Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 13:56:53 GMT
I wonder how well the Heat and Cavs gm+ownership get along in real life?
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Feb 25, 2015 14:08:22 GMT
yeah right so that Lebron will come to cleveland. i get it. nice suggestion but its a bit obvious. You know that he will comeback if you don't win the crown. That's already a given He will not come to a team that doesn't even have a star. Green who?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 14:16:17 GMT
Personally, I think Lebron James wants to hang out with some Mormons. If I had him my team would be in the finals :/
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 25, 2015 14:28:26 GMT
Lebron is definitely not guaranteed to go back to Cleveland. Far from it.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 25, 2015 15:13:31 GMT
Lebron is definitely not guaranteed to go back to Cleveland. Far from it. Yep. I know that. I am optimistic though.. but I will not be a cry baby if he does not return.. Im just trolling Troy a little bit
|
|
|
Post by Sam Bowie on Feb 25, 2015 18:12:17 GMT
Lebron is definitely not guaranteed to go back to Cleveland. Far from it. Yep. I know that. I am optimistic though.. but I will not be a cry baby if he does not return.. Im just trolling Troy a little bit Lebron returned to Cleveland in real life because they were loaded. The Comeback story was a plus.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Mar 3, 2015 0:43:22 GMT
How about we do a voting here?
It seems that the majority already agrees with the hard cap and it should be a percentage of the salary cap.
And another thing to argue with is the season to implement it.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 3, 2015 16:45:50 GMT
I REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE WANT THIS HARD CAP, WE NEED TO DO THIS 2 SEASONS FROM NOW SO MY TEAM CAN ADJUST TO THE "NEW RULE" No need for CAPS, that's what is going to happen, in fact it will be 3 or 4 seasons from now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 16:47:52 GMT
I like the lower %'s being thrown out there, 200% is definitely too high. But I think we should have a sliding scale, with 2017 having like 200% as the HC, then 2018 having 150%.
It'd be downright impossible for anyone to be over that by then unless they were completely blind.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 3, 2015 21:53:25 GMT
After taking another good look at this, and to bring this thread back on topic, I do wonder whether 175% is too low. It comes down to a question of "what do we want for the league?" I feel like a team should be allowed to build atleast a five-man starting lineup dynasty and keep it, if they're able to do so, whilst still having some flexibility to work to build a bench. Does 175% allow that?
175% of our current cap ($63,065,000) is $110,363,750. That's a lot of money, but let's consider that five superstars at $20m each brings a team's salary to $100m, that leaves $10m to build the rest of your team, and Kobe Bryant costs you $35m.
Next year, Denver will look like this: Brook Lopez - $19,097,550 Josh Smith - $22,177,880 Paul George - $20,000,000 (?) James Harden - $17,850,000 Kyrie Irving - $9,191,949
Total - $88,317,379
That leaves the Nuggets $22m to work with until they hit the hard cap, and the year after next they'll want to re-sign Kyrie Irving.
Maybe 180% ($113,517,000) or 190% ($119,823,500) would be better?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 22:14:44 GMT
After taking another good look at this, and to bring this thread back on topic, I do wonder whether 175% is too low. It comes down to a question of "what do we want for the league?" I feel like a team should be allowed to build atleast a five-man starting lineup dynasty and keep it, if they're able to do so, whilst still having some flexibility to work to build a bench. Does 175% allow that? 175% of our current cap ($63,065,000) is $110,363,750. That's a lot of money, but let's consider that five superstars at $20m each brings a team's salary to $100m, that leaves $10m to build the rest of your team, and Kobe Bryant costs you $35m. Next year, Denver will look like this: Brook Lopez - $19,097,550 Josh Smith - $22,177,880 Paul George - $20,000,000 (?) James Harden - $17,850,000 Kyrie Irving - $9,191,949 Total - $88,317,379 That leaves the Nuggets $22m to work with until they hit the hard cap, and the year after next they'll want to re-sign Kyrie Irving. Maybe 180% ($113,517,000) or 190% ($119,823,500) would be better? how many Max contracts can you fit on the team in real life? Four? Why should it be more here? not having Max contracts or having luxury tax is what we're trying to fix so that it doesn't get that a team is more stacked then they would able to get in real life, right? So we should set the hard cap so you can fit as many superstars on your team as you can max contracts IRL. if they are all rose rule maxs thats 4... right? So that's the most great guys you should be able to sign in this league under the hard cap...
|
|
Glenn Robinson
Milwaukee Bucks
Starter
Posts: 1,226
Mar 2, 2024 5:20:47 GMT
|
Post by Glenn Robinson on Mar 3, 2015 22:18:33 GMT
I understand why some teams want the hard cap. There are a lot of rosters that lack talent and this is a way for them to try and poach from other teams.
