 17, 2018 23:44:28 GMT
That means hard cap teams don't lose draft picks, as you have no choice but to make those picks and first rounders are automatically signed contracts. Unless we are interpreting this as drafting is not compulsory? I also do not believe a hard cap team should lose 2nd round picks, as it is not compulsory to sign them to a contract. They should be able to retain the draft rights until they have the cap room to sign them (or until they lose the draft rights). Nah, the great draft pick hater JR Wiles once forfeited a pick he was unable to trade away: dynasty5ive.proboards.com/post/7090/threadThat's an interesting point about 2nd rounders though because you could just retain rights and not sign a guy then try and get under the hard cap. I still think 2nd round picks should be lost though as it's a bigger punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Z on Dec 18, 2018 0:57:54 GMT
In theory I guess I agree, but in practice I don't see how putting teams under league control and forcing transactions on a team could possibly be a good idea. This is all of JR Wiles conspiracy theories come true lol. How could you do it objectively or fairly? If you had to take my team to get me under the hard cap, what would you do? Trade Lopez? Trade Aldridge? Trade Harden? All those options would work, but some fuck up my team way more than others. I think the point is to give a GM such a non-option that it just forces them to comply and not try to muddy things up. I'm all for it, set it up in a way that a GM would rather bite the bullet and get under then face the consequences. Get under the cap a week before the season starts or be fired. Just for reference sake, this is what the NFL (hard cap, contracts not fully guaranteed) penalties look like. "Penalties for violating or circumventing the cap regulations include fines of up to $5 million for each violation, cancellation of contracts and/or loss of draft picks"
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 18, 2018 2:40:12 GMT
Will this one sentence explanation be better...
Teams cannot make any transactions and actions that will increase their total salaries plus newly drafted rookie/s, either 1st or 2nd round) contracts in the seasons that they are above the current hard cap other than signing guys for minimum contract/s to abide with the minimum 12-man roster.
I think, that can answer any queries that you have by itself.
Drafting? They cannot do that.
Team Option? When total salaries are computed, it is already part of it. Thus, claiming it should be allowed.
Player Option? When total salaries are computed, it is already part of it. Thus, claiming it should be allowed.
Trading? They can only trade if their total salaries plus newly drafted rookie, either 1st or 2nd round) contracts in EACH season that they are above the current hard cap WILL DECREASE.
Future Seasons The beauty of the definition above is it also affects future seasons. Like, if you are not yet above the HC this season but in your current roster salary, you will be on 2021 season, the definition above will affect that season. Thus, if you are trying to re-sign players with BR, you need to make sure that re-signing him will not increase your total salaries plus.... in 2021.
Gameplay One thing that it allows is the entry to go beyond the HC in the years that you are still below the HC. Thus, it will be a point of gameplay for us in deciding when to enter the HC. I like this to remain for enjoyment purposes of everyone. A hard cap that you cannot go beyond with is just too restrictive and will further empowers drafting and tanking which I really hate.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 18, 2018 3:56:16 GMT
Future SeasonsThe beauty of the definition above is it also affects future seasons. Like, if you are not yet above the HC this season but in your current roster salary, you will be on 2021 season, the definition above will affect that season. Thus, if you are trying to re-sign players with BR, you need to make sure that re-signing him will not increase your total salaries plus.... in 2021. The problem with this is that we don't know what the hard cap is for future seasons, as it's based on the salary cap and we don't know the true figure for the salary cap until the beginning of any offseason. The NBA gives projections sometimes (like the current 2019-20 projection of $109m) but that's hardly a reliable source of information and it can change easily.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 18, 2018 4:10:25 GMT
Future SeasonsThe beauty of the definition above is it also affects future seasons. Like, if you are not yet above the HC this season but in your current roster salary, you will be on 2021 season, the definition above will affect that season. Thus, if you are trying to re-sign players with BR, you need to make sure that re-signing him will not increase your total salaries plus.... in 2021. The problem with this is that we don't know what the hard cap is for future seasons, as it's based on the salary cap and we don't know the true figure for the salary cap until the beginning of any offseason. The NBA gives projections sometimes (like the current 2019-20 projection of $109m) but that's hardly a reliable source of information and it can change easily. We will use the current hard cap. The possibility that the salary cap will decrease is minimal, so I think the current hard cap is just fine. The possibility that the salary cap will have a huge jump is high but that for me is fine because if you think about it, the teams over the HC will receive a negative implication because they will be restricted as per rule.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 18, 2018 4:48:41 GMT
We will use the current hard cap. The possibility that the salary cap will decrease is minimal, so I think the current hard cap is just fine. The possibility that the salary cap will have a huge jump is high but that for me is fine because if you think about it, the teams over the HC will receive a negative implication because they will be restricted as per rule. But then you could be punishing teams for breaking a rule that they don't actually break... which really doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 18, 2018 14:53:18 GMT
