|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 22, 2015 23:07:53 GMT
first of all the cap will be 90million + in two years so thats what we would operate on if we are using a percentage of the cap to make a hard cap. We can grandfather in these next 2 years before the huge jump as no teams would get penalized as this begins to get implemented. However 150% of 90 million as I said is 135 million that should be more than enough to not penalize the big teams while also making it fair for everyone else.
As for your point Ian about if you draft 6 max players and can't resign them all, I think thats the purpose of a hard cap, to make sure the talent get rotated around the league somewhat making it so people can;t just pick up these highly rated players for free, for example josh smith, just because they have a bad contract and it doesn't even hurt the team.
The fatal flaw in your and Alex's post is that we need to think about the 90 million cap. Its happening. We should base all of our projections off of that number and no team needs more cap than $135 in 2 years in the whole league so everyone would start under it and not be penalized.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 22, 2015 23:08:51 GMT
On the amnesty part that's unfair to teams who have worked to get themselves out of big contracts by trading away draft picks. If we don't use the amnesty we deserve some compensation.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 22, 2015 23:36:34 GMT
[ For the reason I just wrote in the paragraph above this one: Cap-holds should be based on a percentage of how much a player is re-signed for, not for much a player made the year before they were re-signed.I don't understand this part. Cap Holds are based on an expiring players salary. Once he signs a new contract, there is no need for a cap hold. You just use that new salary. The purpose of the cap hold is to hold some money for use on the player who had his contract expire. There is actually a lot more to it than that, but that's part of it. Basically, NBA teams need to always have 12 players on their team. If they don't, cap holds are used. That can be for restricted free agents (more or less the situation we are dealing with) or for any other empty roster spots, they use a league minimum or a veterans minimum cap hold, can't remember which one. Once the player signs though, you don't need to hold extra money to account for that player. He is signed, so that is his money. His new contract takes the place of his cap hold.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 23, 2015 0:09:45 GMT
The fatal flaw in your and Alex's post is that we need to think about the 90 million cap. Its happening. We should base all of our projections off of that number and no team needs more cap than $135 in 2 years in the whole league so everyone would start under it and not be penalized. Part of my argument is assuming an 80 million dollar cap. So, not really a fatal flaw. 135 million is a lot right now, but it really isn't that high when the cap is going to jump so much. That offseason will be absolute bananas with every free agent getting huge contracts because of how much money there will be to throw around. Also there will be a number of teams that need more than 135 mil in 2 years, mine included. On the amnesty part that's unfair to teams who have worked to get themselves out of big contracts by trading away draft picks. If we don't use the amnesty we deserve some compensation. I don't think it's unfair. All the teams under the cap will be able to use the amnesty as well. The NBA has had the amnesty clause as part of both of the last CBA negotiations. It would make sense for us to have it if we're going to implement such a big rule into our own salary cap.
|
|
|
Hard Cap
Feb 23, 2015 0:19:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Feb 23, 2015 0:19:18 GMT
We should not implement a hard cap or amnesty. This thread is pointless
|
|
|
Hard Cap
Feb 23, 2015 0:20:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Feb 23, 2015 0:20:07 GMT
I personally don't care that Miami and Denver are so far over the cap. Half the league is tanking, they just happened to have capitalized on that
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 23, 2015 0:27:21 GMT
Alex English the cap is going to be 90 million though not 80 million and with a team of harden, kyrie, and PG not to mention all the other 80's guys you have I think it would be fair that a team isn't able to just keep taking on salary over and over again with no repercussions. In 2 years you have 105 million in salary, that gives you plenty of space to resign kyrie and keep most of your team under the 135 million hard cap. No team in the league has salary that season that would exceed that hard cap amount and no team in the league is going to lose a player they have been planning to keep forever because of that number. As an over the cap team you won't sign Free Agents anyway so there is no difference.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 20:30:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 0:34:08 GMT
On the amnesty part that's unfair to teams who have worked to get themselves out of big contracts by trading away draft picks. If we don't use the amnesty we deserve some compensation. Just do it like the NBA did and give each GM a one time Amnesty they can use over a 3-4 year period. But of course not anyone that was not on the team when the rule officially goes into place. Not all NBA teams used it either because they did the same thing and traded draft picks, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 23, 2015 0:56:36 GMT
Alex English the cap is going to be 90 million though not 80 million and with a team of harden, kyrie, and PG not to mention all the other 80's guys you have I think it would be fair that a team isn't able to just keep taking on salary over and over again with no repercussions. In 2 years you have 105 million in salary, that gives you plenty of space to resign kyrie and keep most of your team under the 135 million hard cap. No team in the league has salary that season that would exceed that hard cap amount and no team in the league is going to lose a player they have been planning to keep forever because of that number. As an over the cap team you won't sign Free Agents anyway so there is no difference. We don't know exactly what the cap will be. We don't know how the new TV contract is structured. The NBA also wants to limit the cap in some way when the new deal comes into effect so there won't be such a big jump. Also your look at my team in 2 years ignores Paul George. He'll have an enormous contract starting next season. I guarantee just keeping the two of them will cost more than 30 million which takes me over 135 million right there. Then I still have role players to sign on top of that. My salary will definitely exceed 135 million in two years.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 23, 2015 1:13:31 GMT
150% will be fine with me as long as the first penalty will be..
