|
|
Post by Jerry West on Mar 28, 2021 22:55:13 GMT
It's hard to content because it's possible to create super teams with 5 max players. If people can't do that it will balance the league and encourage more people to compete. Or do we just want everyone to tank until they have 3 top 5 picks and then compete with them plus 2 max players? It should be possible because in real life, that is possible. Name one team with 5 max players |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Mar 28, 2021 23:09:08 GMT
It should be possible because in real life, that is possible. Name one team with 5 max players It is theoretically possible. Am I wrong? Did we have one already in D5? |
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on Mar 28, 2021 23:12:08 GMT
Name one team with 5 max players It is theoretically possible. Am I wrong? Did we have one already in D5? We didn't saw 4, much less 5. The hard cap is set at around 120%, and even the luxury as a limit. If Brooklyn didn't consolidate assets we might have seen them with 5 max players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arvydas Sabonis on Mar 29, 2021 6:46:02 GMT
I think a luxury tax penalty is too complicated. I've been D720 for years and still don't understand their luxury tax rules. We should just lower the hard cap LOL.. There has been multiple threads for discussion and questions before it was implemented and I don't remember you ever asking questions about it? So I think it's on you if you don't understand it. I think it's very simple actually |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 29, 2021 20:00:13 GMT
Current proposal- Allow 120% non-BRs re-signings. - Gradual decrease to 140% Hard Cap over the next 3 seasons: 2021/22: 150%
2022/23: 145%
2023/24: 140% - Hard Cap penalties: Lose current year's draft picks and TO players.
All trades must decrease total team salary. - No Luxury Tax
ThoughtsUntil now the way to show you're a good GM was to stockpile talent. After further reductions in the Hard Cap an excess of talent will mean the way to show you're a good GM is which talent you choose to keep as your core. I'm a little torn on Luxury Tax because, although it's an ideal solution, it reduces the simplicity for GMs and a lower Hard Cap does a similar job anyway. Hard Cap I can see decreasing even further than 140%, possibly to 135%, given only 3 teams in the real NBA are above 127% this year. Hard Cap penalties don't seem that harsh: if I want to just say "screw it" and I keep my starting 5 together even though it exceeds the Hard Cap, all I need to do is trade away my draft pick and TO players each year to ensure my team does not diminish in value too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Mar 30, 2021 0:25:26 GMT
Current proposal- Allow 120% non-BRs re-signings. - Gradual decrease to 140% Hard Cap over the next 3 seasons: 2021/22: 150%
2022/23: 145%
2023/24: 140% - Hard Cap penalties: Lose current year's draft picks and TO players.
All trades must decrease total team salary. - No Luxury Tax
ThoughtsUntil now the way to show you're a good GM was to stockpile talent. After further reductions in the Hard Cap an excess of talent will mean the way to show you're a good GM is which talent you choose to keep as your core. I'm a little torn on Luxury Tax because, although it's an ideal solution, it reduces the simplicity for GMs and a lower Hard Cap does a similar job anyway. Hard Cap I can see decreasing even further than 140%, possibly to 135%, given only 3 teams in the real NBA are above 127% this year. Hard Cap penalties don't seem that harsh: if I want to just say "screw it" and I keep my starting 5 together even though it exceeds the Hard Cap, all I need to do is trade away my draft pick and TO players each year to ensure my team does not diminish in value too much. Do you see this being implemented with the 2021 OSFA period? So any teams currently with veterans that haven’t met BRs can extend them at 120% this offseason? Or would this be a 2022 OSFA implementation date? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Mar 30, 2021 0:36:59 GMT
I don’t think these rules should impact current players, or else it’s not really fair for all the trades we’ve made under the assumptions that there’s no 120% rule, etc. If we are going to implement that rule, I think it should start 3 years in the future so it does not impact any current contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Mar 30, 2021 1:56:52 GMT
