|
|
Post by Flip on Jun 9, 2014 6:24:34 GMT
Since we can't cut good expiring players (happened to me last season), I propose that we allow contract buyouts. Of course, it would cost quite a bit of money to do that. How would it work? EDIT (via somerandomguy's suggestion): - Buyout player for $100 per mil. - Player that was bought out will be placed in a bid war (24 hour bid), money goes to pay off the buyout (not many would bid 1,500 on a player unless he's worth it), team takes a 10% hit on their cap ($7,000,000=$700,000) |
|
|
|
Post by gotmelk0490 on Jun 9, 2014 7:13:29 GMT
We are only allowed 2k cash anyway...most guys may have more than 11 mil owed and it would be impossible unless we lower the $$. Just my two cents. I'm not opposed though
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyguy2010 on Jun 9, 2014 7:15:53 GMT
We are only allowed 2k cash anyway...most guys may have more than 11 mil owed and it would be impossible unless we lower the $$. Just my two cents. I'm not opposed though Yeah the biggest contract you could buy out would be around 6 million. So not sure this would be very effective. |
|
|
|
Post by Flip on Jun 9, 2014 7:16:27 GMT
We are only allowed 2k cash anyway...most guys may have more than 11 mil owed and it would be impossible unless we lower the $$. Just my two cents. I'm not opposed though that is the point, though. We basically have to wait until we can afford to buyout the contract, that way we actually are "fining" ourselves if we want to buyout a player and if we can afford to buyout a player. |
|
|
|
Post by Flip on Jun 9, 2014 7:17:16 GMT
We are only allowed 2k cash anyway...most guys may have more than 11 mil owed and it would be impossible unless we lower the $$. Just my two cents. I'm not opposed though Yeah the biggest contract you could buy out would be around 6 million. So not sure this would be very effective. maybe $150 per every million? |
|
|
|
Post by crazyguy2010 on Jun 9, 2014 7:18:20 GMT
We are only allowed 2k cash anyway...most guys may have more than 11 mil owed and it would be impossible unless we lower the $$. Just my two cents. I'm not opposed though that is the point, though. We basically have to wait until we can afford to buyout the contract, that way we actually are "fining" ourselves if we want to buyout a player and if we can afford to buyout a player. You can only have 2,000 cash in your bank at once. So no matter of time saving would get you a enought to be able to buyout a contract over like 6 million being. 6 x 300 = 1,800 |
|
|
|
Post by crazyguy2010 on Jun 9, 2014 7:27:04 GMT
Yeah the biggest contract you could buy out would be around 6 million. So not sure this would be very effective. maybe $150 per every million? Could work would allow up to a 13 million dollar contract to be bought out. Thing is if the player is like Marion or Ford I don't see the point in buying them out when someone would claim them and likely pay money in doing so. The only reason a buyout is needed is someone has a big contract,old and sucks lol. I feel like maybe a contract bidding for the player would be more effective when someone is cut they are off that persons team then a post is made the person to offer the most money not passing the one year FA rule gets time if a tie let the player pick. |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Jun 9, 2014 7:52:31 GMT
keep it simple $100 per mil, bid with GM cash on a bought out player (24 hour bid), money goes to pay off the buyout (not many would bid 1,500 on a player unless he's worth it), team takes a 10% hit on their cap ($7,000,000=$700,000)
there ya go
|
|
shorty
Administrator 
Administrator
Posts: 15,223 
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Jun 9, 2014 17:04:52 GMT
So then what will this mean for waivers?
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Jun 9, 2014 17:39:59 GMT
if someone just pulling a waiver on a player to good for FA, then just force force them to either buy the player out or if they don't have the money, they're stuck with them
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Jun 9, 2014 18:52:49 GMT
That works. I just hope everyone will understand that it'll be up to Bundy' discretion on whether a player can stay on waivers or be a buyout.
|
|
basenoc
Moderator 
Sacramento Kings
Posts: 7,679
Staff Member
|
Post by basenoc on Jun 9, 2014 21:28:51 GMT
Just stop giving players ridiculous contracts imo. No to buyouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Jun 9, 2014 22:14:47 GMT
sometimes, you have to give players the "ridiculous" deal to be good
plus buyouts usually happen when a player is traded to a team, not necessarily because a GM is tired of a bad contract
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperMaor23 on Jun 10, 2014 0:58:26 GMT
Since 2k is max why not establish another form of payment for a buyout? Maybe even go in debt? A draft pick? Sonething. We should have adressed hc differently in the cba
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Jun 10, 2014 1:36:23 GMT
Since 2k is max why not establish another form of payment for a buyout? Maybe even go in debt? A draft pick? Sonething. We should have adressed hc differently in the cba We did. And draft picks/debt is not a good idea.. we're not trying to start a Proboards finance system here. And picks are worth differently so that's hard to keep track. |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Jun 11, 2014 15:24:31 GMT
Could use more votes on this matter.
