|
Post by Alex English on Jan 20, 2015 23:31:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Jan 20, 2015 23:50:54 GMT
Wow screw SVG Barber should run the IRL Pistons
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 21, 2015 0:01:55 GMT
I hate how Alex is able to do this because he has BRs on all of his guys and doesn't have to worry about the cap. There needs to be a hard cap or at least a penalty to stop things like this from happening.
Nothing against Alex here, just seeing this and what Miami has done kinda sucks for teams trying to compete when other teams can just take on massive contracts with total disregard for the cap or their future because they have BRs.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 16:15:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2015 0:40:38 GMT
I hate how Alex is able to do this because he has BRs on all of his guys and doesn't have to worry about the cap. There needs to be a hard cap or at least a penalty to stop things like this from happening. Nothing against Alex here, just seeing this and what Miami has done kinda sucks for teams trying to compete when other teams can just take on massive contracts with total disregard for the cap or their future because they have BRs. Being above the cap seems better than being below it, in this world. Some sort of Faux-luxury tax perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 21, 2015 0:48:21 GMT
I hate how Alex is able to do this because he has BRs on all of his guys and doesn't have to worry about the cap. There needs to be a hard cap or at least a penalty to stop things like this from happening. Nothing against Alex here, just seeing this and what Miami has done kinda sucks for teams trying to compete when other teams can just take on massive contracts with total disregard for the cap or their future because they have BRs. Being above the cap seems better than being below it, in this world. Some sort of Faux-luxury tax perhaps? Not really because Bird rights in this league are not tradeable. You can only get them by keeping a player for years. I've had the same core of players for many seasons now and moves like this are the only way I can make any significant moves. My team is basically irrelevant every year when free agency rolls around.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 16:15:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2015 0:51:54 GMT
Bird rights aren't tradeable?
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 21, 2015 0:53:28 GMT
I hate how Alex is able to do this because he has BRs on all of his guys and doesn't have to worry about the cap. There needs to be a hard cap or at least a penalty to stop things like this from happening. Nothing against Alex here, just seeing this and what Miami has done kinda sucks for teams trying to compete when other teams can just take on massive contracts with total disregard for the cap or their future because they have BRs. Being above the cap seems better than being below it, in this world. Some sort of Faux-luxury tax perhaps? Yes that is exactly what I am talking about. Teams like Denver and Miami can just pile on all sorts of contracts without worry because they have BRs on their players. It really isn't anything against their teams or their respective GMs, they've done a good job, but when they pile on salary like this, it seems unfair and gives the rest of the teams a disadvantage. I propose that they lose their pick if they are X amount over the cap. And that pick goes to a lottery team, their would be a separate lottery for that pick. The rule doesn't have to be implemented right away, and it shouldn't be implemented right away. The teams should have some time to get under the hard cap. But we can't fine the teams like in real life, so the next best thing is to take away a pick. And the pick is likely in the high twenties since they have such good teams.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 21, 2015 0:54:53 GMT
Bird rights aren't tradeable? If you acquire a player with 3 years left on his contract, then you will have their BRs if you keep them the full three years. anything less than 3 years and no, you won't have their BRs if you keep them. Which is why players with 3+ years on their deal are very valuable compared to others.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 21, 2015 0:58:38 GMT
Being above the cap seems better than being below it, in this world. Some sort of Faux-luxury tax perhaps? Yes that is exactly what I am talking about. Teams like Denver and Miami can just pile on all sorts of contracts without worry because they have BRs on their players. It really isn't anything against their teams or their respective GMs, they've done a good job, but when they pile on salary like this, it seems unfair and gives the rest of the teams a disadvantage. I propose that they lose their pick if they are X amount over the cap. And that pick goes to a lottery team, their would be a separate lottery for that pick. The rule doesn't have to be implemented right away, and it shouldn't be implemented right away. The teams should have some time to get under the hard cap. But we can't fine the teams like in real life, so the next best thing is to take away a pick. And the pick is likely in the high twenties since they have such good teams. They work there way to that kind of a team and all of us has the opportunity to work it out too so there is nothing unfair there. But if the majority will agree with you, then penalizing them should be fine.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 21, 2015 1:02:52 GMT