I don’t think these rules should impact current players, or else it’s not really fair for all the trades we’ve made under the assumptions that there’s no 120% rule, etc. If we are going to implement that rule, I think it should start 3 years in the future so it does not impact any current contracts. This makes sense, but something about it also seems excessive to me. Will making the change now hurt teams? If the reason to wait is to justify past decision, but it does nothing to help keep things fair now, then I think we should just make the change sooner. We've all been making decisions based on how things were, but we can all benefit from from the change. If there's no adverse impact, it seems like the benefit is greater than the cost. |
|
Tim Duncan
Former Jazz GM
Sophomore
Posts: 482
Mar 9, 2022 22:04:51 GMT
|
Post by Tim Duncan on Mar 30, 2021 4:02:51 GMT
I don’t think these rules should impact current players, or else it’s not really fair for all the trades we’ve made under the assumptions that there’s no 120% rule, etc. If we are going to implement that rule, I think it should start 3 years in the future so it does not impact any current contracts. This makes sense, but something about it also seems excessive to me. Will making the change now hurt teams? If the reason to wait is to justify past decision, but it does nothing to help keep things fair now, then I think we should just make the change sooner. We've all been making decisions based on how things were, but we can all benefit from from the change. If there's no adverse impact, it seems like the benefit is greater than the cost. It does hurt the FA market for teams with cap space though. I feel like at least for 2 offseasons it should not be implemented since imo most GMs plan at least 2 offseasons in advance for FA |
|
Tim Duncan
Former Jazz GM
Sophomore
Posts: 482
Mar 9, 2022 22:04:51 GMT
|
Post by Tim Duncan on Mar 30, 2021 4:13:53 GMT
I do like the idea of luxury tax more than a lower hard cap simply because irl you see teams going over the tax for a few seasons if they have a legit shot at a ring but maybe we could have some penalties which make it nearly impossible to stay over the tax for more than 2 seasons.
Another thing is I don't think you should ever be allowed to be over the hard cap. I feel like with the penalties we have for being over the hard cap, disregarding the hard cap completely and trading away players with TO and firsts could be a better option for contenders. We have never had to implement this in D720 but the way it works for us is that if you are over the hard cap at the start of the regular season, your lowest contracts would be stretched and waived until you are under it. Maybe that could be amended to contracts of lowest rated players instead of lowest contract amounts but I feel that would be a better way of dealing with the hard cap since then you can truly not be over the hard cap under any circumstance.
|
|
Tim Duncan
Former Jazz GM
Sophomore
Posts: 482
Mar 9, 2022 22:04:51 GMT
|
Post by Tim Duncan on Mar 30, 2021 4:20:33 GMT
Can we please stop babying the TANKERS? Almost, all the recent big changes favor them already! Rookie BRs being available for trades. The hard cap. It is already hard for playoff contenders because the exceptions are not available in this league. Even the MLE is not allowed to be utilized if you have cap space. The reality is, it is much harder to contend here than to tank. So, can we at the very least, lean this one more towards the contenders? Just a little bit please. I feel like a lower hard cap would actually result in teams not tanking as much. I mean tankers will always find a way to tank but I feel like a lower hard cap could lower the number of teams tanking due to the parity a lower hard cap would create. Let's say currently an Eastern Conference 9th-10th seed has a chance to trade a young player or pick for a low 80s player. Imo in that position I would inclined to not make the move in most cases since it is most likely going to result in a 7th or 8th seed and a first round sweep at the hands of a super team like Boston and Brooklyn. A lower hard cap lessens the chances of creation of super teams which make it more beneficial for a team to make a playoff push even as a lower seed rather than embrace the tank |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Mar 30, 2021 4:28:42 GMT
It does hurt the FA market for teams with cap space though. I feel like at least for 2 offseasons it should not be implemented since imo most GMs plan at least 2 offseasons in advance for FA That's definitely a fair point. Any rule change will have people adjust their plans though, and we constantly have to adjust to new information. I feel like the 2022 offseason, or maybe 2023, is fair. Longer than that makes for an extremely long time in sim-league years. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Mar 30, 2021 5:24:32 GMT
3 years for a rule change?
