|
Post by Ian Noble on Apr 10, 2020 13:59:56 GMT
Hard Cap 2020I think it might be sensible to cap the Hard Cap this off season - stop it dropping lower than $150m. 1. The Hard Cap is quite punitive (you lose your draft picks, you can only sign for the league minimum and only when you are under 12 players etc.) 2. The Salary Cap could reduce lower than $100m this Off Season, meaning the Hard Cap could be lower than $150m. 3. There was no way for GMs to plan for how crazy 2020 has been, with the Morey China tweet and coronavirus, it's not fair to punish GMs who did enough to plan ahead for this (at least keep their salaries under $150m). I think it might be sensible to cap the Hard Cap - stop it dropping lower than $150m. The Salary Cap - I'm not so sure, I think we could just adopt the NBA's as usual. Current the following teams are predicted to be over $150m: Chicago Bulls Cleveland Cavaliers Denver Nuggets Houston Rockets Orlando Magic Sacramento KingsBut these teams are also quite close: Phoenix Suns - $135m Portland Trail Blazers - £136m Just thought I'd start a discussion to hear everyone's thoughts.
|
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
Apr 14, 2024 11:04:23 GMT
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Apr 10, 2020 14:06:25 GMT
I think that's fair Ian Noble! I tried hard to get under the hard cap until the covid-19 pandemic, then I got frustrated and said the hell with it!
|
|
Billy King
Former Jazz and Knicks GM
Rookie
Posts: 247
Oct 30, 2023 14:13:22 GMT
|
Post by Billy King on Apr 10, 2020 14:07:48 GMT
Hard cap for president!
#HardCap2020
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 10, 2020 14:09:35 GMT
I’d actually be in favor of keeping the course on the cap and providing each GM/team a one-time amnesty provision that could be used on any single player but only for the 2020-2021 season. That way, teams who need to get off someone to get below the line can, versus trying to finagle the hard cap implications. The NBA used this during the CBA issued prior to the last one, and teams were able to do it for one player in I believe the 2014-15 season (Travis Outlaw is the biggest contract I remember getting whacked by the Blazers at $35 MM)
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 10, 2020 14:19:49 GMT
I strongly disagree with capping it at $150m (hereby referred to as the D5 Bailout Plan). Most of the teams on that list have a history of reckless cap spending and we shouldn't bail them out just because times are tough. Some of us have been patiently cap-responsible for several seasons and have been licking our chops watching the infinite-cap-rising assumption come to a screeching halt. It would be unfair to bail out these irresponsible teams at the expense of the responsible teams.
I do, however, think player agents should take into account the scenario this summer. Maybe we see less long term contracts or less players opting out of POs. But I don't think we should be implementing fairly drastic rule changes this close to the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 10, 2020 14:31:28 GMT
Another quick point... there's several teams way under the cap next season who are offering up expiring contracts on their trade block. No one is above the hard cap by circumstance, every team on the list has an opportunity to get below the hard cap if they so desire.
If there was no cap floating around then I could understand implementing a bail out, but the market is still alive and a bail out would only make that cap space less valuable for those lower-tier teams.
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on Apr 10, 2020 14:43:42 GMT
I agree with the 150 million rule for 1 year. If you look at the teams in this situation 4/7 are new GM's. Most of us didnt offer these horrible contracts and now we are punished because of a global pandemic? I've spent 10 million so far in FA and suddenly I'm at the risk of losing 2 picks after I traded my 12 th pick last year and DeMar in order to get this process started.
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Apr 10, 2020 15:07:41 GMT
I’d actually be in favor of keeping the course on the cap and providing each GM/team a one-time amnesty provision that could be used on any single player but only for the 2020-2021 season. That way, teams who need to get off someone to get below the line can, versus trying to finagle the hard cap implications. The NBA used this during the CBA issued prior to the last one, and teams were able to do it for one player in I believe the 2014-15 season (Travis Outlaw is the biggest contract I remember getting whacked by the Blazers at $35 MM) I love this lmao
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Apr 10, 2020 15:45:17 GMT
I hate the amnesty idea. No offense George but it's terrible imo. Would be a massive handout to the good teams and a huge disadvantage to teams that have carefully managed their cap.
I also don't like reducing the hard cap. Let it fall where it may. As Josh said, these teams have spent recklessly for years. If they want to get under the hard cap, there are plenty of teams willing to take on salary and give back expirings.
No bailouts for D5's billionaire-class!!!