I just wonder how this is going to affect teams that struck gold on players and eventually have to pay them but might not be able to sign everybody because of a hard cap.
Just seems like patience isn't something people can do and everybody wants quick fixes so they can get talent instantly. Why not try rebuilding properly?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 22:20:31 GMT
I understand why some teams want the hard cap. There are a lot of rosters that lack talent and this is a way for them to try and poach from other teams. I just wonder how this is going to affect teams that struck gold on players and eventually have to pay them but might not be able to sign everybody because of a hard cap. Just seems like patience isn't something people can do and everybody wants quick fixes so they can get talent instantly. Why not try rebuilding properly? Thats just it, rebuilding in d5 is different from IRL because with BR and no luxury tax or cap you dont have to make tough resigning decisions EVER.
|
|
Glenn Robinson
Milwaukee Bucks
Starter
Posts: 1,226
Mar 2, 2024 5:20:47 GMT
|
Post by Glenn Robinson on Mar 3, 2015 22:27:02 GMT
I understand why some teams want the hard cap. There are a lot of rosters that lack talent and this is a way for them to try and poach from other teams. I just wonder how this is going to affect teams that struck gold on players and eventually have to pay them but might not be able to sign everybody because of a hard cap. Just seems like patience isn't something people can do and everybody wants quick fixes so they can get talent instantly. Why not try rebuilding properly? Thats just it, rebuilding in d5 is different from IRL because with BR and no luxury tax or cap you dont have to make tough resigning decisions EVER. Okay, but if you're in negotiations for a free agent, but know that one of your own free agents has BR's and the player with BR's wants to sign first, isnt that making a tough decision? To continue to pursue the BR player and drop your plans at the free agent?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 22:27:52 GMT
Thats just it, rebuilding in d5 is different from IRL because with BR and no luxury tax or cap you dont have to make tough resigning decisions EVER. Okay, but if you're in negotiations for a free agent, but know that one of your own free agents has BR's and the player with BR's wants to sign first, isnt that making a tough decision? To continue to pursue the BR player and drop your plans at the free agent? that's an entirely different scenario that should also be happening. both scenarios should happen because both scenarios happen in real life. The hard cap here Is meant to just give the d5 gm a slight headache the same way a luxury tax would give the GM a headache IRL, because the owner would be on his case about spending all his money. No owner would let a gm spend 160$ million dollars IRL because of the luxury tax. The hard cap is a paeudo luxury tax
|
|
Glenn Robinson
Milwaukee Bucks
Starter
Posts: 1,226
Mar 2, 2024 5:20:47 GMT
|
Post by Glenn Robinson on Mar 3, 2015 22:37:39 GMT
Okay, but if you're in negotiations for a free agent, but know that one of your own free agents has BR's and the player with BR's wants to sign first, isnt that making a tough decision? To continue to pursue the BR player and drop your plans at the free agent? that's an entirely different scenario that should also be happening. both scenarios should happen because both scenarios happen in real life. The hard cap here Is meant to just give the d5 gm a slight headache the same way a luxury tax would give the GM a headache IRL, because the owner would be on his case about spending all his money. No owner would let a gm spend 160$ million dollars IRL because of the luxury tax. The hard cap is a paeudo luxury tax I understand where you're coming from. I just think if there's no hard cap in the NBA we don't need one either. I get the luxury tax thing and all that. This league has been going strong for a long time now and if it's not broke don't fix it is how I feel about it. Just seems like more of the newer GM's want to make all these changes (Which I love new ideas) but some of the main parts of this league have been working fine, i don't see a reason to change it up. But if it gets changed then so be it. It's not the end of the world.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 22:38:29 GMT
that's an entirely different scenario that should also be happening. both scenarios should happen because both scenarios happen in real life. The hard cap here Is meant to just give the d5 gm a slight headache the same way a luxury tax would give the GM a headache IRL, because the owner would be on his case about spending all his money. No owner would let a gm spend 160$ million dollars IRL because of the luxury tax. The hard cap is a paeudo luxury tax I understand where you're coming from. I just think if there's no hard cap in the NBA we don't need one either. I get the luxury tax thing and all that. This league has been going strong for a long time now and if it's not broke don't fix it is how I feel about it. Just seems like more of the newer GM's want to make all these changes (Which I love new ideas) but some of the main parts of this league have been working fine, i don't see a reason to change it up. But if it gets changed then so be it. It's not the end of the world. that's because this problem wasn't an issue in d5's infancy because you didn't have these fake contracts on the books or all of the big one stacked on one team because it wasn't that way in real life, but now you do and it's getting unrealistic
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 4, 2015 0:00:34 GMT
Some GMs are much, much better than other GMs at building a team. The introduction of a hard cap is about placing a limit on just how good a GM can make their team.
