|
|
Post by malice on May 15, 2014 9:45:17 GMT
I still see no problem with being able to play 2 max guys... not more. The cap is kind of irrelevant - because salaries don't rise. There's no need to artificially create any kind of financial spiral, because as soon as we lift the cap to a higher level, you can bet player salaries will increase as well.
There ARE teams that are constructed under the ceiling, and doing well.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 15, 2014 10:55:36 GMT
increased salary caps encourages movement I think and it is something that a league should encourage even if the activity is extremely high in that area. When you increase the salary cap, more teams have money which means they can spend more as you pointed out this leads to a few things which helps the league such as absorbing more salary because of cap space or signing a player more.
It just leads to more freedom as a GM and in my experience when a commissioner raises the cap and it's controlled it's usually a good thing. I think you can get more activity out of people by doing because it opens up roads that weren't possible before. It's usually good to increase the cap every few years.
And for the record, you can actually get a big 3 with this current cap (and I know this is destroying the idea I had earlier, but I'm not loyal to that idea) I could wipe out most if not all of my salary, still use my 1st and get a big 3 if I really wanted to. LeBron along with Bosh, Wade and Melo would be close to 16 million first year, 16 x 3 = 48 million. Say you also get the #1 pick (draft pick isn't even needed really, but just to add more to the example)which is about 2.9 million that's around 50 million in salary. Though it's easier at 56 million then it is at 53 million thus the reasoning for waiting a couple years to do it.
I will say the hard cap needs a raise at the very least, you have 5 teams paying 80 million or more and it will only get worse, especially after 2012. I figure if your going to raise the hard cap, you should also raise the salary cap just to keep the margin between the salary cap and hard cap tight, it is difficult to pay 85 million anyways (that's what I'm proposing atm) and if anyone does go over then they'll go over no matter if the cap is at 53 million or 60 million (just look at the Lakers), so long as we keep the rule were salaries should only be 4/5 years (which looks like we're getting a little bit away from that) it shouldn't be too much of a problem. We had like a 100 million dollar hard cap last league and it got out of hand because some players got as high as 30 million in salary with the year restrictions, it shouldn't go that high.
|
|
bundybastard
Administrator 
Co Commish
Posts: 15,661
Staff Member
|
Post by bundybastard on May 15, 2014 11:08:41 GMT
Im going to open negotiations roughly 24 hours from now, instead of me submitting a completed CBA Im going to open negotations by discussing it step by step. First subject will be the Salary Cap and Hard Cap, every GM will be allowed to have their opinion though your Union President and Vice President will be your leading voice.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 15, 2014 11:10:11 GMT
oh, I just made some polls just now :/ guess I will just delete them then
|
|
bundybastard
Administrator
Co Commish
Posts: 15,661
Staff Member
|
Post by bundybastard on May 15, 2014 11:17:01 GMT
That's fine, this thread is for GMs to discuss it, so if anything the polls are needed
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 15, 2014 11:21:50 GMT
mmk, guess I will bring them back up should also even though I'm probably a textbook example of a team that shouldn't argue this, I think the cap floor is extremely low 20 million in salary is very easy to make up with a 12 player roster (if that's what it is, says so according to CBA). A team should really only have maybe 8 million in wiggle room I think cap floor irl is 53 million while the cap is around 58 million about a 5 million dollar difference. That will also be a poll  |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 15, 2014 11:44:09 GMT
there ya go, pretty much every financial thing has been posted that involves teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 15, 2014 12:47:26 GMT
Yeah, I disagree about the need *yet* for polls. I *believe* that it should be discussion, THEN polls... with further discussion happening in the poll thread. I also think that I like your enthusiasm SRG - and I understand that's the only reason you're doing this, but I'm a tad wary of a commissioner taking such an aggressive role in the GMA... like it or not, you have a bit of a conflict of interest. You're also kinda usurping the Prez's job at the moment. Hell, you've even put up polls on stuff that we haven't even discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 16, 2014 1:00:40 GMT
I'm not really considering myself as commish anymore, I might help with a few sims, but I won't be as active with being a commish as I used to be. I honestly didn't want to do another sim again, but I do realize that Bundy and Flip need help from time to time and unless someone else stepped up I have to be the one to do it.