Yes that is exactly what I am talking about. Teams like Denver and Miami can just pile on all sorts of contracts without worry because they have BRs on their players. It really isn't anything against their teams or their respective GMs, they've done a good job, but when they pile on salary like this, it seems unfair and gives the rest of the teams a disadvantage. I propose that they lose their pick if they are X amount over the cap. And that pick goes to a lottery team, their would be a separate lottery for that pick. The rule doesn't have to be implemented right away, and it shouldn't be implemented right away. The teams should have some time to get under the hard cap. But we can't fine the teams like in real life, so the next best thing is to take away a pick. And the pick is likely in the high twenties since they have such good teams. They work there way to that kind of a team and all of us has the opportunity to work it out too so there is nothing unfair there. But if the majority will agree with you, then penalizing them should be fine. Yes they work to it, but they also blatantly take on huge contracts, like in this case, without any caution or care because they have all their BR'd players. I mean, its one thing for Alex to have his starting 5 all BR'd players, its another thing to take on Josh Smith because he doesn't have to worry about the cap. That is what this rule would limit teams from doing, not signing their BR'd guys to big deals. You figure if you get lucky enough to have all of your BR'd players to be your starting 5 and they all make the max, 20 million deal. Then you have 20 or so million throughout your bench. Is it so wrong to impose a hard cap of 135 million and if you go over it you lose your pick, which is likely in the high twenties anyways? It is penalizing teams that through caution in the wind in terms of the cap.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 21, 2015 1:07:32 GMT
I propose that they lose their pick if they are X amount over the cap. And that pick goes to a lottery team, their would be a separate lottery for that pick. The rule doesn't have to be implemented right away, and it shouldn't be implemented right away. The teams should have some time to get under the hard cap. But we can't fine the teams like in real life, so the next best thing is to take away a pick. And the pick is likely in the high twenties since they have such good teams. I think having penalties is a bad idea. Taking away draft picks would piss me off, and would likely do the same to other GMs. The only viable way I can see this being done is to just set a hard cap at a reasonable amount. Then any teams above that number would be grandfathered in. There wouldn't be any penalties and year after year as contracts expired every team would eventually come under the hard cap. Even in that system though I would never do this trade since Josh Smith's contract would become poison. I don't really think there is much wrong with current system though. It all balances out. I can take bad contracts as a way of improving my team, the cost is that I can't do a goddamn thing during the off-season. I get my MLE which will get me a player in the high 70s if I'm lucky and then I can just sign minimum contract guys.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 21, 2015 1:08:09 GMT
They work there way to that kind of a team and all of us has the opportunity to work it out too so there is nothing unfair there. But if the majority will agree with you, then penalizing them should be fine. Yes they work to it, but they also blatantly take on huge contracts, like in this case, without any caution or care because they have all their BR'd players. I mean, its one thing for Alex to have his starting 5 all BR'd players, its another thing to take on Josh Smith because he doesn't have to worry about the cap. That is what this rule would limit teams from doing, not signing their BR'd guys to big deals. You figure if you get lucky enough to have all of your BR'd players to be your starting 5 and they all make the max, 20 million deal. Then you have 20 or so million throughout your bench. Is it so wrong to impose a hard cap of 135 million and if you go over it you lose your pick, which is likely in the high twenties anyways? It is penalizing teams that through caution in the wind in terms of the cap. I understand your point, but getting a pick from them IMO will be too much. How about just putting a Hard Cap.. maybe 150% of the salary cap. That is much fairer I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 21, 2015 1:16:33 GMT
I think having penalties is a bad idea. Taking away draft picks would piss me off, and would likely do the same to other GMs. The only viable way I can see this being done is to just set a hard cap at a reasonable amount. Then any teams above that number would be grandfathered in. There wouldn't be any penalties and year after year as contracts expired every team would eventually come under the hard cap. Even in that system though I would never do this trade since Josh Smith's contract would become poison. I don't really think there is much wrong with current system though. It all balances out. I can take bad contracts as a way of improving my team, the cost is that I can't do a goddamn thing during the off-season. I get my MLE which will get me a player in the high 70s if I'm lucky and then I can just sign minimum contract guys. So, you propose just a hard hard cap that teams cannot go over? At all, under any circumstance? That would mean the losing of draft choices and MLE amounts. I may not be understanding you correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 21, 2015 1:18:04 GMT
Yes they work to it, but they also blatantly take on huge contracts, like in this case, without any caution or care because they have all their BR'd players. I mean, its one thing for Alex to have his starting 5 all BR'd players, its another thing to take on Josh Smith because he doesn't have to worry about the cap. That is what this rule would limit teams from doing, not signing their BR'd guys to big deals. You figure if you get lucky enough to have all of your BR'd players to be your starting 5 and they all make the max, 20 million deal. Then you have 20 or so million throughout your bench. Is it so wrong to impose a hard cap of 135 million and if you go over it you lose your pick, which is likely in the high twenties anyways? It is penalizing teams that through caution in the wind in terms of the cap. I understand your point, but getting a pick from them IMO will be too much. How about just putting a Hard Cap.. maybe 150% of the salary cap. That is much fairer I believe. I am setting a hard cap in my idea, if that wasn't conveyed well enough, I apologize. 150% of the salary cap right now would be about 90 million, which would mean a lot more teams would be well over the hard cap.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 21, 2015 1:24:21 GMT
Yes they work to it, but they also blatantly take on huge contracts, like in this case, without any caution or care because they have all their BR'd players. I mean, its one thing for Alex to have his starting 5 all BR'd players, its another thing to take on Josh Smith because he doesn't have to worry about the cap. That is what this rule would limit teams from doing, not signing their BR'd guys to big deals. You figure if you get lucky enough to have all of your BR'd players to be your starting 5 and they all make the max, 20 million deal. Then you have 20 or so million throughout your bench. Is it so wrong to impose a hard cap of 135 million and if you go over it you lose your pick, which is likely in the high twenties anyways? It is penalizing teams that through caution in the wind in terms of the cap. Is any of this really a bad thing though? It's also wrong to characterize it as throwing caution to the wind and being lucky to get a starting five with Bird rights. I plan my team years in advance. Acquiring the guys I did with the contracts they have was very much be design. I even cut Brendan Haywood so I wouldn't lose his contract in case he retired. I knew he would become valuable to salary dumping teams. Why should I now be penalized for this behaviour? It's also not like I can just take on an endless number of contracts either. It all has to work within the 125% rule. It's also not like we all have giant 10+ million contracts sitting around that allow for moves like this. I traded for Haywood more than 2 years ago in Jan 2013 and turning his shit contract into an asset is something I planned. The next time I would be able to make another deal like this is in 3 years time when Smith turns into a $27 million expiring contract.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 21, 2015 1:26:31 GMT
So, you propose just a hard hard cap that teams cannot go over? At all, under any circumstance? That would mean the losing of draft choices and MLE amounts. I may not be understanding you correctly. Yea I don't know, I'm not sure there is a fair solution. But I'm also not convinced it's a problem. Just looking at my salary chart though I would need at least 3 or 4 years of advanced notice without being forced to blow my team up.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 21, 2015 1:29:12 GMT
Yes they work to it, but they also blatantly take on huge contracts, like in this case, without any caution or care because they have all their BR'd players. I mean, its one thing for Alex to have his starting 5 all BR'd players, its another thing to take on Josh Smith because he doesn't have to worry about the cap. That is what this rule would limit teams from doing, not signing their BR'd guys to big deals. You figure if you get lucky enough to have all of your BR'd players to be your starting 5 and they all make the max, 20 million deal. Then you have 20 or so million throughout your bench. Is it so wrong to impose a hard cap of 135 million and if you go over it you lose your pick, which is likely in the high twenties anyways? It is penalizing teams that through caution in the wind in terms of the cap. Is any of this really a bad thing though? It's also wrong to characterize it as throwing caution to the wind and being lucky to get a starting five with Bird rights. I plan my team years in advance. Acquiring the guys I did with the contracts they have was very much be design. I even cut Brendan Haywood so I wouldn't lose his contract in case he retired. I knew he would become valuable to salary dumping teams. Why should I now be penalized for this behaviour? It's also not like I can just take on an endless number of contracts either. It all has to work within the 125% rule. It's