CBA Questions
- OneNole
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:36 pm
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
I thought it was stated in the past that the cap would no longer change. I hope that continues.
FINALLY a logical HC Rule our work is done
-
- Senior Vice President
- Posts: 1741
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:01 am
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
I don't mind a little cap increase.
-
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:55 am
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
Since files were already submitted for FA Sim 1, do teams get a grace period for signings that don't meet the minimum raise rule, and any Day 1 signings will merely be modified rather than penalized?
And is this just for contracts starting this period or is it being retroactively applied to all contracts?
And is this just for contracts starting this period or is it being retroactively applied to all contracts?
- drumr
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 3094
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:17 am
- Contact:
-
- Senior Vice President
- Posts: 1741
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:01 am
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
Yeah don't really like this new rule tbh.drumr wrote:Why are no large flat contracts allowed anymore?
Any explanation why we are doing 3% raises now? And why did the cap go up 600k.
I'm confused
-
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:55 am
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
No large flat rate contracts to make holding super teams together more difficult, so we don't have a repeat of Kings situation where all their young players are locked into obscenely team friendly contracts forever. It's actually better for competitive balance.
- OneNole
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:36 pm
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
Guys, I have 0 issues with the rules except for one. The hard cap penalty has to change. There seems to be 0 thought or rationale behind it. I no longer have any concern for the hard cap this season so this rule obviously has zero bearing on myself.
You all went from one extreme to the other with this rule from where it was far too lenient and now it is far too harsh. Losing 2 first round picks in a season could destroy a teams value.
Lets use Portland for example. A team that has only 1 first round pick in the next 3 seasons. Unless Deandre Jordan signs else where or resigns at a large discount, there is probably a 0% chance that Portland can remain under the hard cap this year. There will be 0 incentive for them to try to find trades to lower their hard cap number because any trade they do make will likely make them worse and end their post title aspirations. So now come the trade deadline instead of having 1 first round pick in the next 3 seasons they will have 0 first round picks for the next 4 seasons. There is also a very good chance that they remain under the hard cap the following season as well depending on what they decide to do with Brandon Jennings. So now we have a team with 0 first round picks for 3 seasons and will owe 2 first round picks. That team will now be in disrepair. Will have 0 firsts for 5 seasons, an over the hill Josh Smith, an aging Deandre Jordan, and Kevin Durant who would technically need to be traded to blow the team up but what desire would there be to do so when they don't even have their picks to blow it up?
The logical way that this rule should read should state that any team that is not under the HC by the end of free agency should be docked 1 first round pick. This rule would still be harsh enough to keep teams away from being a repeat offender while also not devastating the teams future value to the league.
You all went from one extreme to the other with this rule from where it was far too lenient and now it is far too harsh. Losing 2 first round picks in a season could destroy a teams value.
Lets use Portland for example. A team that has only 1 first round pick in the next 3 seasons. Unless Deandre Jordan signs else where or resigns at a large discount, there is probably a 0% chance that Portland can remain under the hard cap this year. There will be 0 incentive for them to try to find trades to lower their hard cap number because any trade they do make will likely make them worse and end their post title aspirations. So now come the trade deadline instead of having 1 first round pick in the next 3 seasons they will have 0 first round picks for the next 4 seasons. There is also a very good chance that they remain under the hard cap the following season as well depending on what they decide to do with Brandon Jennings. So now we have a team with 0 first round picks for 3 seasons and will owe 2 first round picks. That team will now be in disrepair. Will have 0 firsts for 5 seasons, an over the hill Josh Smith, an aging Deandre Jordan, and Kevin Durant who would technically need to be traded to blow the team up but what desire would there be to do so when they don't even have their picks to blow it up?
The logical way that this rule should read should state that any team that is not under the HC by the end of free agency should be docked 1 first round pick. This rule would still be harsh enough to keep teams away from being a repeat offender while also not devastating the teams future value to the league.
FINALLY a logical HC Rule our work is done
-
- Senior Vice President
- Posts: 1741
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:01 am
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
I understand the raises but why raise the cap then?Jestor wrote:No large flat rate contracts to make holding super teams together more difficult, so we don't have a repeat of Kings situation where all their young players are locked into obscenely team friendly contracts forever. It's actually better for competitive balance.
For example you re-sign a player for 4yrs 12 million with 3% raises. That 4th year is barely going past 13 million. So the 3% raise basically hurt a team just 1 million.
Now we are making the cap higher by 600k??? So how's that really helping.
Doesn't make sense to.me
-
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:55 am
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
Note that the hard cap wasn't raised - the salary cap was. Two different things
- OneNole
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:36 pm
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
the luxury tax wasnt changed, the teams that are going to be over are going to be over regardless. and typically the elite teams are the ones that are going to be over. so essentially the 3% raise is making this teams closer to the tax if not even further over it8time wrote:I understand the raises but why raise the cap then?Jestor wrote:No large flat rate contracts to make holding super teams together more difficult, so we don't have a repeat of Kings situation where all their young players are locked into obscenely team friendly contracts forever. It's actually better for competitive balance.
