MLE / LLE + RFA

[Marcos_Beck]

With new max in place, it should be way harder to collect talent at an affordable level and still have enough room to pay fringe starters / good bench players what they deserve. Very few teams should have cap room and there should be plenty deep into luxury tax territory when trying to compete.

Those luxury tax teams would only have minimum salary players to strengthen their depth, and multiple good players will end up locked into long, cheap deals because no one has access to exceptions because of tax penalties,

In order to keep market competitive for lower level players, luxury tax penalties should be revised. There still should be a level of money that takes something from a team, for example, a 2nd rounder, which leads to forfeits and benefits teams with multiple 2nds.

But the MLE / LLE / tax payer MLE might be the only resource to improve depth and keep the market competitive for most teams (like in NBA). If we continue docking those, there will be like 20+ teams next season who would only be able to offer their own player’s extensions or minimum salaries.

Here’s my ideia

POSITIVE CAP SPACE - access to Room MLE
ABOVE CAP, BELOW TAX - access to Full MLE + LLE
ABOVE TAX - access to Tax MLE
ABOVE 85M - Loss of 2nd rounder


Also to make 2nds better, they should become RFAs when rookie contract is up like 1sts. That means you have the opportunity to match offers for a player you draft and develop once he’s finally ready to shine (around 4th season). And this should give more weight on 2nds and make losing a 2nd rounder due to tax more punitive for contenders.

[KW]

i already forfeit 2nd rounders every year for being in the highest salary bracket and haven't had the MLE in like a thousand years

[Marcos_Beck]

Well I have expressed myself wrong. But corrected it with a clearer idea.

[KW]

ok yeah this makes a ton more sense....

I use all $90M every year, so doesn't affect me, but the MLE is going to be very very important moving forward if every Bender level player is commanding 30% of the cap.

[Marcos_Beck]

ok yeah this makes a ton more sense....

I use all $90M every year, so doesn't affect me, but the MLE is going to be very very important moving forward if every Bender level player is commanding 30% of the cap.

And I trully don’t mean having the MLE / LLE for teams just to get better and add talent.
I go way beyond that. There will be so many trully bargains if exceptions aren’t there to serve as market regulators. More than adding a player or two, this will keep the market fair on lower level players.

[Dylan]

I like and agree with a lot of this. If you're going to make it that much harder to keep or pay stars, there needs to be some balancing to fill out the roster with anything other than minimums.

[emplep7]

Is this in reference to the previous seasons salary?

[bt]

I get the argument/idea behind this but I think it's off track.

You can't emulate finances in a sim league where owners are going to want to save money, like savings in their pocket, so remember why the penalties are there. A penalty for spending that season similar to how NBA teams pay tax.

What this thread seems like to me is we want to remove the penalties for spending so we can spend more and also get more exceptions to boot. Isn't that the complete opposite of the original intention? How about we just don't spend or sign guys to overpaid contracts, let them walk and rotate them and those contracts around the league?

I wish we could find incentives for letting overpaid people walk as there is in real life (owner saves money) but in all my time in leagues, luxury cap penalties are where it's at and there have been plenty of ideas (rating bumps, etc).

[bt]

Plus isn't it a bit early to do anything and see how it plays out a bit first?

Unless GMs adjust, I'm sure we'll see teams hit FA where they can't pay guys or they'll exceed the hard cap and as much as it sucks to lose a guy, isn't that what we want?

[emplep7]

I mean I tend to agree that we shouldn't make any changes until we see the impact this has long term, but am open to ideas.

Using in-game FA is going to be another change as well so while I'm sure there is some sticker shock (which is expected for the first year of raised maxes), I think it will even out and we will adjust.

The one thing I don't like about the proposal is that it reduces the reward to the teams who are methodical in maintaining their finances even if it means letting a talent walk for nothing. This makes it so that they get hurt the most while the rest can reap the rewards of being less financially conscience with their money (myself included).

[Marcos_Beck]

You are only thinking about the part of adding talent yet forget about how necessary it is to have something that helps keeping the market honest for cheaper players.

We’re gonna run into lots of trouble once we have quality players locked up on 3M per year 5 year deals because there were absolutely no teams with the ability to offer them any kind of money except for the vet minimum.

You have to have some kind of money available to keep the market fair. We’re talking about a 5.5M and a 3.3M exception, not a 8-figure salary. It’s not like you’re adding an all star with that money lol.

I made 3 moves so far this offseason and all I did was to trade away talent to get my financials right so I know how important it is and the price you pay for keeping everything in place but this idea has nothing to do with the talent, it’s all about keeping the market honest. That’s all that matters. Think about it, bigger max deals = less players getting paid (as the ones getting paid are getting more money) = bargains without the exceptions to regulate the market.

