Moving Money

[Golden State Warriors (Caleb)]

At first I was really opposed to this as this is really what screwed us in the first place. But the more I gave it thought I think there is probably a certain way we could implement it without it getting out of hand, we would just need to settle on a system as a league.

For starters, money wouldn't be able to move just as it is, meaning you couldn't trade 10 mill for like a pick or a player singularly. YOu would only be able to cover a contract for maybe one or two years, and let's say 75%. Obviously everything would need to be documented on excel. I think this would give seller/contenders an easier time in terms of working out deals at the deadline. 

There are pros and cons of both it should boost activity and allow for trades.  But it could also lead to inflation in free agency which is something we definitely want t avoid.  Again I think it is important to just  find the right balance.  Allow teams to cover contracts, and not deal actual money.  So if they cover ten mill of a contract their salary cap would drop from 95 to 85.  but again they couldn't trade just cap straight up so they would need to trade for a player who's contract is then covered to then receive cap. 

So let me know what you guys think, would you want to move this next year? Do you want to wait a year and revisit this? Suggestions?  Let's hear it.

[New York Knicks (Tyler)]

Love the idea of covering contracts or part of a contract.

[Philadelphia 76ers (Chris)]

I'm not a big fan of covering money as it usually gets messy and hard to track.  I personally don't have to track or book keep so whatever is fine

[San Antonio Spurs (Chris)]

Strongly oppose this idea.

One of the biggest problems in 25 was teams foolishly trading their high money stars - and covering the salary to make it work, with the theory that "it's just for a year or two" - in exchange for cheaper young (unproven) players they valued highly, then like 80% of those young guys don't pan out, all the sudden you've got a shit roster with no money, the owner quits and no one wants to take over such a team, etc. Or the owner doesn't quit, continues the cycle because they're now "rebuilding" or because their only chance is to gamble on finding the next hidden stud, eventually you get the same result.

Conversely, you get the guys with the "winning now is the only thing that matters, I'll deal with future cap issues somehow later" attitude a la tj's blazers. Creates an unrealistically good team for a year or two, then is forced to trade/give up a ton of assets for next to nothing.

Just creates way too many problems, greatly increases disparity in the league, and makes it virtually impossible to realistically contend for a title without mortgaging your future.

Also, aren't we trying to emulate the real NBA as closely as possible? The association doesn't allow things like this for very good reasons.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards

[Heat GM (Bryan)]

Give me 10m and move on

[Atlanta Hawks (Trey)]

Chris is normally an ANALytic bitch but this actually is a good argument. Why fall into the old traps of 25.

[Josh]

I'd say allow GMs to use cash in a trade however they see fit. However, the amount of cash that can be sent and received, in total, would both be capped at an arbitrary value i.e. I wouldn't be able to send more than $5M and I wouldn't be able to receive more than $5M. Each offseason this arbitrary amount would reset back to 0 and teams would be allowed to trade cash up to the cap again.

[Golden State Warriors (Caleb)]

Agree with everything said. But I think we'll be able to see first hand how tough it is to trade during the deadline. I think maybe a set amount that can be dealt almost like going over the luxury tax irl. Like you can trade or have covered ten mill a year. But we'll see and revisit after this year

[Yacob (freelance idiot)]

i don't know why this is even being brought up


it's half the reason we had to start over

wtf...

[Golden State Warriors (Caleb)]

Did you read my post? Its being brought up because i see it as a possible area or improvement to the league. There's a clear difference between the system we had before that and the ideas that have been brought up. No idea why you always gotta be a condescending ass.

[Golden State Warriors (Caleb)]

Anyways like I said earlier we'll see how this first season goes. If it's too difficult to trade we can revisit this and see what the best way to work this is.

[Charlotte Hornets (TJ)]

The only problem 25 had was tracking all the money movement and allowing teams to cover contracts past the current season.

Honestly it's the best thing for the league if you keep money transferring year to year. Then it's simple and you open up the possible trades. Right now it's such a pain in the ass to trade anyone with no flexibility

[Charlotte Hornets (TJ)]

Aug 17, 2016 0:26:22 GMT -5 San Antonio Spurs (Chris) said:

Strongly oppose this idea.

One of the biggest problems in 25 was teams foolishly trading their high money stars - and covering the salary to make it work, with the theory that "it's just for a year or two" - in exchange for cheaper young (unproven) players they valued highly, then like 80% of those young guys don't pan out, all the sudden you've got a shit roster with no money, the owner quits and no one wants to take over such a team, etc. Or the owner doesn't quit, continues the cycle because they're now "rebuilding" or because their only chance is to gamble on finding the next hidden stud, eventually you get the same result.

Conversely, you get the guys with the "winning now is the only thing that matters, I'll deal with future cap issues somehow later" attitude a la tj's blazers. Creates an unrealistically good team for a year or two, then is forced to trade/give up a ton of assets for next to nothing.

Just creates way too many problems, greatly increases disparity in the league, and makes it virtually impossible to realistically contend for a title without mortgaging your future.