also not like we all have giant 10+ million contracts sitting around that allow for moves like this. I traded for Haywood more than 2 years ago in Jan 2013 and turning his shit contract into an asset is something I planned. The next time I would be able to make another deal like this is in 3 years time when Smith turns into a $27 million expiring contract. It has nothing to do with the way you planned your team. What it has to do with is teams going way over the cap with no penalty. Teams cannot do so without a penalty in real life, and this game is about realism, being a real GM, as much as it is about basketball. I understand it took great patience and great planning to do the things you are doing, this is not a knock as you; what it is a knock against is that there is no penalty and the realism aspect of the league in this sense is in danger.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 21, 2015 1:31:54 GMT
So, you propose just a hard hard cap that teams cannot go over? At all, under any circumstance? That would mean the losing of draft choices and MLE amounts. I may not be understanding you correctly. Yea I don't know, I'm not sure there is a fair solution. But I'm also not convinced it's a problem. Just looking at my salary chart though I would need at least 3 or 4 years of advanced notice without being forced to blow my team up. Your team would be grandfathered in without penalty, you wouldn't lose your pick this year. But say the teams over the hard cap right now, say they have 3 years to get under or else the penalty would be enforced in the losing of a 2018 pick. And any and all teams under the cap would be on notice as of the time the rule is instituted. And I'm not proposing this really low hard cap. What I am proposing is like 135 million dollar limit right now, like a 225% of the real cap. It isn't like this hard cap would be easy to reach.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 21, 2015 1:36:37 GMT
Is any of this really a bad thing though? It's also wrong to characterize it as throwing caution to the wind and being lucky to get a starting five with Bird rights. I plan my team years in advance. Acquiring the guys I did with the contracts they have was very much be design. I even cut Brendan Haywood so I wouldn't lose his contract in case he retired. I knew he would become valuable to salary dumping teams. Why should I now be penalized for this behaviour? It's also not like I can just take on an endless number of contracts either. It all has to work within the 125% rule. It's also not like we all have giant 10+ million contracts sitting around that allow for moves like this. I traded for Haywood more than 2 years ago in Jan 2013 and turning his shit contract into an asset is something I planned. The next time I would be able to make another deal like this is in 3 years time when Smith turns into a $27 million expiring contract. It has nothing to do with the way you planned your team. What it has to do with is teams going way over the cap with no penalty. Teams cannot do so without a penalty in real life, and this game is about realism, being a real GM, as much as it is about basketball. I understand it took great patience and great planning to do the things you are doing, this is not a knock as you; what it is a knock against is that there is no penalty and the realism aspect of the league in this sense is in danger. I agree with you in theory. Any new rules would need to be carefully considered though.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 16:15:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2015 1:36:46 GMT
Is any of this really a bad thing though? It's also wrong to characterize it as throwing caution to the wind and being lucky to get a starting five with Bird rights. I plan my team years in advance. Acquiring the guys I did with the contracts they have was very much be design. I even cut Brendan Haywood so I wouldn't lose his contract in case he retired. I knew he would become valuable to salary dumping teams. Why should I now be penalized for this behaviour? It's also not like I can just take on an endless number of contracts either. It all has to work within the 125% rule. It's also not like we all have giant 10+ million contracts sitting around that allow for moves like this. I traded for Haywood more than 2 years ago in Jan 2013 and turning his shit contract into an asset is something I planned. The next time I would be able to make another deal like this is in 3 years time when Smith turns into a $27 million expiring contract. It has nothing to do with the way you planned your team. What it has to do with is teams going way over the cap with no penalty. Teams cannot do so without a penalty in real life, and this game is about realism, being a real GM, as much as it is about basketball. I understand it took great patience and great planning to do the things you are doing, this is not a knock as you; what it is a knock against is that there is no penalty and the realism aspect of the league in this sense is in danger. The Redskins and Cowboys "planned" to take advantage of rule loopholes to sign a bunch of people in sneaky ways that wouldn't work back during the CBA issues, and were penalized huge amounts of cap space for "going against the spirit of the rules". Does taking advantage of an unenforcable luxury tax to your competitive advantage "go against the spirit of the rules", even if planned?