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 10, 2020 15:54:05 GMT
I hate the amnesty idea. No offense George but it's terrible imo. Would be a massive handout to the good teams and a huge disadvantage to teams that have carefully managed their cap. I also don't like reducing the hard cap. Let it fall where it may. As Josh said, these teams have spent recklessly for years. If they want to get under the hard cap, there are plenty of teams willing to take on salary and give back expirings. No bailouts for D5's billionaire-class!!! Where I approached this was from a tangible example in the NBA’s history; to my knowledge they never have arbitrarily held the cap to a certain point despite one well publicized attempt (post 2015 cap smoothing efforts), but they have used the Amnesty Clause before when there’s an “Oh Shit” moment with finances. If we’re trying to follow as closely to how the NBA COULD navigate this situation, an amnesty at least has precedent. I agree it is the most shameless of handouts, but there’s at least an argument for that versus arbitrarily picking a number for the HC ceiling being proposed at the top of the thread. Edit: To add, as someone with about $100 MM in expirings who could benefit GREATLY from holding the status quo, if I’m throwing this out there, it’s out of problem solving an unpredictable (and unprecedented) situation.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Z on Apr 10, 2020 16:08:03 GMT
Josh's voice is the voice of the people. I think at minimum wait and see what the NBA does and then take another look at it, but I'm against a lower hard cap.
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on Apr 10, 2020 16:14:04 GMT
Josh's voice is the voice of the people. I think at minimum wait and see what the NBA does and then take another look at it, but I'm against a lower hard cap. Plus let's remember this forfeiting draft picks rule is something that is singular to D5 and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't fly with most owners in the NBA if this was a thing in the actual NBA and the hard cap got significantly smaller from 1 year to another without any type of preparation being possible. It's better to wait and see what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Apr 10, 2020 16:51:01 GMT
Danny Green or Crowder plus something for an expiring. Let’s see how ridiculous of an asking price these guys with cap space are asking for.
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 10, 2020 17:08:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 10, 2020 19:03:37 GMT
Yeah I agree with Jerry West.
Josh mentions "cap responsibility" - this is all about timing. That's all this is. The teams that have played the tanking game right now are the ones set to benefit the most from this. Basically, have you unrealistically gutted your roster for years, loaded up on draft picks, got lucky with a few young players on 5 year rookie contracts? Congratulations.
The blatent tanking with no repercussions has always bothered me and Ian's idea prevents the true rich, the D5 rich, from getting even richer. The D5 rich - the people who have blown up their teams forsaking competition in the hope of landing multiple lucrative 5 year rookie scale salaries for high impact players.
If this had happened 2-3 years from now, the same guys in this thread advocating against the idea would be the ones championing it.
Never mind the fact that West brings up 4/7 of the teams on there are new GMs. If I hadn't made any moves and just stuck with Kevin Love and Mike Conley I would have been so screwed. Thank God I retooled this roster before things got bad.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 10, 2020 19:25:13 GMT
It doesn't matter to me if a GM is new or not. You took over an established franchise, no one gets to start from scratch in D5 unless you claimed a team 10 years ago, and even then, we started with real-life rosters. And no offense, but most of the new GMs on this list (Izzo, Amare, Jerry West) all made moves to worsen their cap situation rather than alleviate it. The only teams I have sympathy for are Denver and Chicago, who were both competitive teams before we even started implementing a hard cap and have just been getting constricted by it every year.
When the cap was exponentially increasing a few years ago, we didn't have any discussions over limiting the increase to protect certain D5 teams, and the better-off teams in D5 benefited from by loading up on FAs they had no business having cap room for. Now that there's a scenario that benefits the worse teams, you guys are all up in arms. Why are we doing things to protect the top teams in D5 but not the bottom teams?
This hard cap rule has been around for years now and was very slow to be implemented. It would be silly to suddenly change it a few months before free agency starts.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 10, 2020 20:51:58 GMT
I think leaving the hard cap is fine. I also don't expect the salary cap to drop so maybe that's influencing my blasé attitude about the hard cap.