That is way too long. Why wouldn't we just implement this now? The only downside I'm seeing is teams didn't get to plan for this but...so what? Adjust and move on. This doesn't hurt anyone this only helps everybody. I'm failing to see the actual down side beyond "I haven't been able to plan for years to carry out this plan"
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Mar 30, 2021 5:37:26 GMT
3 years for a rule change? That is way too long. Why wouldn't we just implement this now? The only downside I'm seeing is teams didn't get to plan for this but...so what? Adjust and move on. This doesn't hurt anyone this only helps everybody. I'm failing to see the actual down side beyond "I haven't been able to plan for years to carry out this plan" Your sentences Tom are contradicting each other. |
|
|
|
Post by Arvydas Sabonis on Mar 30, 2021 7:38:00 GMT
Current proposal- Allow 120% non-BRs re-signings. But trading of BR is still not possible, or? I really think that allowing that would be more beneficial and also easier for everything than just implementing this 120% rule. This feels like a halfway solution. It will open up the trading, but also will leave many situations where player has been on a cheap contract, but take a big leap in one year and then the 120% increase is peanuts in comparison to market value. Generally I think the argument that something benefits either tankers/contenders is really weak, and should not be considered imo. In the end it benefits everyone. There will be time when some of the contenders will need to rebuild, and tankers are doing their thing to find the talent and move to the contender group asap. (Although there might be some masochist though who just enjoys losing, and does it every year for fun.. lol) In sense, I think having tradeable BR would also make quicker rebuilding possible. Once a contending team wants to re-tool if they actually get maximum possible trade value for all their old players (with BR), it makes quicker turnarounds possible. Lowering Hardcap I think is fine. I would not stretch it to 3 years though. 2 years should be plenty enough time to make some additional moves. And we are not talking about huge amounts. It's for trading 10million in salary away, or not signing one role player extra. For penalty I guess it's fine for first year, although as said it's not punishing much if you trade your draft picks away already. I think for staying multiple years over hard cap should be some harder penalty, like taking next possible 1st round pick away. Or force stretch-cutting players until team is under Hard cap. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Mar 30, 2021 13:39:40 GMT
It does hurt the FA market for teams with cap space though. I feel like at least for 2 offseasons it should not be implemented since imo most GMs plan at least 2 offseasons in advance for FA That's definitely a fair point. Any rule change will have people adjust their plans though, and we constantly have to adjust to new information. I feel like the 2022 offseason, or maybe 2023, is fair. Longer than that makes for an extremely long time in sim-league years. My big issue is trades made based on current values. For instance, if this rule was implemented a month ago, then James Harden would have enormous value. Instead, James Kay got him on a discount and is not trying to propose a rule that essentially allows him to re-sign Harden  . The same is true for your own Harden trade, he would have tremendously more value if this 120% rule was in place. It's not fair to the integrity of the league to suddenly change player value so much when we have all been acting under the assumption that Harden, Vucevic, etc. were traded without BRs, but now those players values have suddenly increased tenfold. If I am someone like Shaq I am pissed at this entire thread- he just sold Harden on a discount and now we are proposing to magically increased Harden's value x100. The only fair thing to do is to not enact this 120% rule until 3 offseasons from now. That way, it covers the entire basis of our bird rights rules/assumptions and no one will have any sort of inflated player value from this rule change, as they either are currently expecting BRs on the player anyway in the summer of 2023 or the player will be under a new contract at that time anyway. I might be making a big deal about this but I might seriously consider quitting the league if we just suddenly inflate the value of a bunch of players when we've all been acting under different assumptions for years. D5 has been proven to have longevity, there's no point in rushing a new rule in place when it would be highly unfair to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Arvydas Sabonis on Mar 30, 2021 13:48:03 GMT
You could implement the tradeable BR to any new contract signed during next off-season.