It's a shame that a limit like that might be placed on a team. D5 is primarily about using your wits as a GM to build the best dynasty you possibly can. Why shouldn't we leave things as they are and see whether anyone has what it takes to assemble a team that's filled with All Stars from spots 1 to 12 that would blow the MJ-Pippen Bulls out of the water? That's what I'm trying to do personally. I want to win every championship for a 10 year period like Bill Russell.
Even if a GM assembled a team with a lineup of 5 superstars, that doesn't rule out injuries destroying things. So mabye it should be 200%? Maybe we should be rewarding good GMing? But does 200% hurt parity?
Man this is a tough one.
|
|
|
Post by Sam Bowie on Mar 4, 2015 0:21:29 GMT
Not really. If that is how you feel, you should place a high hard cap. The league is as active as it can be with things as they are. I think a good solution would be to have a hard cap that only limits the availability of the MLE exception and force you to receive less salaries in trades. That way, you get a chance to re-sign players if you own their bird rights even you are over the cap.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 0:32:49 GMT
Some GMs are much, much better than other GMs at building a team. The introduction of a hard cap is about placing a limit on just how good a GM can make their team. It's a shame that a limit like that might be placed on a team. D5 is primarily about using your wits as a GM to build the best dynasty you possibly can. Why shouldn't we leave things as they are and see whether anyone has what it takes to assemble a team that's filled with All Stars from spots 1 to 12 that would blow the MJ-Pippen Bulls out of the water? That's what I'm trying to do personally. I want to win every championship for a 10 year period like Bill Russell. Even if a GM assembled a team with a lineup of 5 superstars, that doesn't rule out injuries destroying things. So mabye it should be 200%? Maybe we should be rewarding good GMing? But does 200% hurt parity? Man this is a tough one. You could only build a team like that because you are choosing to play by a different set of rules than the league we are attempting to emulate. Nothing wrong with that. if this league wants to be more arcade-y than simulation, thats fine and dandy. Thats why some type of vote or compromise of both positions would be the best choice. maybe that means 200% is the middle ground between a simulation style hard cap, and the have anyone you want arcade sim.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Mar 4, 2015 0:35:20 GMT
Adam, Ian and Glenn are putting up some great thoughts on this but with the help of those, it comes down to parity versus freedom.
I will choose parity because as what Ian said, not all GMs are great in building team and I believe they are the majority. I do believe that the great team building GMs will still find a way to work things around so benefiting the majority should be better.