1. Decrease the hard cap for that team by the same percentage of the amount he went over with next season. Ex. let us say the hard cap is at 200%. A team went on to go over that cap. Maybe 15% over. So next season, His hard cap will be 185%.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 23, 2015 1:15:15 GMT
Alex English you know thats kind of a fair point. maybe you're right and 150% is too low, but I think that 175% is just way too big, that would be 157.5 Million which is ridiculously huge. I'd be more for something like 160% of the cap then. That would be 144 million of a 90 million cap and would allow you more than enough room to sign PG and kyrie and also limit teams from just dipping into these huge high salary guys while other teams like Miami would also have more than enough room to keep together teams that they planned for years on. TL;DR My new recommendation for Ian is that 160% of the cap be the hard cap starting from the cap rise in the offseason before the 2016-17 season, the hard cap just goes to 160% of the regular cap number. I also continue my vehement opposition to an amnesty as it unfairly helps teams with big salaries already and hurts the teams who went to great lengths to keep their cap sheets clean, even when they had to give up assets to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 23, 2015 1:16:12 GMT
I personally don't care that Miami and Denver are so far over the cap. Half the league is tanking, they just happened to have capitalized on that I don't mind personally if we have a hard cap. We're not actually paying the money out or keeping a balance sheet under control. So I'm not against having some way to limit salaries from getting absolutely ridiculous. I 100% agree that I haven't done anything unfair though. I haven't broken any rules with the trades I've made. I haven't given the players some of these insane contracts that I have. Josh Smith is considered poison. Nobody wants anything to do with him or his massive contract. Yet paradoxically that is the trade that made people mad about my cap situation. I was somehow benefiting my team by trading for his giant contract, so much so that it kick started this debate. It would be fantastic if someone could explain to me how it's unfair that I traded for Josh Smith when no one else would touch him with a ten foot pole then I'd really appreciate it, because I still don't understand why that got people pissed off. To me the Hard Cap is about realism, not fairness. Who cares if I want to pay Josh Smith $27 million to be average quality player. It has no affect on anyone else's team or their ability to build through trades, the draft or free agency. If anything it actually helps teams in free agency since I completely remove myself from competition over any player that can make more than the MLE. The only place where fairness comes into play here is to make sure adding the Hard Cap can't screw over the teams who built their roster without breaking any rules.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 23, 2015 2:17:18 GMT
I don't think anyone thinks you, Alex, or Troy or anyone else did anything unfair. It just may not BE fair to the rest of the league to allow it to happen. It's exactly like you're saying. It's just about fairness. No ill will towards you, just trying to find a way to make it all fair for everyone.
My only other contribution to this whole thing is sometimes teams have to make a tough decision. Alex, if a 150% hard cap makes things hard on you, you need to make some decisions. Make other trades, find good players with cheaper salaries, it happens. Trade some picks or a solid player to get rid of Josh Smith or some other high-salary guy so that you can keep your other core guys.
I just think it wouldn't be crazy to "make" you have to deal away some pieces to stay under the Hard Cap. That probably applies more to Ian than to you Alex. In Ian's scenario, if he does hit on 6 complete studs, well, trade one or two for an upgrade or for another young guy making less money.
