|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 7, 2008 12:02:04 GMT -5
This is the current rule.....
The Hard Cap
-The Hard Cap is $85,000,000. You cannot go over the Hard Cap. If you do go over, you have 24 hours to get under. If you do not get under, you must forfeit all picks in the next 2 drafts(which must include at least 2 1sts), and you will also lose a player to waivers. You will also lose your MLE and LLE, and all FA privileges (even Bird rights) over the next 2 years. If you do not have 2 1sts over the next 2 years, I will take 2 1st of my choice.
Im thinking of shortening the FA penalty to just one year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Sept 7, 2008 12:06:01 GMT -5
I personally don't think it's too strict. Going over the HC (and not getting under) is so rare that I think the penalty should be as harsh as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Sept 7, 2008 12:08:28 GMT -5
It's too harsh. Those penalties alone can really ruin a team. I think it should go case by case, but removing a key player, taking away two firsts for a year and losing FA rights for that season is way more than enough. Far be it for me to say this, but that's really severe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 7, 2008 12:12:53 GMT -5
I think its very harsh, but I also think you shouldve traded Marion this year and gotten something for him. You can work around the rule. I mean it sucks that you lost a lotto pick, but other then that lotto pick and Gasol this penalty will hurt you more because you werent pro active.
|
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Sept 7, 2008 12:20:24 GMT -5
yeeee
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Sept 7, 2008 13:44:07 GMT -5
I like the penalty althought I wish the hardcap was higher. The salary cap is 45 mil yet the hard cap is 85 mil. We adjusted the salary cap but we never adjusted the hardcap. I think this is why we see so many teams in the league flirting with the number. I personally don't like it because I'm a guy who goes out and builds by getting bigger contracts to deal. However it does make the league have so much more competitive balance. On the other hand it sucks breaking up a great team and filling out your roster with 2nd round picks because you know the hardcap will be on the horizon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny "B. Good" Stamos on Sept 7, 2008 14:02:55 GMT -5
I dont think it too harsh but it might be alittle low. But im just saying that but i cant afford any goddamn backups
|
|
|
|
Post by Skillz on Sept 7, 2008 14:17:52 GMT -5
I like the penalty althought I wish the hardcap was higher. The salary cap is 45 mil yet the hard cap is 85 mil. We adjusted the salary cap but we never adjusted the hardcap. I think this is why we see so many teams in the league flirting with the number. I personally don't like it because I'm a guy who goes out and builds by getting bigger contracts to deal. However it does make the league have so much more competitive balance. On the other hand it sucks breaking up a great team and filling out your roster with 2nd round picks because you know the hardcap will be on the horizon. Agreed |
|
|
|
Post by cjmjones008 on Sept 7, 2008 14:43:08 GMT -5
this thing fucked me this year so you better not change 85mil now
|
|
Outlawz
All-League
New York Knicks
Going back to basics
Posts: 7,853
|
Post by Outlawz on Sept 7, 2008 15:37:25 GMT -5
I agree with what Krup says. I think 85 is great but if your going to raise the soft then the hard cap should be raised accordingly too. Contracts are just outrageous due to the raises in the soft cap. Maybe lower the soft cap? or raise the hard cap to 90? you can also have a champions hard like in NBN. Lets say we keep the hard cap at 85. If someone wins then their hard cap for the following season can be raised by 3 mil and if they dont repeat the number goes down 1.5 mil and then 1.5 mil the next. So in 2 years that champion cap would be gone. Since realistically if a team has won a ring the owner is more likely to give em a lil more leeway.
|
|
Outlawz
All-League
New York Knicks
Going back to basics
Posts: 7,853
|
Post by Outlawz on Sept 7, 2008 15:38:11 GMT -5
As far as the penalty itself. I think it's fine. It can be easily avoided if you plan accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix Phil on Sept 7, 2008 15:46:47 GMT -5
I don't think we should raise the soft cap anymore. I wouldn't mind raising the hard cap a bit considering the soft cap has increased almost every year. I wouldn't make it higher than 90 mill though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gossip Girl on Sept 7, 2008 15:56:59 GMT -5
As far as the penalty itself. I think it's fine. It can be easily avoided if you plan accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by DB on Sept 7, 2008 16:34:49 GMT -5
I don't think we should raise the soft cap anymore. I wouldn't mind raising the hard cap a bit considering the soft cap has increased almost every year. I wouldn't make it higher than 90 mill though. I agree. The penalty is fine though, pretty harsh. Lowering the FA one down to one year would not be that bad really, probably should do it. But if you do that I can see you removing a better player to waivers. |
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Sept 7, 2008 17:21:09 GMT -5
I think everything is fine right now as is.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Sept 7, 2008 17:38:42 GMT -5
By what I said I don't want to change it now. I've worked my ass off to make sure I avoid being near the hard cap so I don't think others should be rewarded by us raising the hard cap now.