|
|
itnas123
Administrator
Charlotte Bobcats
Posts: 25,496
Staff Member
|
Post by itnas123 on Jun 11, 2014 17:34:48 GMT
I remember I originally proposed it and it was shot down real quickly LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by BrazilianDude on Jun 11, 2014 20:53:55 GMT
I think we should only be able to if you join the team with a bad contract. Like if we gvd the contract or trade for it uo should keep it. Like when Seattle joined the Davis contract was horrible
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyguy2010 on Jun 11, 2014 22:36:11 GMT
I think we should only be able to if you join the team with a bad contract. Like if we gvd the contract or trade for it uo should keep it. Like when Seattle joined the Davis contract was horrible Problem is people aren't voting this threw 7 to 5 right now. I doubt they vote something that will only help new people. |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Jun 11, 2014 22:37:13 GMT
I think we should only be able to if you join the team with a bad contract. Like if we gvd the contract or trade for it uo should keep it. Like when Seattle joined the Davis contract was horrible If the new owner gets to keep all the previous owner's cash then that would work. |
|
|
|
Post by BrazilianDude on Jun 11, 2014 23:03:03 GMT
I think we should only be able to if you join the team with a bad contract. Like if we gvd the contract or trade for it uo should keep it. Like when Seattle joined the Davis contract was horrible If the new owner gets to keep all the previous owner's cash then that would work. im kind of suggesting just a 1 amesty no buy out. like when new gm joins he has a 35 yr old guy on a 25min contract he can just cut him no consequences one time. but only one player |
|
|
|
Post by crazyguy2010 on Jun 11, 2014 23:20:07 GMT
If the new owner gets to keep all the previous owner's cash then that would work. im kind of suggesting just a 1 amesty no buy out. like when new gm joins he has a 35 yr old guy on a 25min contract he can just cut him no consequences one time. but only one player I'd vote no on this. It doesn't help me and I've had two different teams in this league Suns and Sixers I never got to amesty a player. If gms won't vote to create a buyout to help themselfs why would they vote to help new GM's be able to come in and get cap space right away? |
|
bundybastard
Administrator
Co Commish
Posts: 15,661
Staff Member
|
Post by bundybastard on Jun 11, 2014 23:42:52 GMT
Meh
|
|
|
|
Post by BrazilianDude on Jun 11, 2014 23:57:07 GMT
im kind of suggesting just a 1 amesty no buy out. like when new gm joins he has a 35 yr old guy on a 25min contract he can just cut him no consequences one time. but only one player I'd vote no on this. It doesn't help me and I've had two different teams in this league Suns and Sixers I never got to amesty a player. If gms won't vote to create a buyout to help themselfs why would they vote to help new GM's be able to come in and get cap space right away? dont think what it hasnt done for u but how it would have helped. to benefit future owners and the prosperity of the league dont be selfish |
|
|
|
Post by crazyguy2010 on Jun 12, 2014 0:04:44 GMT
I'd vote no on this. It doesn't help me and I've had two different teams in this league Suns and Sixers I never got to amesty a player. If gms won't vote to create a buyout to help themselfs why would they vote to help new GM's be able to come in and get cap space right away? dont think what it hasnt done for u but how it would have helped. to benefit future owners and the prosperity of the league dont be selfish Its not just me being selfish I'm simply saying if GM's don't want to do a buyout idea to help themselfs why in the hell would something to help new gms get cap space in there first year of FA be voted yes on? It simply makes no since if it happened. I also think voting needs to be mantory some how it takes all of maybe a couple of mins to read these proposals and vote. |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Jun 12, 2014 18:33:24 GMT
FlipDoes the team that hit the 10% cap hit receive the cap hit for the duration of the player's contract, or just for that season? The only thing I can see this becoming an issue is that, it might be hard to track later on if too many players get bought out and there's invisible cap hits.
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Jun 12, 2014 18:34:29 GMT
The people who are voting no should offer up a suggestion as to why tbh. It's clear that we do need something along the lines of a buyout in case we ever get a situation like a tanking team trying to waive a really good player again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flip on Jun 12, 2014 19:42:11 GMT
FlipDoes the team that hit the 10% cap hit receive the cap hit for the duration of the player's contract, or just for that season? The only thing I can see this becoming an issue is that, it might be hard to track later on if too many players get bought out and there's invisible cap hits. Hmm, that's a good point to bring up. I'll think of something when I'm home |
|
|
|
Post by bloop on Jun 12, 2014 20:01:02 GMT
I voted no because it was suggested that te waiver wire would be replaced by this. I haven't kept up with it to know if that has changed
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Jun 12, 2014 20:12:48 GMT
I voted no because it was suggested that te waiver wire would be replaced by this. I haven't kept up with it to know if that has changed From what I'm reading, the waiver wire stays. The contract buyout is an option for teams who want to tank, but can't waive a really good player (like a Shawn Marion, or a Jay Williams, or a Michael Redd, or something like that). |
|