But, not to be misconstrued, I do think this needs to be grandfathered in for the teams over the cap.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 23, 2015 2:45:22 GMT
I don't think anyone thinks you, Alex, or Troy or anyone else did anything unfair. It just may not BE fair to the rest of the league to allow it to happen. It's exactly like you're saying. It's just about fairness. No ill will towards you, just trying to find a way to make it all fair for everyone. But why? This doesn't actually explain anything, just shifting the topic from me to a general situation. But that's not really what I'm getting at. My situation with Josh Smith could be with anyone. I'm asking what the issue is. What do you mean when you say "may not BE fair to the rest of the league to allow it to happen"? Who is it unfair to and how are they affected? My point of view on the use of the Hard cap is to prevent absurd team salaries because it's unrealistic, not to limit a GM's behaviour and punish them. It should be low enough to not allow a team full of crazy contracts, but high enough to not really affect GMs that aren't actively going after enormous salaries.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 20:30:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 2:46:29 GMT
I just think it wouldn't be crazy to "make" you have to deal away some pieces to stay under the Hard Cap. That probably applies more to Ian than to you Alex. In Ian's scenario, if he does hit on 6 complete studs, well, trade one or two for an upgrade or for another young guy making less money. THIS x100000. This is the whole point of the hard cap, is to make teams do this. To trade away their large contracts to get cheaper. The incentive IRL is luxury tax, there is no incentive here so it must be created or else the league will suffer, and it will only get worse over time.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 23, 2015 2:49:49 GMT
I don't think anyone thinks you, Alex, or Troy or anyone else did anything unfair. It just may not BE fair to the rest of the league to allow it to happen. It's exactly like you're saying. It's just about fairness. No ill will towards you, just trying to find a way to make it all fair for everyone. But why? This doesn't actually explain anything, just shifting the topic from me to a general situation. But that's not really what I'm getting at. My situation with Josh Smith could be with anyone. I'm asking what the issue is. What do you mean when you say "may not BE fair to the rest of the league to allow it to happen"? Who is it unfair to and how are they affected? My point of view on the use of the Hard cap is to prevent absurd team salaries because it's unrealistic, not to limit a GM's behaviour and punish them. It should be low enough to not allow a team full of crazy contracts, but high enough to not really affect GMs that aren't actively going after enormous salaries. Alex, most teams can't go after those high salary guys. Really, mostly only the people who already have big salaries. Personally, I don't care about Josh Smith on your team, you did nothing wrong. It is unfair to the league to allow certain teams a $150+ cap and others will realistically be capped in the 60-75 or 80 range. You're working on doubling your cap vs what others can do. Again, you did nothing wrong, but it's unfair to the actual league (I'm not saying individual league members either, in this case) to allow this unrealistic bloated cap for a couple teams.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 23, 2015 3:01:23 GMT
Alex, most teams can't go after those high salary guys. Really, mostly only the people who already have big salaries. Personally, I don't care about Josh Smith on your team, you did nothing wrong. It is unfair to the league to allow certain teams a $150+ cap and others will realistically be capped in the 60-75 or 80 range. You're working on doubling your cap vs what others can do. Again, you did nothing wrong, but it's unfair to the actual league (I'm not saying individual league members either, in this case) to allow this unrealistic bloated cap for a couple teams. This just doesn't make sense man. Teams way above the cap have the "luxury" of trading for players with huge contracts. That's the issue? I still don't understand what about the situation is unfair? These are giant contracts 75% of teams are desperate to get rid of, but it's unfair a few teams are able to take them on? The trades still have to work under the 125% rule. These aren't guys being signed in free agency. Teams way over the cap can't even participate in free agency beyond the MLE. All teams are still limited to the soft cap, so it's not like the Yankees and Oakland A's working with two different payrolls. The situation is the same for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 23, 2015 3:08:36 GMT
|
|
|
Hard Cap
Feb 23, 2015 3:35:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 23, 2015 3:35:04 GMT
And they had to pay insane amounts of luxury tax on that. Since we don't use real money we need to put some sort of cap on things.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 23, 2015 20:59:05 GMT
I still see a 175% hard cap, introduced over 4 years, as the best option here. And for realism and parity's sake, not as punishment, obviously. Amnesties I'm not even thinking about right now, leave that discussion for later. Walt Frazier, you made a good point in that I really don't have a clue what a "cap hold" even relates to. And I've only just understood whilst I'm writing this that of course it has to be based on the previous year's player's salary because we don't know what their re-signing salary is until they sign the goddamn contract. Total logic fail on my part there, perhaps I couldn't see the wood for the trees! Are you also saying though, that when a Bird Rights player is re-signed that their actual salary should fully count against the salaries of their team? Or should the cap hold apply until the end of our OSFA period and the full contract of the BR player apply only after OSFA? Brian Scalabrine, you started quoting some numbers and I got confused with the argument you were making, I don't know where some of those numbers come from.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 23, 2015 21:06:27 GMT