[emplep7]

I'd like to see what the in-game FA looks like before making an adjustment. Without the PAs, the bigger max deals are going to go away because teams can't price drive as much. Again, I understand the sticker shock for the first year but the dynamic will change next year during that Free Agency period.

I think there are some good ideas here that will definitely be considered, but don't want us as a league to immediately react based on two days of FA using the new financials and would like us to see the full picture before generating a change.

I do like the idea of what's being proposed here to prevent really cheap deals for quality players though and am interested in hearing more about it and what other GMs think.

[OneNole]

You are only thinking about the part of adding talent yet forget about how necessary it is to have something that helps keeping the market honest for cheaper players.

We’re gonna run into lots of trouble once we have quality players locked up on 3M per year 5 year deals because there were absolutely no teams with the ability to offer them any kind of money except for the vet minimum.

You have to have some kind of money available to keep the market fair. We’re talking about a 5.5M and a 3.3M exception, not a 8-figure salary. It’s not like you’re adding an all star with that money lol.

I made 3 moves so far this offseason and all I did was to trade away talent to get my financials right so I know how important it is and the price you pay for keeping everything in place but this idea has nothing to do with the talent, it’s all about keeping the market honest. That’s all that matters. Think about it, bigger max deals = less players getting paid (as the ones getting paid are getting more money) = bargains without the exceptions to regulate the market.

I do agree that we should have a limit on the time frame a contract can be if under a certain dollar amount. No player in the nba would sign the contract then maker signed last year. There should be a max of 3 years if under say 5 million

[wms02a]

You are only thinking about the part of adding talent yet forget about how necessary it is to have something that helps keeping the market honest for cheaper players.

We’re gonna run into lots of trouble once we have quality players locked up on 3M per year 5 year deals because there were absolutely no teams with the ability to offer them any kind of money except for the vet minimum.

You have to have some kind of money available to keep the market fair. We’re talking about a 5.5M and a 3.3M exception, not a 8-figure salary. It’s not like you’re adding an all star with that money lol.

I made 3 moves so far this offseason and all I did was to trade away talent to get my financials right so I know how important it is and the price you pay for keeping everything in place but this idea has nothing to do with the talent, it’s all about keeping the market honest. That’s all that matters. Think about it, bigger max deals = less players getting paid (as the ones getting paid are getting more money) = bargains without the exceptions to regulate the market.

I do agree that we should have a limit on the time frame a contract can be if under a certain dollar amount. No player in the nba would sign the contract then maker signed last year. There should be a max of 3 years if under say 5 million

I agree with this

[bt]

I would absolutely be all for this if there was some way to penalise teams for spending too much. That way, exceptions could completely come back into play.

Maybe not popular but picks (harshest penalty sees you losing a 1st) or player suspensions (best player misses X amount of the season) are the only thing I can think of outside of exceptions.

I'd love to see a repeater penalty/tax too for those who always do it but not sure how that could be done.

[wms02a]

I would absolutely be all for this if there was some way to penalise teams for spending too much. That way, exceptions could completely come back into play.

Maybe not popular but picks (harshest penalty sees you losing a 1st) or player suspensions (best player misses X amount of the season) are the only thing I can think of outside of exceptions.

I'd love to see a repeater penalty/tax too for those who always do it but not sure how that could be done.

Is there a way with picks where it be enacted like the luxury tax? Penalized teams owe it to team under a certain threshold?

[Dennis]

I think everybody should just play with his reallife money. 90m = 9.000€. Whatever you save you save. Money used as price money for the winner, runner up, division winner etc.

[OneNole]

Picks penalties are the wrong move. It's too crippling of a franchise where the gm would just quit and the team would not be appealing to prospective joiners. Player suspensions are the only way to go imo

[wms02a]

Picks penalties are the wrong move. It's too crippling of a franchise where the gm would just quit and the team would not be appealing to prospective joiners. Player suspensions are the only way to go imo

Why cant we reinstate them if a new GM came in? I would put the caveat it would have to be a new GM who has not been active in CSL for atleast x amount of season(s)

[Marcos_Beck]

Isn’t the loss of LLE + losing part of the full MLE (from 5.5 to 3.3M) enough for teams over the tax?

And if there’s another tax line say tax + 5M (which would be around 82-83M) then GM loses a 2nd which could be way more important with new max contracts (and teams needing cheap players) + 2nd rounders RFAs instead of UFA (giving the GM a cost controlled player for ages)….