|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Apr 13, 2015 2:53:53 GMT
5 years is perfect imo, not too short, not too long there's no need to change it, most teams can rebuild in 5 years
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Apr 13, 2015 2:58:39 GMT
Also, can't see reason for having SC violation - make it even harder to rebuild through draft. that's the point, but teams still seem to rebuild fine despite the rule, so no real reason to remove it. It's better then a team putting together a team of minimum players while having hordes of cap space. |
|
|
|
Post by HyperYellow on Apr 13, 2015 2:59:38 GMT
Also, can't see reason for having SC violation - make it even harder to rebuild through draft. that's the point, but teams still seem to rebuild fine despite the rule, so no real reason to remove it. It's better then a team putting together a team of minimum players while having hordes of cap space. Why would that be a bad thing? |
|
bundybastard
Administrator 
Co Commish
Posts: 15,661
Staff Member
|
Post by bundybastard on Apr 13, 2015 3:02:25 GMT
CY also prevents extreme tanking
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Apr 13, 2015 3:06:04 GMT
that's the point, but teams still seem to rebuild fine despite the rule, so no real reason to remove it. It's better then a team putting together a team of minimum players while having hordes of cap space. Why would that be a bad thing? it's the most obvious form of tanking and any idiot can do it. FA's also get paid less when more then one team chooses to do this making it easier for contenders to get FA's. |
|
|
|
Post by nyybaseball on Apr 13, 2015 3:06:41 GMT
that's the point, but teams still seem to rebuild fine despite the rule, so no real reason to remove it. It's better then a team putting together a team of minimum players while having hordes of cap space. Why would that be a bad thing? Extreme tanking |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Apr 13, 2015 3:07:43 GMT
CY also prevents extreme tanking eh it can still be done, only difference is you can't do it forever |
|
bundybastard
Administrator
Co Commish
Posts: 15,661
Staff Member
|
Post by bundybastard on Apr 13, 2015 12:04:22 GMT
Been busy so haven't really thought too much into a proposed cba...
However i guess a few possible ideas to discuss could be....
Having a set max that can not be exceeded, if a player offers to resign during the resignings period that exceeds it then to have the contract edited to the proposed max
Possibly reducing the SC and HC
Allowing an amnesty to help GMs become accustomed
Just thinking out loud atm
|
|
|
|
Post by rookieoftheyear on Apr 13, 2015 15:08:59 GMT
Don't need to tinker with the max in my mind, keep it what FBB generates.
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223 
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Apr 14, 2015 18:04:49 GMT
This is gonna be added. This is to stop and discourage teams who use the RFA system to lowball their own players so they'll sign with someone else, and then use the free cap space to sign their own max and then match the RFA.
Us inputters will decide what's lowball and what's not.
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Apr 14, 2015 18:05:05 GMT
I'm also very much against putting a cap on the max.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyybaseball on Apr 14, 2015 18:48:56 GMT
This is gonna be added. This is to stop and discourage teams who use the RFA system to lowball their own players so they'll sign with someone else, and then use the free cap space to sign their own max and then match the RFA. Us inputters will decide what's lowball and what's not. Think it should be more like 5-15. If someone gets lucky 1 point of potential isn't a big loss. Feel like the floor of 5 would be a harsher penalty. |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Apr 14, 2015 18:53:05 GMT
This is gonna be added. This is to stop and discourage teams who use the RFA system to lowball their own players so they'll sign with someone else, and then use the free cap space to sign their own max and then match the RFA. Us inputters will decide what's lowball and what's not. Think it should be more like 5-15. If someone gets lucky 1 point of potential isn't a big loss. Feel like the floor of 5 would be a harsher penalty. Noted |
|
|
|
Post by blue on Apr 15, 2015 0:10:07 GMT
This is gonna be added. This is to stop and discourage teams who use the RFA system to lowball their own players so they'll sign with someone else, and then use the free cap space to sign their own max and then match the RFA. Us inputters will decide what's lowball and what's not. Will there be warnings before bids are submitted? Don't plan on it, just curious. |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Apr 15, 2015 2:03:20 GMT
This is gonna be added. This is to stop and discourage teams who use the RFA system to lowball their own players so they'll sign with someone else, and then use the free cap space to sign their own max and then match the RFA. Us inputters will decide what's lowball and what's not. Will there be warnings before bids are submitted? Don't plan on it, just curious. There will be a short notice. We'll leave a message as we are inputting bids, but we won't delay a FA sim just so someone can adjust their RFA lowball offer or anything like that. If a bid gets done, but then the sim doens't happen until a few hours later, then you're in luck. |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Apr 15, 2015 2:13:09 GMT
This is gonna be added. This is to stop and discourage teams who use the RFA system to lowball their own players so they'll sign with someone else, and then use the free cap space to sign their own max and then match the RFA. Us inputters will decide what's lowball and what's not. does that include a team not offering to their RFA at all? |
|
bundybastard
Administrator
Co Commish
Posts: 15,661
Staff Member
|
Post by bundybastard on Apr 15, 2015 2:35:04 GMT
Really
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Apr 15, 2015 2:42:24 GMT
This is gonna be added. This is to stop and discourage teams who use the RFA system to lowball their own players so they'll sign with someone else, and then use the free cap space to sign their own max and then match the RFA. Us inputters will decide what's lowball and what's not. does that include a team not offering to their RFA at all? nah |
|
|
|
Post by HyperYellow on Apr 15, 2015 2:42:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperMaor23 on Apr 15, 2015 21:10:25 GMT
I vote to raise HC to around 87
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperMaor23 on Apr 15, 2015 21:11:38 GMT
Either that or come up with some sort of luxury tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Apr 16, 2015 0:55:16 GMT
Either that or come up with some sort of luxury tax. no thanks |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on Apr 16, 2015 2:02:50 GMT
When will people realize that changing the HC does literally nothing except create short term gains/problems.
|
|
tyfreak
Administrator
Indiana Pacers
Posts: 12,962
Staff Member
|
Post by tyfreak on Apr 16, 2015 2:25:47 GMT
When will people realize that changing the HC does literally nothing except create short term gains/problems. Yeah lowering HC was a pain I'm the ass, but I had three growing maxes with a decline cap. |
|
|
|
Post by BrazilianDude on Apr 16, 2015 2:34:26 GMT
When will people realize that changing the HC does literally nothing except create short term gains/problems. Yeah lowering HC was a pain I'm the ass, but I had three growing maxes with a decline cap. thats a huge problem with having one killer draft. I had same problem when I traded for Embiid and his contract then my huge class of raines, cousey, marino came off rookie deals. alot of money coming in at once. If i didnt trade embiid woulda added pistol pete to that too |
|
|
|
Post by SuperMaor23 on Apr 16, 2015 2:42:48 GMT
The only way is to raise HC. I had to waive kiki.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyybaseball on Apr 16, 2015 2:44:13 GMT
Nah I like the low HC
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on Apr 16, 2015 4:51:35 GMT
The only way is to raise HC. I had to waive kiki. that just encourages people to spend more money, and teams would still be waiving players like Kiki. It can be 100 million (it actually was that high in the previous league before this one) and people were still waiving players to get under. No matter how low or high you go with the HC teams will still be waiving good players to get under. Just the nature of the sim |
|
|
|
Post by BrazilianDude on Apr 16, 2015 13:22:17 GMT
I agree with hyper. 6 yr for Cy and s change to how it happens Fire or expansion not both Gm pending
|
|
|
|
Post by BrazilianDude on Apr 16, 2015 14:21:09 GMT
do you guys want to get this voted on this season and stuff added in for next bundybastard shorty |
|