I do like the champions cap idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Sept 7, 2008 18:12:37 GMT -5
NO CHAMPIONS CAP! PLEASE! This is so dumb. Keep the playing field even for fuck's sake. That is such a dangerously slanted idea. The goal is to have the best team on an even playing field. If you do that, that's awesome, but should we shift the scales towards you if you win? That's pathetic. Hate the idea. Detest it. Fuck no.
|
|
|
|
Post by donatello2424 on Sept 7, 2008 18:17:42 GMT -5
I think everything is fine right now as is. |
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Sept 7, 2008 18:21:40 GMT -5
NO CHAMPIONS CAP! PLEASE! This is so dumb. Keep the playing field even for fuck's sake. That is such a dangerously slanted idea. The goal is to have the best team on an even playing field. If you do that, that's awesome, but should we shift the scales towards you if you win? That's pathetic. Hate the idea. Detest it. Fuck no. So are you against the champion getting a RC too? That makes the playing field uneven as well but I never heard you detest that. I think its a neat idea. A team like the Lakers if they won the championship this year would really need that rule instead he has to break up his team. Everything isn't even if it was the Lamarcus Aldridge would have taken the max money he offered instead of going elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny "B. Good" Stamos on Sept 7, 2008 18:23:05 GMT -5
LaMarcus who? I mean OMG NBD i dont even remember him. OMG ZING DICKSUCKER NBD
|
|
|
|
Post by GP on Sept 7, 2008 18:23:35 GMT -5
Raise the hard cap to about 90 mil, IMO.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Sept 7, 2008 18:25:07 GMT -5
Raise the hard cap to about 90 mil, IMO. why so your contract you gave Brand doesn't look so shitty in 3 years? |
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Sept 7, 2008 18:26:21 GMT -5
NO CHAMPIONS CAP! PLEASE! This is so dumb. Keep the playing field even for fuck's sake. That is such a dangerously slanted idea. The goal is to have the best team on an even playing field. If you do that, that's awesome, but should we shift the scales towards you if you win? That's pathetic. Hate the idea. Detest it. Fuck no. So are you against the champion getting a RC too? That makes the playing field uneven as well but I never heard you detest that. I think its a neat idea. A team like the Lakers if they won the championship this year would really need that rule instead he has to break up his team. Everything isn't even if it was the Lamarcus Aldridge would have taken the max money he offered instead of going elsewhere. If you want to equate the two, then we'd have to enforce a system wherein teams could also earn the "champion's cap" by posting 200 times a season. There's truly no comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Sept 7, 2008 18:28:11 GMT -5
NO CHAMPIONS CAP! PLEASE! This is so dumb. Keep the playing field even for fuck's sake. That is such a dangerously slanted idea. The goal is to have the best team on an even playing field. If you do that, that's awesome, but should we shift the scales towards you if you win? That's pathetic. Hate the idea. Detest it. Fuck no. So are you against the champion getting a RC too? That makes the playing field uneven as well but I never heard you detest that. I think its a neat idea. A team like the Lakers if they won the championship this year would really need that rule instead he has to break up his team. Everything isn't even if it was the Lamarcus Aldridge would have taken the max money he offered instead of going elsewhere. And I don't know why you're using the Lakers for your point at all. It's totally baseless; they didn't win the championship, and LaMarcus left because he was a free agent and FBB randomly had him leave the Lakers. I mean, they did offer him a full max, so whatever you're saying, it's irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Sept 7, 2008 18:30:00 GMT -5
And keep the cap where it is. There are plenty of very good teams, but there's also plenty of parity, and we so often see teams sitting just under 85 and doing a good job of filling out their roster with good players. It's obviously doable, even if you need to make some sacrifices, so I don't see why we should give 5 mil more spending money.
|
|