I still see a 175% hard cap, introduced over 4 years, as the best option here. And for realism and parity's sake, not as punishment, obviously. Amnesties I'm not even thinking about right now, leave that discussion for later. Walt Frazier, you made a good point in that I really don't have a clue what a "cap hold" even relates to. And I've only just understood whilst I'm writing this that of course it has to be based on the previous year's player's salary because we don't know what their re-signing salary is until they sign the goddamn contract. Total logic fail on my part there, perhaps I couldn't see the wood for the trees! Are you also saying though, that when a Bird Rights player is re-signed that their actual salary should fully count against the salaries of their team? Or should the cap hold apply until the end of our OSFA period and the full contract of the BR player apply only after OSFA? Brian Scalabrine, you started quoting some numbers and I got confused with the argument you were making, I don't know where some of those numbers come from. I kind of got that feeling, but it's all good. We'll get it figured out! As for your question: Yes. Say a BR player had a $10,000,000 contract in his last season. If our Cap Hold is %100, then he should have a $10,000,000 cap hold in place until that player either signs a new contract OR leaves and signs elsewhere. OR, (we may need to add this option when we add Cap Holds officially) the team renounces their BR's (That could be necessary if a GM has a deal for a player he likes better in place, but the Cap Hold is eating up too much salary. This GM may rather sign this other player than his BR player, so he renounces the BR's and signs the other player). So, getting back on track, if that player signs a contract for $8,000,000 then his cap hold of $10M goes away and his new salary of $8M goes on the books. If he signs elsewhere, that $10M Cap Hold disappears. If you wanted to get really technical, his $10M cap hold would disappear and a $.513773 (whatever it is - Minimum Contract!) Cap Hold would appear to save a roster spot for a player, but I don't honestly think we need to go that in depth. That's what the NBA would do though. So, your first question - Yes. Your 2nd question - NO.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 23, 2015 21:07:07 GMT
Ok yeah sorry Ian Noble I started rambling the short of it is: In 2016-17 the NBA salary cap will be $90 million according to all different reports Using your proposed 175% number would make our hard cap for that year $157.7 million which I think is still too high as teams such as Denver will have over $50 million on top of their current teams to add high salary high rated players , pretty much for free. I propose a 160% number but instead of easing it in over several years we only implement it after the NBA cap rises to $90 million in 2016 OSFA. We stay at a consistent 160% from that OSFA which will not hurt the current teams, as $144 million is more than enough for all other teams, while also being easy to understand for GMs. In my proposal we get as small a hard cap as we can without hurting teams like Denver and Miami who have played by the rules the last few years and don't deserve to get punished. Also we get a really simple system that shouldn't need tweaking while a system that changes percentages might be confusing and we could find problems.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 23, 2015 21:23:40 GMT
Ok yeah sorry Ian Noble I started rambling the short of it is: In 2016-17 the NBA salary cap will be $90 million according to all different reports Using your proposed 175% number would make our hard cap for that year $157.7 million which I think is still too high as teams such as Denver will have over $50 million on top of their current teams to add high salary high rated players , pretty much for free. I propose a 160% number but instead of easing it in over several years we only implement it after the NBA cap rises to $90 million in 2016 OSFA. We stay at a consistent 160% from that OSFA which will not hurt the current teams, as $144 million is more than enough for all other teams, while also being easy to understand for GMs. In my proposal we get as small a hard cap as we can without hurting teams like Denver and Miami who have played by the rules the last few years and don't deserve to get punished. Also we get a really simple system that shouldn't need tweaking while a system that changes percentages might be confusing and we could find problems. I see what you're saying. It's a different perspective to what I was proposing. Projecting forward to Denver's situation in the instance that the salary cap jumps to $90m and the hard cap is $144m: Denver will have 12 players if he re-signs Paul George with $105m + Paul George's contract, let's just say that's $125m total. He then has $19m to re-sign Kyrie Irving. It's a close call but really there should be no teams penalized in any way at all by the hard cap until it settles at it's final amount. The purpose of the hard cap is parity and realism. In the extreme instance that a team like mine drafts 6 superstars, it does at least seem like that's all I'd be able to afford at 175%; 6 superstars, or 5 superstars and a bench. I think that's the extreme we need to be pinning the hard cap onto. No team ever needs more than that, and no team should be allowed to hoard superstars more than that.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 23, 2015 21:28:37 GMT
Alex will only have $95 million in commitments that year actually since he will in all likelihood decline the pricey options of Mario Chalmers who isn't worth 6 million and Brandon rush who isnt worth 4 million and might not be in the league at that point.
I cannot possibly conceive of a way that PG and kyrie take more than $50 million to resign. And all other teams aren't even close to that ceiling.