I think posting polls are fine and that's what people were doing anyways before I even posted the poll, I'm not trying to influence my opinion at all, I'm just giving people a spot to discuss individual ideas ahead of time and trying to come to a yes/no agreement to each one. The sooner we come to a yes or no the sooner we can start talking about financial figures if the league feels they need to be changed.
We're going to start talking about it less then 24 hours anyways, might as well see how everyone feels before we even start talking about what each cap figure is going to be.
Bundy also said it was fine, so I went through with it when I already deleted two of those threads myself
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 16, 2014 1:29:13 GMT
No offense to Bundy, but he has absolutely NO standing in the GMA. And respectfully, I disagree: you're not giving people "a spot to discuss individual ideas" - the first thing they're going to do is VOTE on it, THEN discuss. And that's bass-ackwards.
Discussion, then voting. I understand that it's merely enthusiasm, but I still feel that it's too preemptive... even presumptive.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 16, 2014 1:48:45 GMT
way I see it, there's a ton that needs to be discussed and we're not going to get to every little thing in one thread, it's eventually going to need separate threads, I see now as a better time then any.
If you want me to take the polls down then I can do that, I can just keep those threads up to discuss individual ideas. But this thread will probably start getting cluttered (if it hasn't already) with different ideas for the CBA, all I'm doing is trying to narrow the scoop on each issue and I don't see the crime in doing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 16, 2014 4:35:06 GMT
I agree that the theads are probably a good idea - my point is that the nature of a poll (that being the first thing you see) will inevitably be the first thing someone does in those threads. The good thing here is that you *can* change your vote here... but in my (albeit very limited) experience, people rarely do.
*IF* you could leave the threads up, but axe the polls (for now), that'd be great...
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223 
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 16, 2014 4:45:06 GMT
I'm fine with SRG being in here and having a voice tbh. Sure he's a part-commish, but he is also a GM and has to play by the same team-building rules we will all play with so I'd say we should hear him out. He's being productive with his suggestions as well. MOst others aren't even participating that much. The threads he created will be a great way to more narrowly talk about topics.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 16, 2014 6:16:22 GMT
polls gone, now you can just talk there
if there are more ideas out there, feel free to make a thread, this CBA should have alot of things in it that help make the league better. Just using the ideas I suggested aren't going to be enough I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 16, 2014 13:45:30 GMT
I would like to try and implement some sort of function that makes it EASIER for teams to re-sign their OWN players. Merely being able to offer an extra year doesn't always cut it, and we want to encourage a greater amount of stability amongst the league's stars... which can only help a franchise. Especially players who have had a lot of money/camps/AC-RCs invested in them (usually the league's elite). I'm not exactly sure how we could do that - anyone have any ideas?
But I'd also like to encourage GMs to try and KEEP players at their franchises.
Perhaps... a camp especially for elite players who have been at the one franchise for a significantly long period of time? Say... 8+ years?
Thoughts?