Also, aren't we trying to emulate the real NBA as closely as possible? The association doesn't allow things like this for very good reasons.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards

The one thing you're missing is that this is a "fantasy" league. If it were as realistic as the real NBA it would die out in a month. We draft our teams and forget the league ever existed.

[Golden State Warriors (Caleb)]

Finally somebody that sees my point.

The problem that we encountered before, at least in my eyes, lied in the lack of accountability and organization when it came to moving money. We want to be as close to the NBA as possible, but if it were like the NBA it would die. The NBA has 10 trades a year at most and while no matter how this league turns out im going run this thing as long as possible and replace owners who go inactive, it just wouldn't be the same. The NBA has a luxary tax that we can't do because we dont use any real money, anyways the point is i want this to be like the NBA in as many ways as possible, but if it were exactly like the NBA this really wouldn't exist.

Again i want to highlight the main parts of what would be proposed which basically directly addresses almost all problems that have been brought up with moving money.

EVERYTHING would be documented. Not be the owners but by me, on excel for everyone to see.

A limit to how much cap would be implemented. And i'm not talking 30 mill im talking around 10mill.

You would not be able to trade money straight up, but only cover contracts.\

You could only cover for a year.

I think there is a reason there have been less trades. One is this is the downtime. And actually let me address this real quick. A few of you are really worried about the activity, but it's the middle of August. Even in the super active years pf 25 there wasnt anyone on chat at this time.  There have been 28 owners on in the last 24 hours.  I know baseball and football leagues which are both in season who have less than that!!!  I am going to do everything i can to make this the best bball league out there. We have a great group of guys, and if someone guys inactive they will be replaced. Anyways back to the other reason, it is the cap. There are like 8-9 teams that are very limited in terms of money. And other teams have no incentive to take on the bigger contract to help the contending team. In 25, literally any trade wax possible as you could trade as much money (whether you had it or not)as you wanted.  This is the new more organized era of this league, but i think it's going to be tough for trades to happen without being able to move some money.  I could easily be wrong and  I am perfectly willing to go through this year or two and see how it is, but i think you'll be able to see soon how tough it is.

Again Spurs, i agree with everything you said and the money last league was just an absolute shit fire, which i want to avoid. i just want to entertain the idea of moving money to make trading more flexible. It would be great to come together as a league and figure out the best way to go about this but we are lacking a lot of input from a lot of owners. So if going through the year and seeing how it plays out is what we gotta do so be it. But that's how i feel about the situation.

[San Antonio Spurs (Chris)]

Finally someone who sees your point? Come on, this all originated from TJ, I told you months ago he was already talking about trying to convince you of something just like this.

I remain opposed to the idea, what will happen is people like TJ will trade away all their young assets and all their picks in exchange for expensive studs with "covered" contracts in order to make a title run. This will make it virtually impossible to compete unless you're willing to do the same, destroying league equity, and in the long run will make TJ's team shitty, with no youth or draft picks to become better. Now I know TJ will say he can just turn around and trade those same guys back for picks/youth/whatever (because TJ thinks he can always make any trade he wants), and maybe that would happen, but in my eyes it's taking a huge risk, and he's not the only owner who's already proven that they'll just quit when shit isn't going well.

Also, I never said keeping track of all the cap traded was the problem in 25... it was A problem, but certainly not a root problem IMO; all the trades were archived, numbers can be checked, and guys like magic were very very good at making sure nobody was cheating. I like to think I was pretty decent at it too. I mean, we only ever kicked like one person for lying about cap stuff, right?

All that said, limiting the amount of cap that can be "covered" would prevent teams from getting too shitty too quickly, maybe it could work... if we limited the total amount of "covered" salary that any one team could receive, as in no team could have more than $X of total salary (from their whole roster) being paid by others, that would make it much more reasonable. It's not like I'm outraged and saying I'll quit if this is instituted, hope I'm not coming off that way, simply stating my opinion because I believe that was the point of this thread, and my opinion is that it would be bad for the league.

Finally, apologies to TJ, was just using you as an example because this is exactly what you did in 25, not trying to make it sound like you're the problem or you're the only one or anything like that. All hypothetical, nothing personal.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards

[San Antonio Spurs (Chris)]

I also think it's far too early to be concerned about the lack of trades, the draft isn't even over, and picks can't be included until it is, which is a factor. I for one gave up on seriously trying to make trades until the draft was over, it's too hard when you don't even know what your roster will look like and what your primary needs are... and I've managed to make two player trades already anyway, the #1 player in the league has already been traded, and I'm sure trade activity will continue to be more frequent than in the real NBA, largely because people are of much more varied opinions regarding player value in here and they won't lose their ability to support their families if they make a mistake.