I've been becoming more and more open to the idea of waiting for OSFA and pushing it to right before the D5 regular season. We'd get more accurate estimates of player worth and everyone would know where the players are at so they could be more educated about signings. This would solve most of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 18, 2018 15:12:24 GMT
We also need to clarify the trading in the month of June. What is the official salary being counted there? The current season or the following season? Current season. Salaries don't progress until July 1st.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 18, 2018 15:13:37 GMT
If teams over the hard cap can pick up team options we might as well abolish it, as it'll be nothing more than symbolic. The same goes for trading draft picks, if a team trades a draft pick they should lose next year's pick, not escape the penalty. Otherwise the rule is toothless and will not increase parity at all. IMO D5 should either have a hard cap with legitimate penalties or not have one at all Agreed re: TOs. Trading draft picks is sort of ungovernable because a team could trade away their draft pick now, 7 months before the Draft, when they expect to be above the HC.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 18, 2018 16:44:53 GMT
Been mulling over all of this for a few hours and here's what I think is best: TL;DR: No transaction should allow a team to exceed the Hard Cap.Each year on July 1st, when salaries progress to the following year, the following year's total team salaries might exceed the Hard Cap - and that is the only time the Hard Cap can be exceeded. TradingTrading seems to be an easy one: If you're under the Hard Cap, you can't go over it with a trade. If you're over the Hard Cap already, every trade must decrease your salaries. Draft PicksIf you're over the Hard Cap on the day the Draft starts you lose all your picks in that Draft. Not just your own team picks but any other picks you also own.
To me this seems like the best method when it comes to timings. Previously the Rule stated that if you're over the Hard Cap when team salaries progress on July 1st, when OSFA starts, then you lose all your picks in the following year's Draft, but those dates are too removed from one another, I'd rather make it applicable instantly and then not have to think about it again and/or forget about it when the next year's Draft happens and cause mishaps.
If you're under the Hard Cap when Draft starts you get to keep your picks, even if the picks then take you above the Hard Cap, again partly because logistically it is far too exorbitant to police whether each draft pick pushes you over the Hard Cap when those draft picks are happening. It is a 100% certainty that teams will make picks, we'll realize they've gone over the Hard Cap, but 10 picks will have happened before that realization and the fairness and continuity of the Draft will be ruined.
It's impossible to ban teams from trading Draft Picks based only on the possibility that they might be over the Hard Cap when the Draft starts. Teams expecting to be above the Hard Cap will obviously trade away their picks during the season and not necessarily be harmed by this rule, but since there is absolutely no way of knowing whether a team will be over the Hard Cap when the Draft begins it's logically impossible to police a ban on trading draft picks.
Barber suggested teams should keep their 2nd Rounders, but I don't see why we need that variable thrown into the mix to further complicate things. Team OptionsYou cannot pick up a Team Option if it takes you over the Hard Cap.
Team Options are an option that disappears for the team when it takes them over the Hard Cap. Player OptionsPlayer's cannot exercise the right to use their Player Option if it takes their team over the Hard Cap.
This is the controversial one because of (1) Paul George and (2) a Player Option is a previously signed and binding contractual agreement in which the player has all the power to make a decision whether to stay or leave their team. Surely it goes against the nature of what constitutes a Player Option if we don't allow them to use it?
The arguments I'm thinking that cancel this out are: (1) The health of the league is more important than a Player Option, (2) teams approaching Hard Caps will love to hand out massive Player Options and (3) the player knows that if they opt-out then they cannot re-sign, this constitutes a gigantic incentive to opt-in and continue their contract with their team at a discount, it is an extra unfair advantage for the team when the purpose of the Hard Cap is to address inequality.
I'm open to suggestions as to why this should/should not be the rule but on balance, with these points taken into consideration, I feel like this is the best decision on POs.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 18, 2018 16:51:47 GMT
I completely agree with what you've proposed Ian. It's easy to understand, makes logical sense and actually puts some teeth in the hard cap rule
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Dec 18, 2018 17:04:12 GMT
I agree with your thoughts on this Ian Noble with the exception of the player option piece. For example, if it’s clear the PO for a player is in their best financial interest given the contract they signed— such as $35 MM for a player who is rated in the 70s or 80s— they’d conceivably be leaving money on the table. If anything, it’d be the GMs obligation to maneuver their roster to respond to such an action, whether that is inability to exercise a team option, or loss of draft picks, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Price on Dec 18, 2018 17:27:28 GMT
The only issue I have with the hard cap the way it's currently constructed is that a team can be over the hard cap and still compete and maybe even win the league.
The Hornets are an imperfect example because as stated above, a player like Paul George can't accept the player option if it would take him over the cap. However, say that George didn't have a player option for next year and was already under contract, but the team was over the hard cap. A team with KD, Westbrook, George, and Middleton could conceivably win the title even if they weren't allowed to make any additional moves or use any of their draft picks. A scenario like that seems to underline the entire purpose of the hard cap.