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 16, 2014 22:20:32 GMT
I would like to try and implement some sort of function that makes it EASIER for teams to re-sign their OWN players. Merely being able to offer an extra year doesn't always cut it, and we want to encourage a greater amount of stability amongst the league's stars... which can only help a franchise. Especially players who have had a lot of money/camps/AC-RCs invested in them (usually the league's elite). I'm not exactly sure how we could do that - anyone have any ideas? But I'd also like to encourage GMs to try and KEEP players at their franchises. Perhaps... a camp especially for elite players who have been at the one franchise for a significantly long period of time? Say... 8+ years? Thoughts? The camp idea is interesting, let's talk about that more... however as for helping teams keep their own players, we already have a guarantee resign for their rookies, I personally don't want to see it any easier than that myself. I mean, not all FAs stay with their teams, and the extra year makes it easier for teams to resign their max FAs. That's already a big incentive for stars to stay home, and I'd say that most of the time, stars do resign with their own teams. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 16, 2014 23:41:34 GMT
Fair enough - I'll make a thread for the camp idea. Another thing I was thinking about was to try and make it more consistent for GM rewards in sims. I think there should be a regular reward given each sim, and I also think there needs to be a minimum of 8 hours that a DC thread should be up before a sim can take place. Additionally, I don't like the "all-playoffs-on-one-day"... as it catches some GMs unaware, and doesn't allow them to tweak their DC. I think there should be a set schedule for playoffs: Round 1/2, then Conference Finals/Finals on the following day. I realise real life happens, but I'd honestly prefer to miss a day, than have everything crammed into one day.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Posting&Toasting on May 16, 2014 23:45:15 GMT
Fair enough - I'll make a thread for the camp idea. Another thing I was thinking about was to try and make it more consistent for GM rewards in sims. I think there should be a regular reward given each sim, and I also think there needs to be a minimum of 8 hours that a DC thread should be up before a sim can take place. Additionally, I don't like the "all-playoffs-on-one-day"... as it catches some GMs unaware, and doesn't allow them to tweak their DC. I think there should be a set schedule for playoffs: Round 1/2, then Conference Finals/Finals on the following day. I realise real life happens, but I'd honestly prefer to miss a day, than have everything crammed into one day. Thoughts? i like rewards depending on participation in sim. DC thing is fine. and a huge no to the playoffs, I'm a supporter of all in one day. i don't mind if round 1/2 and finals are sepereated by an hour or two, but no need to wait around for 4 teams when theres 25 other gms around. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 16, 2014 23:56:31 GMT
Fair enough - I'll make a thread for the camp idea. Another thing I was thinking about was to try and make it more consistent for GM rewards in sims. I think there should be a regular reward given each sim, and I also think there needs to be a minimum of 8 hours that a DC thread should be up before a sim can take place. Additionally, I don't like the "all-playoffs-on-one-day"... as it catches some GMs unaware, and doesn't allow them to tweak their DC. I think there should be a set schedule for playoffs: Round 1/2, then Conference Finals/Finals on the following day. I realise real life happens, but I'd honestly prefer to miss a day, than have everything crammed into one day. Thoughts? i like rewards depending on participation in sim. DC thing is fine. and a huge no to the playoffs, I'm a supporter of all in one day. i don't mind if round 1/2 and finals are sepereated by an hour or two, but no need to wait around for 4 teams when theres 25 other gms around. Awesome if you're one of the teams there (or not in the playoffs). A big fuck off pile of dog doo-doo if you're a team in the conference finals/finals who doesn't get to set a DC. 25 GMs around for the Conference Finals/Finals is completely and utterly irrelevant - it's the 4-then-2 who are in it that matter. The thing is to try and get it to be somewhat REGULAR, so people KNOW what's going to happen. All-in-one-day is something that's only happened last season (maybe the season before). I'd hate to be in the final four teams and not get to plan, and be stuck with a less than optimal DC. |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 17, 2014 0:28:00 GMT
To be fair, the All-in-one day playoffs only happen if the remaining Conf Finals and Finals GMs are active on the boards. If they aren't, two days are taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 0:37:39 GMT
To be fair, the All-in-one day playoffs only happen if the remaining Conf Finals and Finals GMs are active on the boards. If they aren't, two days are taken. I'm ok with that. Tho' I think we need to have it spelt out that this should be exactly what happens (one day if all participants are there and agree). |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 3:41:36 GMT
Just noticed Bundy's creation of a "summer league" forum. I for one wouldn't mind an increase in pre-season activities - give me a greater opportunity to experiment with line-ups/DCs. What do others think?
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 3:57:24 GMT
I wouldn't mind, but that means more work for Bundy, dunno if he would agree
there also needs to be a strong interest in whatever is proposed, otherwise what we have now is fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 4:16:24 GMT
I wouldn't mind, but that means more work for Bundy, dunno if he would agree there also needs to be a strong interest in whatever is proposed, otherwise what we have now is fine. Well... it would be before the regular season - making everything longer. It wouldn't actually mean more work for him (I *think* - acknowledging that I don't really know about commishing!), just that seasons last longer. How about something like making pre-season 3 sims, and summer league 2? Or 2 & 2? Or a CPU+2 preseason sims... and 2 summer league sims? Which would mean adding two sims on what we have right now... ? |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 17, 2014 4:22:52 GMT
I wouldn't mind, but that means more work for Bundy, dunno if he would agree there also needs to be a strong interest in whatever is proposed, otherwise what we have now is fine. Well... it would be before the regular season - making everything longer. It wouldn't actually mean more work for him (I *think* - acknowledging that I don't really know about commishing!), just that seasons last longer. How about something like making pre-season 3 sims, and summer league 2? Or 2 & 2? Or a CPU+2 preseason sims... and 2 summer league sims? Which would mean adding two sims on what we have right now... ? Let's see what others say about extra pre-season game, but an extra SL game I'm staunchly against myself. There just aren't enough 25 and young players on enough people's teams to justify having two Summer Leagues. Maybe sim two SL games at the same time (with two different DCs), but then that's extra work for Bundy (inputting DCs is tedious I've heard). |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 20, 2014 7:34:22 GMT
with day 2 coming up, we need to start focusing on some of the smaller details now that the bigger ones are being taken care of. A few things that I will bring up that I see as issues (though, I won't say I agree with every single one being an issue, but I believe in being open minded).
Waivers of near stars or star players, where is the line drawn?
draft and it's timing, can it be adjusted? (as gotmelk proposed earlier)
GM cash either acquiring/spending it (like malice proposed and was later turned down).
The position rule, PG rule is fine because no one wants a really good SG playing PG, but is it too strict?
Veto's, people have pointed to inconsistencies in it, can we make it more consistent (I will say I would vote no to TC, they can be inconsistent as well)
CY penalties too strict? Or just right (yes I know I came up with the expansion draft idea)
1 year deals, I brought this up as an issue in the cap floor thread, what the most you should be allowed to spend on a single year deal?
Bring up other issues you see around league wide if there is anything you think can be corrected. This is the best time to do it guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 20, 2014 8:17:36 GMT
Agreed. If you want your voice heard, now's the time!
My thoughts on some of your points...
Waivers of near stars or star players, where is the line drawn? - Agreed. This is a real problem: there's no way known that we should be able to waive players of that ilk, without repercussions.
draft and it's timing, can it be adjusted? (as gotmelk proposed earlier) - It definitely could do with being a tad stream-lined...
GM cash either acquiring/spending it (like malice proposed and was later turned down). - Opportunites to improve teams would be nice.
The position rule, PG rule is fine because no one wants a really good SG playing PG, but is it too strict? - I don't believe so. Some of the issues (Dirk at SF?) shouldn't be issues. What happened *really*?
Veto's, people have pointed to inconsistencies in it, can we make it more consistent (I will say I would vote no to TC, they can be inconsistent as well): I think I like a T-committee. Can address waivers too...
CY penalties too strict? Or just right (yes I know I came up with the expansion draft idea) - Juuuuuust right, in my opinion.
1 year deals, I brought this up as an issue in the cap floor thread, what the most you should be allowed to spend on a single year deal? - A good point... needs exploring.
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 22, 2014 22:11:18 GMT
If anyone still has something they would like to discuss to add to the next CBA, I urge you to bring it up soon cuz the new CBA is about to be finalized..
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 22, 2014 22:11:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 22, 2014 22:58:48 GMT
If anyone still has something they would like to discuss to add to the next CBA, I urge you to bring it up soon cuz the new CBA is about to be finalized.. I'll have a look tomorrow... but today I'm out all day. |
|