And only implement them to players in current contracts that have been in the same team at least for 3 years. And it would be up for GM to go through the effort of proving the history of the player before Ian changes it in roster sheet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Mar 30, 2021 16:52:26 GMT
That's definitely a fair point. Any rule change will have people adjust their plans though, and we constantly have to adjust to new information. I feel like the 2022 offseason, or maybe 2023, is fair. Longer than that makes for an extremely long time in sim-league years. My big issue is trades made based on current values. For instance, if this rule was implemented a month ago, then James Harden would have enormous value. Instead, James Kay got him on a discount and is not trying to propose a rule that essentially allows him to re-sign Harden . The same is true for your own Harden trade, he would have tremendously more value if this 120% rule was in place. It's not fair to the integrity of the league to suddenly change player value so much when we have all been acting under the assumption that Harden, Vucevic, etc. were traded without BRs, but now those players values have suddenly increased tenfold. If I am someone like Shaq I am pissed at this entire thread- he just sold Harden on a discount and now we are proposing to magically increased Harden's value x100. The only fair thing to do is to not enact this 120% rule until 3 offseasons from now. That way, it covers the entire basis of our bird rights rules/assumptions and no one will have any sort of inflated player value from this rule change, as they either are currently expecting BRs on the player anyway in the summer of 2023 or the player will be under a new contract at that time anyway. I'll just ignore that last paragraph, but I think just the James Harden situation alone is a good point. It would leave Shaq justifiably pissed off given that he's had to make moves on the idea that he wouldn't have Harden's bird rights. Also by 3 years, I've assumed you wanted to wait until the 2024 offseason. Anyone traded now though would have bird rights anyway for the 2023 offseason. So implementing this then wouldn't hurt anybody. So yeah, I agree. We should wait until the 2023 offseason. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 31, 2021 17:17:20 GMT
I can understand starting either tradable BRs/120% rule (whichever we go with) in 2023.
Hard Cap - is removing players from a team even considered punishment? Have any actually valuable players been removed in D720?
Edit: my worry is whether the integrity of the league somehow rests on the *lack of trading* and relative stability of rosters? But on the other hand it does seem very stagnant
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Mar 31, 2021 21:00:32 GMT
I think for sim leagues with moderate turnover (1-2 teams per year or so), the flexibility to change direction of your team is a major appeal. Otherwise the only thing keeping people active is checking sim updates every day.
I think having a bigger trade market helps improve activity.
But I can also understand the fact that some trades may have been made with the idea of our current rules in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Apr 3, 2021 12:51:50 GMT
Re-worked Proposal- Allow either (1) 120% re-signings of non-BR players or (2) make Bird Rights tradeable. I'm still unsure. - Gradual decrease to 140% Hard Cap starting in 2023/24 (also potential future decrease to 135%): 2023/24: 145%
2024/25: 140% - Hard Cap penalties: - No transaction can take your team over the Hard Cap.
- If a trade requires you to sign league minimum players, and the league minimum player signings take your team over the Hard Cap, then the original trade is not allowed.
- edited: If you're over the Hard Cap when OSFA starts and salaries progress, your team's lowest rated players will be released (waived) from your team and their salaries "stretched" into future years.
- With these rules it will be impossible to be over the Hard Cap, therefore no penalties are required.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 3, 2021 13:01:43 GMT
Re-worked Proposal- Allow either (1) 120% re-signings of non-BR players or (2) make Bird Rights tradeable. I'm still unsure. - Gradual decrease to 140% Hard Cap starting in 2023/24 (also potential future decrease to 135%): 2023/24: 145%
2024/25: 140% - Hard Cap penalties: - No transaction can take your team over the Hard Cap.
- If a trade requires you to sign league minimum players, and the league minimum player signings take your team over the Hard Cap, then the original trade is not allowed.
- If you're over the Hard Cap when OSFA starts and salaries progress, players will be removed from your team. The aim will be to get your total team salaries under the Hard Cap with as few players removed from your team as possible. In the instance where there's a choice between several players, the player/s with the lowest subjective "value" will be chosen to be removed.
- With these rules it will be impossible to be over the Hard Cap, therefore no penalties are required.