I think a better situation would be to allow players to pick up their player options if that would be in the player's best interest. However, I think that any team that is over the hard cap should have to forfeit any game that they play while they are over the hardcap. That penalty seems harsh, but keep in mind a team knows that they are going to be over the hardcap in July and will have until almost December to rectify the situation until they have to forfeit their first game.
The purpose of a hardcap, in theory, is to not allow team to exceed that payroll. I think that having a penalty like that is the only way to ensure that the hard cap is effective in its purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 18, 2018 17:41:31 GMT
Mark Price - I think there's a good point to what you're saying: a team ~maybe~ shouldn't be able to go over the Hard Cap even when salaries progress, but I think your method is too punitive and too abstract. At most, if a team cannot go over the Hard Cap under any circumstances, it would mean being forced to cut players or trade them away to get them under the Hard Cap, not forfeiting wins.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Price on Dec 18, 2018 18:12:12 GMT
Mark Price - I think there's a good point to what you're saying: a team ~maybe~ shouldn't be able to go over the Hard Cap even when salaries progress, but I think your method is too punitive and too abstract. At most, if a team cannot go over the Hard Cap under any circumstances, it would mean being forced to cut players or trade them away to get them under the Hard Cap, not forfeiting wins. I think the best solution would be to not have any other penalties besides forfeitures. A GM who is over the cap should be able to keep their draft picks and make any trades they want to make. Having no other penalties besides forfeitures allows the GM to use all of their assets in the way they see fit to get their roster under the cap. In our league it's generally the best run teams that have found a way to continue to add talent and salary even though they are over the soft cap. Those same well run teams can find ways to shed salary while keeping the assets that they desire most. Another benefit to a system like this is that it's easy to understand. If you're over the hard cap you have to forfeit the games you play while over the cap. There's no other regulations you have to follow and it's very straight forward. In this arrangement the Hornets wouldn't have to lose Paul George. They have players like Tony Snell and George Hill that could easily be traded away by attaching a second round pick or two to get them off the book. I at least know that I would consider taking a deal like that. The benefits of this scenario is that it keeps the hard cap actually hard, while allowing teams to keep the assets they value most. It's pretty easy to follow and understand too.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 18, 2018 18:47:58 GMT
I object to the team option rule, as noted above, and I won't elaborate on that any more.
But I can't live with this player option ruling. Not one person in this thread has argued against allowing players to pick up their options. Not one person has said that they support that ruling. This was never ever mentioned in the hard cap rules.
This is a rule that will only affect me. It will only affect me this off-season, and I honestly have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a team is able to acquire a player that just barely takes them to the hard cap and they have a player option the next season with an increase that takes them above the hard cap.
Is everyone cool with this? I know it's Ian's league so I suppose I don't have any real say, but I don't think it's cool that one top 5 team is arbitrarily instituting rules that affect only one other team - another top 5 team.
And I've been making decisions for two years now with absolutely no idea that there was going to be a rule against player options. This is a gigantic change to the rule and one that, since it only affects me, and is only about Paul George, will have a huge impact. This isn't just me having to deal Damyean Dotson away lmao this is way too much.
Not to mention the player option for PG was so dumb in the first place. It was supposed to operate as a "safeguard" for poor performance, but if he opts out I don't even have his bird rights. When has a player signed a deal like that - not named Lebron? I know that's settled and the PO isn't going to be changed but having a rule change like this only affecting me because of this dumb contract has made me irrationally angry.
For the reasons mentioned above: the lack of consensus, the lack of notice, the fact that it will only affect me, the fact that it surreptitiously benefits the rule-maker, the fact that the contract is ridiculous in the first place, I can't get behind this in any way. If you want to make this the rule, there are other arguments against it, but at the very least, it should not affect current contracts that were signed and accepted without notice of this rule.
In regard to your specific points about the justification of the rule:
(1) The health of the league is more important than a Player Option -
I don't see how retroactively instituting rules against one particular GM is good for the health of the league. Where's the stability if at any moment there might be a new rule that totally changes the trajectory of your team? Where's the incentive to invest time and effort into planning if there's no way to know when the next rule will come and completely disrupt your plans?
(2) teams approaching Hard Caps will love to hand out massive Player Options -
Uh what? Why would they do that? If you're approaching the hard cap and willing to go over it you should just offer massive contracts to begin with. The first year still needs to be below the hard cap and if subsequent years are going to take you over the hard cap it doesn't matter if they're player options or not. If the incentive would be to get them to accept it then why not just give them guaranteed contracts?
(3) the player knows that if they opt-out then they cannot re-sign, this constitutes a gigantic incentive to opt-in and continue their contract with their team at a discount, it is an extra unfair advantage for the team when the purpose of the Hard Cap is to address inequality. -
If 2 doesn't exist, then 3 is not going to be a common scenario that would provide justification for this rule in the first place.
|
|