In other words, many of the prime reasons why there aren't a whole lot of real life trades don't apply here, whereas the reasons that real life cap cannot be traded do apply. Plus, the arguments in favor of covering cap make it sound like there hasn't been a trade in years and the league is dying - which seems just a wee bit premature - and are stating that poor record keeping was a major culprit of problems, which just isn't true.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards

[Charlotte Hornets (TJ)]

Aug 23, 2016 8:12:38 GMT -5 San Antonio Spurs (Chris) said:

I also think it's far too early to be concerned about the lack of trades, the draft isn't even over, and picks can't be included until it is, which is a factor. I for one gave up on seriously trying to make trades until the draft was over, it's too hard when you don't even know what your roster will look like and what your primary needs are... and I've managed to make two player trades already anyway, the #1 player in the league has already been traded, and I'm sure trade activity will continue to be more frequent than in the real NBA, largely because people are of much more varied opinions regarding player value in here and they won't lose their ability to support their families if they make a mistake.

In other words, many of the prime reasons why there aren't a whole lot of real life trades don't apply here, whereas the reasons that real life cap cannot be traded do apply. Plus, the arguments in favor of covering cap make it sound like there hasn't been a trade in years and the league is dying - which seems just a wee bit premature - and are stating that poor record keeping was a major culprit of problems, which just isn't true.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards

the tracking of it was the prime issue. if the problem was it makes teams suck well trey would have killed the league from day 1. there will always be scum teams and if trading cap is the reason somebody runs a team into the ground then so be it. just means another team will rise above them. im not trying to convince anyone of any particular way to play it but i feel moving cap produces more trades which produces more activity. Ive been in leagues where moving cap for 1 year was allowed and they have gone for years without any problems. The root of our problems was from the stupid stuff like betting and the bosh contract scandal ect. IMO

[Charlotte Hornets (TJ)]

And also im not saying not trading cap will kill the league for sure. honestly idk ive never been in a dynasty league that hasnt allowed any sort of money movement. Im more about the league being more fun and active. which no doubt more trades more fun more activity. no question

[San Antonio Spurs (Chris)]

Aug 23, 2016 10:37:24 GMT -5 Charlotte Hornets (TJ) said:

the tracking of it was the prime issue. 

TJ...  that's just not true.  it was a massive fucking headache, and very annoying at times, and certainly you could make the argument that allowing it to spiral out of control (teams with $50M+ of their salary given/received, etc) was the prime issue, but tracking it was not.  magic and i (and others, i'm sure) regularly backtracked through teams' salary claims and verified everything, pretty much anytime something looked or felt suspicious, and as stated i'm fairly certain there was only ever one person who got caught cheating.  yes, there will always be weak teams and strong teams, but i think it's in the league's best interest to do as much as possible to prevent that gap from widening, and trading away expensive (good) players with their salary covered in exchange for cheaper (young/unproven/high potential/high risk) players is a surefire way to increase said gap.  unfortunately people in this league (and all dynasty leagues, as far as i know) get raging boners at the slightest sign of promise or bit of athleticism in young guys and are all too willing to trade proven stars for them, it's happened dozens of times, the salary difference is a built-in method of preventing such lopsided trades and i think it's foolish to remove it.

anyway, it doesn't matter, your real argument is in keeping activity up, and that is a valid point.  i'm just of the opinion that we don't have any evidence that it will be SO difficult to trade without moving money (harder, yes of course, but so much harder that it seriously impacts activity?), and i don't believe it's worth the risk unless we really do start having issues with activity because it's too hard to trade.

[Golden State Warriors (Caleb)]

Which is why we are gonna play this out and see how it goes. Everything you've said is completely valid Chris. Nothing will be changed rashly.

[Golden State Warriors (Caleb)]

Just letting you know this will be revisited this off-season.

I know a lot of you are opposed to moving money as it was what caused the shit storm last league, but i really think there is a way to go about it to make it work. Money couldn't just be moved willy nilly. It could only be moved in terms of covering contracts. There would also be a limit and it would only be allowed for a year or two. I know leagues in which this has worked, and it would promote more activity while also being organized and not allowing people to sign player to massive deals.

Again if you guys aren't down i'm not going to force it upon you guys, but seeing as there have only been a handful or so trdes this year i really think it would be beneficial long term.

[Yacob (freelance idiot)]

we could make a limit to how many contracts a team is allowed to cover part of, shouldn't be more than like 2 right?

[Heat GM (Bryan)]

For once I actually like Yacobs idea

[New Orleans Pelicans (Alex)]

wait, the Heat have a GM?

[San Antonio Spurs (Chris)]

I know I've been the main opponent of moving cap, and i still think it's a bad idea (not to mention unfair to those who planned properly), but it seems like I'm just about the only one who doesn't want to now... Which is just silly. If 90% of the league wants to do something, my opinion shouldn't be that impactful, y'all should just do it. It's not like I'm gonna quit if it happens, and anyone who would is probably not committed enough to make this league what it should be anyway.

[Oklahoma City Thunder (Loren)]

I think the best thing to do is to have a combination of it. Like only allow two contracts to be covered with a max of 10mil or even 10% of the salary cap (as that will adjust as the years go on).

[Yacob (freelance idiot)]

Dec 26, 2016 16:24:53 GMT -5 Heat GM (Bryan) said:

For once I actually like Yacobs idea

who are you?