Making BRs tradable is the easiest and most akin to how the NBA operates for deals change that can be implemented with this proposal. A recent IRL example would be Victor Oladipo, who while he didn’t have a robust market due to the severity of that quad injury and his slow recovery, despite being an expiring player he got to a destination on his FA shortlist that has his BRs. |
|
Tim Duncan
Former Jazz GM
Sophomore
Posts: 482
Mar 9, 2022 22:04:51 GMT
|
Post by Tim Duncan on Apr 3, 2021 13:13:02 GMT
- Hard Cap penalties: - If you're over the Hard Cap when OSFA starts and salaries progress, players will be removed from your team. The aim will be to get your total team salaries under the Hard Cap with as few players removed from your team as possible. In the instance where there's a choice between several players, the player/s with the lowest subjective "value" will be chosen to be removed.
I feel like instead of removing players we should stretch and waive players from their roster because if a team is over the hard cap with a bad contract on the books, they might be able to get rid of it for free by going over the hard cap rather than giving up an asset to get rid of that contract. Stretching and waiving ensures they are still penalized in a way for being over the hard cap. Also instead of relying on subjective value we should just set a rule that the lowest rated players or the lowest contract amounts would be stretched and waived first to not have any arguments about players close in value. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Apr 3, 2021 13:18:41 GMT
- Hard Cap penalties: - If you're over the Hard Cap when OSFA starts and salaries progress, players will be removed from your team. The aim will be to get your total team salaries under the Hard Cap with as few players removed from your team as possible. In the instance where there's a choice between several players, the player/s with the lowest subjective "value" will be chosen to be removed.
I feel like instead of removing players we should stretch and waive players from their roster because if a team is over the hard cap with a bad contract on the books, they might be able to get rid of it for free by going over the hard cap rather than giving up an asset to get rid of that contract. Stretching and waiving ensures they are still penalized in a way for being over the hard cap. Also instead of relying on subjective value we should just set a rule that the lowest rated players or the lowest contract amounts would be stretched and waived first to not have any arguments about players close in value. Good call, I'm on board with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Apr 3, 2021 13:20:19 GMT
edited: If you're over the Hard Cap when OSFA starts and salaries progress, your team's lowest rated players will be released (waived) from your team and their salaries "stretched" into future years. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 3, 2021 19:36:37 GMT
edited: If you're over the Hard Cap when OSFA starts and salaries progress, your team's lowest rated players will be released (waived) from your team and their salaries "stretched" into future years. Why not just allow the team the choose? What if their lowest rated player is a rookie prospect? |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Apr 3, 2021 22:40:56 GMT
Why not just allow the team the choose? What if their lowest rated player is a rookie prospect? It's not really a punishment if the team can choose to just dump bad contracts if they go over the hard cap. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 3, 2021 22:44:53 GMT
Why does it have to be a punishment?
They're already being forced to get rid of someone and reduce their roster size. That's punishment enough. Why arbitrarily decide it must be the lowest rated player?
|
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 3, 2021 22:51:44 GMT
Why not just allow the team the choose? What if their lowest rated player is a rookie prospect? It's not really a punishment if the team can choose to just dump bad contracts if they go over the hard cap. It’s not a complete dump of a bad deal tho as it would be stretched— arguably making it more of an anchor on the salary cap. I do agree with Izzo’s point that dumping rookies if that’s your lowest rated player feels more harsh, but I also don’t agree with being able to expunge bad contracts entirely in this process with no stretch provision. If we allow selection, they should be stretched at least three years into the future cap for a team, which is not that dissimilar to the NBA’s stretch provisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 3, 2021 23:07:51 GMT
If implemented today, only two teams are close to this: Sacramento and Golden State.
Most teams near the hard cap don't have atrocious contracts (Aldridge has turned into one)
Most teams with those really bad contracts are tanking teams who took those contracts on with picks.
I see no good argument here except "punishment"
It's like we don't want to introduce balance and encourage competition as every time we try to take two steps forward we're taking one step back that inevitably leads teams back to the same strategies we're seeing today.
Competing teams need to be "punished" and the only viable strategy is to be worse than any realistic NBA team would ever be for years while you hoard picks
|
|
Portland Trailblazers
Cleveland Cavaliers
New York Knicks
Boston Celtics
San Antonio Spurs
Brooklyn Nets
Denver Nuggets
Houston Rockets
. The same is true for your own Harden trade, he would have tremendously more value if this 120% rule was in place.