However, I am very excited for up and coming teams like the Pelicans, that have spent years under the cap simply by virtue of having no chance of signing anyone noteworthy, to finally go up against the hard cap in subsequent years. Smart cap management is easy when there's nothing to play for but losses. I'll enjoy monitoring if these teams are as vocal in their arguments for a strong and punitive hard cap as they are now.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 10, 2020 22:42:05 GMT
I think leaving the hard cap is fine. I also don't expect the salary cap to drop so maybe that's influencing my blasé attitude about the hard cap. However, I am very excited for up and coming teams like the Pelicans, that have spent years under the cap simply by virtue of having no chance of signing anyone noteworthy, to finally go up against the hard cap in subsequent years. Smart cap management is easy when there's nothing to play for but losses. I'll enjoy monitoring if these teams are as vocal in their arguments for a strong and punitive hard cap as they are now. That's my point. Managers who would have been fired in real life and exploited D5s contract rules stand to gain the most. Somebody mentioned don't let the "D5 billionaires" win or something like that. Look at the last result of the GM survey about who people want to trade rosters with. The desired rosters in this league are the teams who have blown things up and sucked for years while landing young talented players on cheap contracts. That's what people most desire. So who really is in the "billionaire" club? George Gervin admitted to the "Patrick Mahomes" strategy. Loading up on vastly underpaid stars on rookie contracts and then using that cap space to lure in a veteran star player. I'm not faulting him for it. It's smart and a good strategy. But it also increases these teams contention window when Doncic is on a 5 year contract and we don't do RFA. That one extra year of a rookie contract is huge. Normally, you only get them for 4 years and have to pay up that 5th year. If we followed that, how differently would the league look right now? Then you have other people talking about financial responsibility. Give me a break. This is a timing thing not a fiscal responsibility thing. In 2-3 years the teams who have played the tank game are going to be at the hard cap. I'll be looking forward to witnessing their fiscal responsibility then. I'm completely against the strategy people have employed here. The West is a joke and you have people celebrating and wishing for losses, trying to get out of the playoffs. I mean good for me I guess, I can make the playoffs, but also the excitement is gone. Without owners, fans, media to answer to, it's always Championship or bust. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me much because I'll be over the hard cap regardless and I've been planning for that. But I think limiting the drop is a smart thing to do, otherwise, the D5 rich get richer.
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 10, 2020 22:56:52 GMT
I think leaving the hard cap is fine. I also don't expect the salary cap to drop so maybe that's influencing my blasé attitude about the hard cap. However, I am very excited for up and coming teams like the Pelicans, that have spent years under the cap simply by virtue of having no chance of signing anyone noteworthy, to finally go up against the hard cap in subsequent years. Smart cap management is easy when there's nothing to play for but losses. I'll enjoy monitoring if these teams are as vocal in their arguments for a strong and punitive hard cap as they are now. That's my point. Managers who would have been fired in real life and exploited D5s contract rules stand to gain the most. Somebody mentioned don't let the "D5 billionaires" win or something like that. Look at the last result of the GM survey about who people want to trade rosters with. The desired rosters in this league are the teams who have blown things up and sucked for years while landing young talented players on cheap contracts. That's what people most desire. So who really is in the "billionaire" club? George Gervin admitted to the "Patrick Mahomes" strategy. Loading up on vastly underpaid stars on rookie contracts and then using that cap space to lure in a veteran star player. I'm not faulting him for it. It's smart and a good strategy. But it also increases these teams contention window when Doncic is on a 5 year contract and we don't do RFA. That one extra year of a rookie contract is huge. Normally, you only get them for 4 years and have to pay up that 5th year. If we followed that, how differently would the league look right now? Then you have other people talking about financial responsibility. Give me a break. This is a timing thing not a fiscal responsibility thing. In 2-3 years the teams who have played the tank game are going to be at the hard cap. I'll be looking forward to witnessing their fiscal responsibility then. I'm completely against the strategy people have employed here. The West is a joke and you have people celebrating and wishing for losses, trying to get out of the playoffs. I mean good for me I guess, I can make the playoffs, but also the excitement is gone. Without owners, fans, media to answer to, it's always Championship or bust. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me much because I'll be over the hard cap regardless and I've been planning for that. But I think limiting the drop is a smart thing to do, otherwise, the D5 rich get richer. The strategy I’m employing isn’t much different than the IRL Mavs or Hawks, where they have guys in the early stages of their rookie deals and am looking to add a quality player to that. The Mavs did it with 3-6 Latvia, the Hawks to add Capela. There’s always going to be cases where guys outplay their rookie deals— even in the traditional 4 year structures you mentioned. Agreed the lack of a 2+2 structure like the NBA’s rookie deals does allow more time to load up— and no ability to have RFA makes that window longer. But to say I’m sitting for losses isn’t true— I know no playoffs or wins means, unless it’s a massive overpay for a declining vet, there isn’t going to be interest. I also lucked into both guys from the 2018 class— Doncic via a fluke lotto jump in a 5 in a 1,000 scenario, then have Detroit pass him up for Ayton, whereas SGA by chance that he slid to 12.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Apr 11, 2020 1:21:13 GMT
I don't care
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Apr 11, 2020 1:32:47 GMT
in real life, theres a lot more ways to lower your cap. theres cutting and stretching a players contract which is what i would do right now if we had the chance to.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 11, 2020 3:14:17 GMT
in real life, theres a lot more ways to lower your cap. theres cutting and stretching a players contract which is what i would do right now if we had the chance to. All this would do is overpower rookie deals even more and the teams that have tanked and loaded up would benefit hugely.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Apr 11, 2020 5:25:15 GMT
Can we finally have a Salary Hard Floor? Wherein no team should enter a seaon having a lower total salary than its amount.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Apr 11, 2020 8:58:45 GMT
Can we finally have a Salary Hard Floor? Wherein no team should enter a seaon having a lower total salary than its amount. Does that exist in the real NBA? What's the pros/cons?
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 11, 2020 9:08:19 GMT
Can we finally have a Salary Hard Floor? Wherein no team should enter a seaon having a lower total salary than its amount. Does that exist in the real NBA? What's the pros/cons? It does exist in the NBA and is set at 90% of the salary cap. The penalty for being below it is a one time payment immediately post trade deadline to the rostered players in equal sums that get the team to the cap floor. Most famous examples of avoiding this penalty are the Hinkie 76ers, who traded for JaVale McGee (and his then roughly $12 MM salary) to get to the floor, then they cut him after that penalty deadline lol As far as pros, it eliminates teams with tons of space in-season that could drive up prices on FAs artificially (e.g. Motley signing last season in D5 a good example). Cons are the IRL penalty has no meaning or teeth in D5. It’d be more for the sake of leveling the field season to season. There’s also no requirements that to get to the floor a team has to keep the player(s) they sign or acquire; just that they’re on their cap sheet post trade deadline
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on Apr 11, 2020 9:09:28 GMT
Can we finally have a Salary Hard Floor? Wherein no team should enter a seaon having a lower total salary than its amount. Does that exist in the real NBA? What's the pros/cons? Yes there is a 90% salary floor in the NBA. Pros - No extreme tanking Cons - Bad teams cant absorb large contracts for picks
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Apr 11, 2020 11:02:41 GMT
Can we finally have a Salary Hard Floor? Wherein no team should enter a seaon having a lower total salary than its amount. Does that exist in the real NBA? What's the pros/cons? yup. And it is very drastic. The biggest pro is realism Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Apr 11, 2020 14:50:32 GMT
Does that exist in the real NBA? What's the pros/cons? yup. And it is very drastic. The biggest pro is realism Ian. Why does it always sound so patronising when someone adds your name to the end of a sentence?
|
|
Chris Mullin
Golden State Warriors
Starter
Posts: 1,303
Feb 19, 2024 21:58:28 GMT
|
Post by Chris Mullin on Apr 11, 2020 19:16:14 GMT
IMO adding a Salary Floor is only going to lead to an increase in players rated 70 or below getting huge 1 year contracts to allow a tanking team to continue to tank but also allow them to meet the Salary Floor requirement at the same time.
This would be a completely legal way around the rule, but would be very unrealistic which would obviously go against what we would be hoping to accomplish with the rule in the 1st place.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Apr 11, 2020 23:08:27 GMT
IMO adding a Salary Floor is only going to lead to an increase in players rated 70 or below getting huge 1 year contracts to allow a tanking team to continue to tank but also allow them to meet the Salary Floor requirement at the same time. This would be a completely legal way around the rule, but would be very unrealistic which would obviously go against what we would be hoping to accomplish with the rule in the 1st place. Nope. If the way you state it is, The total salary of the current year should not go lower than this amount. By doing that it means that the current season is not only the year that you should take not but also the following year because the moment that we transfer to the following year and you are below the line, you will need to suffer the consequence. Example, the case of Lakers. If we have that rule and it is at 50% of the salary cap, they will not be allowed to let go of Jordan. Or, Miami Heat may have been forced not do the unrealistic thing that he did during the season. Or simply state that for 72 and lower players, you cannot offer them a contract of above 8M, for example. And just the mere fact that they will need to use a roster spot is still better than just allowing them to save cap space. And again, that rule is present in the NBA. If we have a hard cap, why do we not have a floor. And by not having a floor, you are actually favoring the tankers.
|
|