I just think that with 160% we have a perfect sweet spot of the lowest possible cap without hurting any other teams.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 23, 2015 21:41:45 GMT
The issue of the hard cap could be less of an issue if the PA's actually had a BR player or two leave a team. I don't think a BR player has ever left a team.
The origin of the problem comes from having superstars. If a team has their "big 3" then piles on loads and loads of contracts on top of that, we run into this situation where the cap doesn't matter for certain teams because we have bird rights.
What I said will probably misconstrued and twisted around, but that is where the problem originates.
After having acquired a wealth of superstars, and signed them to huge contracts after their rookie deals expire, a team can basically be in FU mode to the salary cap. And acquire any player under the sun because the guys they want to sign are already on their team and they have their bird rights.
I'm not saying bird rights should be gone, or that PA's should purposely have their players leave teams, I'm just saying that that is where the problem originates from. And it then leads us to needing a hard cap to disallow teams from just acquiring bad contracts. Everyone wants to be in Alex's position right now, they want their superstars with bird rights and to be able to just fuck the cap and take on albatross contracts. But we need something in place to deter GMs from wanting that because in real life, teams have to pay luxury tax. OKC had to trade Harden because they didn't want to deal with the luxury tax, and, in here, that isn't the case because it just doesn't matter since their is no luxury tax.
If there were no luxury tax in the NBA, teams would do the same thing Alex has done. The hard cap needs to come into place, as a percentage of the salary cap, to, as Walt said, force power house teams to make a hard decision just like the other teams have to in regards to the cap.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 24, 2015 0:49:00 GMT
Maybe it can help if we can also have a rule of majority for the upcoming FAs in their likeliness to leave.
I mean, we can do a votation for each upcoming FA and if 75% of the those who voted says he will leave then he will really leave on the offseason. In real life explanation of it, we are trying to determine which players will do a Goran Dragic/Enes Kanter/Reggie Jackson.
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Feb 24, 2015 11:28:48 GMT
Maybe it can help if we can also have a rule of majority for the upcoming FAs in their likeliness to leave. I mean, we can do a votation for each upcoming FA and if 75% of the those who voted says he will leave then he will really leave on the offseason. In real life explanation of it, we are trying to determine which players will do a Goran Dragic/Enes Kanter/Reggie Jackson. that's why we have player agents. It's their job -_-
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 24, 2015 13:41:06 GMT
Maybe it can help if we can also have a rule of majority for the upcoming FAs in their likeliness to leave. I mean, we can do a votation for each upcoming FA and if 75% of the those who voted says he will leave then he will really leave on the offseason. In real life explanation of it, we are trying to determine which players will do a Goran Dragic/Enes Kanter/Reggie Jackson. that's why we have player agents. It's their job -_- yep. I know that. But as what Charles have said, it seems no BR players have ever left their current team. Maybe if we can do some votation to determine who are those who will surely leave in the offseason, it will make it more smoother in the offseason and also lessen the pressure on the PAs.
|
|
|
Hard Cap
Feb 24, 2015 13:54:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 24, 2015 13:54:05 GMT
that's why we have player agents. It's their job -_- yep. I know that. But as what Charles have said, it seems no BR players have ever left their current team. Maybe if we can do some votation to determine who are those who will surely leave in the offseason, it will make it more smoother in the offseason and also lessen the pressure on the PAs. I'd have to look back to other years, and I know he's not a cornerstone stud player, but I had Taj Gibson leave the 76ers this offseason. When it comes down to it, IF the team is committed to the player, IF the team is a winning team, IF they still have a starting position of importance on their team available for the player, and IF they have a good future spread in front of them, there is little reason for a player to leave. Fact is, a lot of BR player's teams are cognizant of this and do everything they can to keep their BR players.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 24, 2015 15:18:42 GMT
Tim Duncan left JR's Spurs because, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, there was some neglectfulness on the part of JR (like saying he didn't want to re-sign TD and then not attempting to re-sign him, hehe).
The tricky thing is that, in real life, there's a hundred reasons why a player might leave a team, whereas here we have to use the OSFA criteria: 1. Money Offered (Player Agents will work to keep salaries realistic, but it doesn't hurt to show you're committed) 2. Playing time. 3. The chances of success with your team (playoff/championship calibre) 4. How much dedication you have shown to the player. 5. Whether your team is a "big market" team, or a team with "prestige" or history. 6. The player's perceived real-life personality traits. 7. The perceived effort you put into making a offer.
I suppose since we take into account #6 on that list, things like Lebron leaving Miami or Dwight leaving the Lakers are possible.
|
|