For example you re-sign a player for 4yrs 12 million with 3% raises. That 4th year is barely going past 13 million. So the 3% raise basically hurt a team just 1 million.
Now we are making the cap higher by 600k??? So how's that really helping.
Doesn't make sense to.me
FINALLY a logical HC Rule our work is done
-
- CEO
- Posts: 2018
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:24 am
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
I do think the focus on the hard cap is a bandaid approach to the bigger issues that our salary cap presents, however I do also get where the admins are coming from.
I don't think draft picks are the answer as far as punishments go, especially considering the lack of talent most of these drafts actually have. Just seems like a way to really push a franchise into the dark ages given the already negated avenues of player acquisition at their disposal (free agency being worthless, the drafts being mostly useless)...
I don't think draft picks are the answer as far as punishments go, especially considering the lack of talent most of these drafts actually have. Just seems like a way to really push a franchise into the dark ages given the already negated avenues of player acquisition at their disposal (free agency being worthless, the drafts being mostly useless)...
- emplep7
- Commissioner & CSL Champ 2018
- Posts: 6694
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
There will be no penalties for this sim and the raises are not retroactive. Only from this period on.Jestor wrote:Since files were already submitted for FA Sim 1, do teams get a grace period for signings that don't meet the minimum raise rule, and any Day 1 signings will merely be modified rather than penalized?
And is this just for contracts starting this period or is it being retroactively applied to all contracts?
- OneNole
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:36 pm
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
Lets keep our eyes on the real issue here, the HC rule. Make CSL great again. A rule where you only lose 1 first each year and can not make any trades that put you in a position to be over the HC for that season. We can call it the common sense approach rule.
FINALLY a logical HC Rule our work is done
- KW
- CSL Champ 2017
- Posts: 10688
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:18 am
- Location: CO
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
Common sense says don't go over the hard cap or face the penalties. That's how I see it. Pretend it's a true hard cap.
- Marcos_Beck
- CSL Champ 2019
- Posts: 7758
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:15 am
- Location: Brazil
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
There's no Hard Cap in NBA but they're dealing with extremely huge taxes. We're not, we're dealing with nothing but fictional money.OneNole wrote:Lets keep our eyes on the real issue here, the HC rule. Make CSL great again. A rule where you only lose 1 first each year and can not make any trades that put you in a position to be over the HC for that season. We can call it the common sense approach rule.
Also they have the so called Apron that limits teams just like a Hard Cap.
Our intent is for every team to ABSOLUTELY NOT breach into the Hard Cap. The penalties will be as extreme as they could ever be, as the penalties for spending until 90M are considered brand, and we don't want any of you taking advantage of that extra money.
The rule is logical the way it is. It's simple. It's not a Soft Cap. It's a Hard Cap. It's not made to be breach and then you lose a late first. Don't breach it. Easy money right there. This won't be discussed.
I can personally say I've been dealing with financial trouble for like 4 seasons and it's perfectly possible for a team to stay under the Hard Cap and be extremely competitive. Do your best with that in mind, and be grateful that we'd even allow teams to go 90M+, because the correct rule would be to block any move that puts you over the Hard Cap somehow, but that's very hard to keep track of.
18-19 Chicago Bulls: CSL Champions
#1 D.Rose #11 J.Holiday #21 J.Butler #42 A.Horford #13 J.Noah
29-30 Philadelphia 76ers: CSL Champions
#1 L.Ball #15 M.Beasley #23 B.Bowen #21 M.Wagner #51 K.Towns
#1 D.Rose #11 J.Holiday #21 J.Butler #42 A.Horford #13 J.Noah
29-30 Philadelphia 76ers: CSL Champions
#1 L.Ball #15 M.Beasley #23 B.Bowen #21 M.Wagner #51 K.Towns
- OneNole
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:36 pm
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
Thats impossible to keep track of, but all this rule does, and why it makes 0 sense to have a rule like this is, is it will destroy a team that is currently in Portlands position. Does it make any sense what so ever for a team to potentially have 0 first round picks for 5 seasons in a row and 0 assets to improve outside of 1 player? No one can give a logical explanation on why this makes sense. 1 first round pick is plenty to lose, 2 is ridiculous. Its just as simple as that.Marcos_Beck wrote:There's no Hard Cap in NBA but they're dealing with extremely huge taxes. We're not, we're dealing with nothing but fictional money.OneNole wrote:Lets keep our eyes on the real issue here, the HC rule. Make CSL great again. A rule where you only lose 1 first each year and can not make any trades that put you in a position to be over the HC for that season. We can call it the common sense approach rule.
Also they have the so called Apron that limits teams just like a Hard Cap.
