|
Post by youngstabullz on Oct 14, 2008 22:59:33 GMT -5
I think it would be interesting to have a rule kind of like this...
You average out the records of the past two seasons of your franchise, and then lets say, for example, you average 35 Wins in those two seasons. Since your "owner" is not building much revenue due to your team not winning as much, he will not allow you to increase the payroll of the team for the next 2 seasons for more than (Wins X 1.5M). So if someone averaged 35 wins for the last 2 seasons, the team will not be able to increase their payroll for more than 52.5M. This would be a big rule and award teams that win games.
So if a team were to average 60 wins a year for the past 2 seasons, their payroll could get to 90 Million, exceeding the hard cap.
This would also stop teams who tank and have a ton of expirings and only win 20-some games and then sign all of the elite free agents just to trade them again. It adds some realism as your Owner would never let you sign those players to those contracts if your team was horrible.
Yes, this means that if a team averages 20 wins a game for 2 years, they won't be able to exceed a 30M cap for the next 2 seasons which is kind of faulty so maybe you won't be able to exceed lower than a 40M personal cap so it would still let teams to be competitive for the next 2 seasons.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Oct 14, 2008 23:06:36 GMT -5
Outlawz and I have been campaigning for a championship cap or some type of incentive for winning like this for years
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Oct 14, 2008 23:11:53 GMT -5
Years.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny "B. Good" Stamos on Oct 14, 2008 23:18:45 GMT -5
I think it would make rebuilding last longer. You wouldn't have cap to add people in free agency and you would be stuck with an either young team or a shitty team for a longer period of time.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Oct 14, 2008 23:39:41 GMT -5
Itd be too much hassle IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Oct 14, 2008 23:40:24 GMT -5
Itd be too much hassle IMO. Agreed. Nice thought by YB, but it'd be such a pain.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Oct 14, 2008 23:43:55 GMT -5
Ive actually proposed this type of idea for future versions before.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Oct 14, 2008 23:49:32 GMT -5
I like an idea for rewarding consistent winning. Also it does suck so so much when you work so hard to build a winner and have depth for it to be taken away because of the hard cap and you have to fill 4-8 spots on your roster with 2nd rounders while you watch your bench be depleted because you can't offer them deals in free agency nor do you want to trade them the season before because you are trying to win a championship.
If the hard cap was actually double the salary cap or if the salary cap was lowered so it was half the hard cap I think a lot of this would be avoided but there are so many teams who get handcuffed and I don't think its fair. Its not because guys are giving outlandish contracts either its more or less its impossible to have 7 solid players who are not on rookie deals.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Oct 15, 2008 0:34:26 GMT -5
lol
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Oct 15, 2008 0:37:28 GMT -5
Keep laughing Spence but it is a problem look at the teams. You are so stubborn on this but it sucks. I know you like players moving but something has to be done once these next few free agent classes start getting max deals it will be impossible to keep any of those guys.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Oct 15, 2008 0:38:57 GMT -5
Dave, your post was hilarious because you're describing exactly what happened to yourself and then saying it's happening to everyone. IDK, it just came off as so funny. I was waiting for "AND THEN YOU LOSE DARKO AND THEN WHAT?".
|
|
|
Post by Johnny "B. Good" Stamos on Oct 15, 2008 0:40:44 GMT -5
And then you lose tony, manu, aldridge, life and then what?
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Oct 15, 2008 0:42:34 GMT -5
Lose 1 player. Lose all players. Lose yourself.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Oct 15, 2008 0:43:38 GMT -5
Dave, your post was hilarious because you're describing exactly what happened to yourself and then saying it's happening to everyone. IDK, it just came off as so funny. I was waiting for "AND THEN YOU LOSE DARKO AND THEN WHAT?". This has happened to the Lakers, Denver, Bucks, Heat off the top of my head. It will happen to the Raps after this year for sure(especially if Duncan doesn't retire), Sixers, and Suns. So please don't make this out to be a case solely based on me because that is a false assumption.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Oct 15, 2008 0:44:36 GMT -5
Dave, your post was hilarious because you're describing exactly what happened to yourself and then saying it's happening to everyone. IDK, it just came off as so funny. I was waiting for "AND THEN YOU LOSE DARKO AND THEN WHAT?". This has happened to the Lakers, Denver, Bucks, Heat off the top of my head. It will happen to the Raps after this year for sure(especially if Duncan doesn't retire), Sixers, and Suns. So please don't make this out to be a case solely based on me because that is a false assumption. That's not what I meant. I'm not saying that your point is wrong. I'm saying that your post was funny because of the way it was worded.
|
|
Outlawz
All-League
New York Knicks
Going back to basics
Posts: 7,853
|
Post by Outlawz on Oct 15, 2008 0:48:32 GMT -5
I definitely think some more wiggle room would be good. But spence is all about the lil guy so its no point in really brining it up
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Oct 15, 2008 0:55:59 GMT -5
I definitely think some more wiggle room would be good. But spence is all about the lil guy so its no point in really brining it up exactly it hard cap doesn't effect the little guy but it kills the big guy. When a player's contract is X amount of the salary cap it should be X amount of the hard cap as well but with our current structure in place it isn't. His salary is a greater percentage of the hard cap than it is the salary cap. If the salary cap was lowered from 45 to 42.5 we'd save slightly under a mil on each player in the first year of their contract which saves a lot more in the long term too. So you'd save about an MLE for 5 players on large deals. Thats huge amount of space to retain to build your bench. Another 5 mil is crucial because you can save a guy from being stolen by an MLE or you can break that down and accept a last chance offer of 3 mil or something to that effect. Instead of rounding out your roster filled with 2nds.
|
|
|
Post by Skillz on Oct 15, 2008 5:28:32 GMT -5
Hardcap shouldn't be double the salary cap but I do agree it should be raised to around 90. There are a bunch of teams consistently very close to the HC.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Oct 15, 2008 10:14:09 GMT -5
Hardcap shouldn't be double the salary cap but I do agree it should be raised to around 90. There are a bunch of teams consistently very close to the HC. 90 is double the salary cap duh
|
|
|
Post by duceisinmyheart on Oct 15, 2008 10:14:43 GMT -5
stfu
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Oct 15, 2008 10:19:31 GMT -5
This system demands player movement. Player movement is better then stagnant rosters. It isnt impossible to win with this system. Is it more difficult? Yes. Is that the point? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Oct 15, 2008 12:38:57 GMT -5
Fuck you, YB.
Goat fucker.
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix Phil on Oct 15, 2008 16:09:39 GMT -5
Lose 1 player. Lose all players. Lose yourself. in the music, the moment, you own it, you better never let it go.
|
|
Ducky
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,215
|
Post by Ducky on Oct 15, 2008 16:46:18 GMT -5
Lose 1 player. Lose all players. Lose yourself. in the music, the moment, you own it, you better never let it go. homo
|
|
|
Post by Skillz on Oct 15, 2008 16:50:50 GMT -5
Hardcap shouldn't be double the salary cap but I do agree it should be raised to around 90. There are a bunch of teams consistently very close to the HC. 90 is double the salary cap duh Salary cap is 50 mil, idiot
|
|