I think 175% is fine. I think a six-man All Star team will be the max of that as I believe at least two of those players can be ask to take a pay cut. With a 110 Million it can look like this 20M 90+ rating 20M 90+ rating 15M 85-89 15M 85-89 12M 80-85 12M 85-89 (pay cut)
with 16M to spend
|
|
|
Post by Sam Bowie on Mar 4, 2015 0:37:26 GMT
Either way you are not getting Lebron this off-season.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Mar 4, 2015 0:52:24 GMT
Either way you are not getting Lebron this off-season. come on Sam. Accept the fact.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Mar 4, 2015 1:02:13 GMT
After taking another good look at this, and to bring this thread back on topic, I do wonder whether 175% is too low. It comes down to a question of "what do we want for the league?" I feel like a team should be allowed to build atleast a five-man starting lineup dynasty and keep it, if they're able to do so, whilst still having some flexibility to work to build a bench. Does 175% allow that? 175% of our current cap ($63,065,000) is $110,363,750. That's a lot of money, but let's consider that five superstars at $20m each brings a team's salary to $100m, that leaves $10m to build the rest of your team, and Kobe Bryant costs you $35m. Next year, Denver will look like this: Brook Lopez - $19,097,550 Josh Smith - $22,177,880 Paul George - $20,000,000 (?) James Harden - $17,850,000 Kyrie Irving - $9,191,949 Total - $88,317,379 That leaves the Nuggets $22m to work with until they hit the hard cap, and the year after next they'll want to re-sign Kyrie Irving. Maybe 180% ($113,517,000) or 190% ($119,823,500) would be better? Good points Ian but just want to Point out that by the time the hard cap will be in place the regular nba cap us going to be 90 million so I'd adjust your numbers accordingly. I mean is 157.5 million, 175% of 90, really not enough? That seems more than satisfactory. I'd do even lower like 160%
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Mar 4, 2015 4:30:46 GMT
One thing about Parity vs. Freedom...If the parity gets too far out of line it hurts the league. Just realistically, if we end up with too many "super teams", that means that many more very bad teams, and suddenly only those "super teams" are active anymore.
Maybe that's extreme, but it's one possible issue with placing no limits.
On another note...
We could consider penalties for exceeding the cap instead of having a hard cap. Make it an Apron instead.
If the Apron is set at 175% of the cap (or 150...or whatever), and a team goes over at all, they lose their MLE. If they go over by 5%, they lose their 2nd Round Pick. If they go over by 10%, they lose their 1st Round Pick.
Those are just examples of something we could do. I haven't thought it all out at all, but that way teams can have 12 max guys if they want, but it does cost them picks and/or MLE, or other things we could probably figure out as well.
|
|
|
Post by Sam Bowie on Mar 4, 2015 5:08:52 GMT
Just realistically, if we end up with too many "super teams", that means that many more very bad teams, and suddenly only those "super teams" are active anymore. Right now, some of the GMs with best records are in the top 5 of inactivity.
|
|
|
Post by Sam Bowie on Mar 17, 2015 21:55:13 GMT
I agree with this. but i think we need to do this in like 2 years from now. Just reading the title makes my heart ache. Feb 8 - Troy´s 1st post in the hard cap thread. Feb 17 - Heat trades for Martin. Feb 19 - Heat trades for Gortat. Feb 24 - Heat trades for Iguodala. Mar 12 - Heat trades for Allen. Mar 16 - Heat trades for Asik. Mar 16 - Troy: "My team was built without thinking of the hard cap before, that's why i strongly oppose having one or we need to have a amnesty rule."
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Mar 17, 2015 22:06:08 GMT
I agree with this. but i think we need to do this in like 2 years from now. Just reading the title makes my heart ache. Feb 8 - Troy´s 1st post in the hard cap thread. Feb 17 - Heat trades for Martin. Feb 19 - Heat trades for Gortat. Feb 24 - Heat trades for Iguodala. Mar 12 - Heat trades for Allen. Mar 16 - Heat trades for Asik. Mar 16 - Troy: "My team was built without thinking of the hard cap before, that's why i strongly oppose having one or we need to have a amnesty rule." feb 17. traded varejao for Martin, saved 1.5million feb 19 traded for Gortat, saved abou 800K Feb 24 traded for Igoudala lost 100K March 12: traded for allen. equal salary March 16 traded for asik about to loose 900K so i basically shed of 1.3Million on cap space this season. before this Hard cap thread my Cap was about 133+ million, you are new here in this League and you're telling me this? everyone knows i built my Team for 3 years without thinking about it before so just shut up and make some research before you make an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Sam Bowie on Mar 17, 2015 22:13:15 GMT
You added $31,314,657 for the 2016/17 season reaching a total of $101,909,046 without Lebron and Wade.
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Mar 17, 2015 22:22:09 GMT
You added $31,314,657 for the 2016/17 season reaching a total of $101,909,046 without Lebron and Wade. i can still be under 140 million which is the proposed Hard cap because i believe Wade will make a Paycut just like in real life, do not worry everything is planned already. just focus on your team.
|
|