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 21, 2015 1:39:22 GMT
It has nothing to do with the way you planned your team. What it has to do with is teams going way over the cap with no penalty. Teams cannot do so without a penalty in real life, and this game is about realism, being a real GM, as much as it is about basketball. I understand it took great patience and great planning to do the things you are doing, this is not a knock as you; what it is a knock against is that there is no penalty and the realism aspect of the league in this sense is in danger. I agree with you in theory. Any new rules would need to be carefully considered though. See my previous post of the one you quoted, but yes, they need to be carefully considered. I think I carefully considered that in my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 21, 2015 1:41:04 GMT
It has nothing to do with the way you planned your team. What it has to do with is teams going way over the cap with no penalty. Teams cannot do so without a penalty in real life, and this game is about realism, being a real GM, as much as it is about basketball. I understand it took great patience and great planning to do the things you are doing, this is not a knock as you; what it is a knock against is that there is no penalty and the realism aspect of the league in this sense is in danger. The Redskins and Cowboys "planned" to take advantage of rule loopholes to sign a bunch of people in sneaky ways that wouldn't work back during the CBA issues, and were penalized huge amounts of cap space for "going against the spirit of the rules". Does taking advantage of an unenforcable luxury tax to your competitive advantage "go against the spirit of the rules", even if planned? Well we don't have any rules discussing a luxury tax or hard cap of any kind. So it's not that relevant in this situation. It's difficult to go against the spirit of a rule that doesn't exist.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 16:15:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2015 1:42:52 GMT
The Redskins and Cowboys "planned" to take advantage of rule loopholes to sign a bunch of people in sneaky ways that wouldn't work back during the CBA issues, and were penalized huge amounts of cap space for "going against the spirit of the rules". Does taking advantage of an unenforcable luxury tax to your competitive advantage "go against the spirit of the rules", even if planned? Well we don't have any rules discussing a luxury tax or hard cap of any kind. So it's not that relevant in this situation. It's difficult to go against the spirit of a rule that doesn't exist. not hating on you, or anything. I think you made good moves, and don't think you should be penalized for it. but "i planned it" isn't a good reason to not make the luxury tax enforceable for future teams and moves, ya know what I'm saying? I have no problems with everything you did being 100% fine. I just think, to make the league more realistic, there should be a "Alex English Rule" put in place to keep it from happening again.
|
|
|
Post by Blake Bowman on Jan 21, 2015 1:43:57 GMT
It has nothing to do with the way you planned your team. What it has to do with is teams going way over the cap with no penalty. Teams cannot do so without a penalty in real life, and this game is about realism, being a real GM, as much as it is about basketball. I understand it took great patience and great planning to do the things you are doing, this is not a knock as you; what it is a knock against is that there is no penalty and the realism aspect of the league in this sense is in danger. The Redskins and Cowboys "planned" to take advantage of rule loopholes to sign a bunch of people in sneaky ways that wouldn't work back during the CBA issues, and were penalized huge amounts of cap space for "going against the spirit of the rules". Does taking advantage of an unenforcable luxury tax to your competitive advantage "go against the spirit of the rules", even if planned? Cowboys for life, the Redskins can suck a duck.
|
|