Our intent is for every team to ABSOLUTELY NOT breach into the Hard Cap. The penalties will be as extreme as they could ever be, as the penalties for spending until 90M are considered brand, and we don't want any of you taking advantage of that extra money.
The rule is logical the way it is. It's simple. It's not a Soft Cap. It's a Hard Cap. It's not made to be breach and then you lose a late first. Don't breach it. Easy money right there. This won't be discussed.
I can personally say I've been dealing with financial trouble for like 4 seasons and it's perfectly possible for a team to stay under the Hard Cap and be extremely competitive. Do your best with that in mind, and be grateful that we'd even allow teams to go 90M+, because the correct rule would be to block any move that puts you over the Hard Cap somehow, but that's very hard to keep track of.
FINALLY a logical HC Rule our work is done
- Ocons
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 3094
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:33 pm
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
Conveniently making the rule change after you win the title and are set to rebuild? Nice.Marcos_Beck wrote:There's no Hard Cap in NBA but they're dealing with extremely huge taxes. We're not, we're dealing with nothing but fictional money.OneNole wrote:Lets keep our eyes on the real issue here, the HC rule. Make CSL great again. A rule where you only lose 1 first each year and can not make any trades that put you in a position to be over the HC for that season. We can call it the common sense approach rule.
Also they have the so called Apron that limits teams just like a Hard Cap.
Our intent is for every team to ABSOLUTELY NOT breach into the Hard Cap. The penalties will be as extreme as they could ever be, as the penalties for spending until 90M are considered brand, and we don't want any of you taking advantage of that extra money.
The rule is logical the way it is. It's simple. It's not a Soft Cap. It's a Hard Cap. It's not made to be breach and then you lose a late first. Don't breach it. Easy money right there. This won't be discussed.
I can personally say I've been dealing with financial trouble for like 4 seasons and it's perfectly possible for a team to stay under the Hard Cap and be extremely competitive. Do your best with that in mind, and be grateful that we'd even allow teams to go 90M+, because the correct rule would be to block any move that puts you over the Hard Cap somehow, but that's very hard to keep track of.
Clown.Show.League
- Ocons
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 3094
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:33 pm
- Contact:
- Marcos_Beck
- CSL Champ 2019
- Posts: 7758
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:15 am
- Location: Brazil
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
Of course!Ocons wrote:Conveniently making the rule change after you win the title and are set to rebuild? Nice.Marcos_Beck wrote:There's no Hard Cap in NBA but they're dealing with extremely huge taxes. We're not, we're dealing with nothing but fictional money.OneNole wrote:Lets keep our eyes on the real issue here, the HC rule. Make CSL great again. A rule where you only lose 1 first each year and can not make any trades that put you in a position to be over the HC for that season. We can call it the common sense approach rule.
Also they have the so called Apron that limits teams just like a Hard Cap.
Our intent is for every team to ABSOLUTELY NOT breach into the Hard Cap. The penalties will be as extreme as they could ever be, as the penalties for spending until 90M are considered brand, and we don't want any of you taking advantage of that extra money.
The rule is logical the way it is. It's simple. It's not a Soft Cap. It's a Hard Cap. It's not made to be breach and then you lose a late first. Don't breach it. Easy money right there. This won't be discussed.
I can personally say I've been dealing with financial trouble for like 4 seasons and it's perfectly possible for a team to stay under the Hard Cap and be extremely competitive. Do your best with that in mind, and be grateful that we'd even allow teams to go 90M+, because the correct rule would be to block any move that puts you over the Hard Cap somehow, but that's very hard to keep track of.
This was discussed last year and agreed that it would not be part of last year's rules because well, this would harm Portland alone and we'd be better by implementing that rule during offseason so nobody would cross that Hard Cap line again.
But yeah, it was decided now by me just because I'm rebuilding haha
I know you're being sarcastic, just trying to join you joking here while explaining everything as well
And about the late changes, yes, they were late, but I dare you to read and change EVERY issue you found out at CBA in such short time. Specially during college's last semester
18-19 Chicago Bulls: CSL Champions
#1 D.Rose #11 J.Holiday #21 J.Butler #42 A.Horford #13 J.Noah
29-30 Philadelphia 76ers: CSL Champions
#1 L.Ball #15 M.Beasley #23 B.Bowen #21 M.Wagner #51 K.Towns
#1 D.Rose #11 J.Holiday #21 J.Butler #42 A.Horford #13 J.Noah
29-30 Philadelphia 76ers: CSL Champions
#1 L.Ball #15 M.Beasley #23 B.Bowen #21 M.Wagner #51 K.Towns
- Ocons
- Chairman of the Board
- Posts: 3094
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:33 pm
- Contact:
Re: CBA Questions
If you think I'm reading that whole thing at all, you're crazy. You can triple dog dare me.
Clown.Show.League
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests