|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors (Caleb) on Jan 3, 2017 15:15:38 GMT -5
Alright guys, i'm going to get into the final money moving proposal. Feel free to leave your comments on here if there is anything you feel should be added or taken away. I will use your comments to either add or take away from the proposal, which will be put up to a league vote at the conclusion of the regular season. If the proposal is approved we will then go ahead and implement it for the off-season, as i know a lot of us are tired of not being able to make trades. If it is denied a new proposal will be created during the season, and voted on next season.
Money can only be moved to partially cover contracts. It cannot be moved for picks or players straight up.
A team can only help cover a contract for the year the trade takes place in and the year after.
A team can only cover up to 75% of a contract.
A team can only cover a contract in up to 5 trades.
When logged on excel the money coming in will be added to cash adjustments, while the bottom of excel will state the team giving the money, the player they're covering, and the amount of money they are paying that year.
Let me know if you have any other suggestions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Raptors (Perk) on Jan 3, 2017 15:23:17 GMT -5
I kinda understand this. If it gets approved I'll ask about it more then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grizzlies GM (Royce) on Jan 3, 2017 16:54:45 GMT -5
Alright guys, i'm going to get into the final money moving proposal. Feel free to leave your comments on here if there is anything you feel should be added or taken away. I will use your comments to either add or take away from the proposal, which will be put up to a league vote at the conclusion of the regular season. If the proposal is approved we will then go ahead and implement it for the off-season, as i know a lot of us are tired of not being able to make trades. If it is denied a new proposal will be created during the season, and voted on next season. Money can only be moved to partially cover contracts. It cannot be moved for picks or players straight up. A team can only help cover a contract for the year the trade takes place in and the year after. A team can only cover up to 75% of a contract. A team can only cover a contract in up to 5 trades. When logged on excel the money coming in will be added to cash adjustments, while the bottom of excel will state the team giving the money, the player they're covering, and the amount of money they are paying that year. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. 1st, outstanding job coming up with a solution because most everyone else just bitched about it. 2nd, To clarify, 75% of this year AND next year's salary for a player right? So I can choose to cover up to 75% of the next two years? 3rd, instead of covering a contract for up to 5 trades, about covering contracts up to $10M or a $$$ figure? Since that seems to be the biggest worry with covering salaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Hornets (TJ) on Jan 3, 2017 18:36:35 GMT -5
Ya don't put a "trade limit" on it put a figure on it. I'd say a lil more than 10 though
|
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder (Loren) on Jan 3, 2017 19:35:51 GMT -5
I agree, don't like the trade limit thing but i do like the max as $10mil
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors (Caleb) on Jan 3, 2017 19:46:57 GMT -5
Okay.
I'll answer Landon first. You cover per year. You can't say 75% combined of next two years. You can combine up to 75% one year and 75% the next, or you could do something like 75% and 50% it doesn't matter you decided as long as it is less than 75%.
As for the money for me it's not the amount that worries me, the teams covering are generally going to have a lot of cap. It's the amount of transactions. That's honestly what screwed us, when there are 1238 different transacations it is hard to keep track of. 10 mill honestly don't think is enough. Think of someone like Paul Millsap, he what 18-19 mill if you cover only 50% that's already near ten mill.
I'm leaning towards capping the amount of times you can move cap instead of the actual number, as the number varies from team to team. 5 would force each owner to really make sure each deal they do is important, and prevents guys like TJ making 5034 deals that ruin the future. It places importance on each deal you choose to do, and honestly 5 deals in which YOU move cap is a lot. It's not overall, it is 5 deals in which you are covering money on a player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grizzlies GM (Royce) on Jan 3, 2017 20:28:24 GMT -5
Okay. I'll answer Landon first. You cover per year. You can't say 75% combined of next two years. You can combine up to 75% one year and 75% the next, or you could do something like 75% and 50% it doesn't matter you decided as long as it is less than 75%. As for the money for me it's not the amount that worries me, the teams covering are generally going to have a lot of cap. It's the amount of transactions. That's honestly what screwed us, when there are 1238 different transacations it is hard to keep track of. 10 mill honestly don't think is enough. Think of someone like Paul Millsap, he what 18-19 mill if you cover only 50% that's already near ten mill. I'm leaning towards capping the amount of times you can move cap instead of the actual number, as the number varies from team to team. 5 would force each owner to really make sure each deal they do is important, and prevents guys like TJ making 5034 deals that ruin the future. It places importance on each deal you choose to do, and honestly 5 deals in which YOU move cap is a lot. It's not overall, it is 5 deals in which you are covering money on a player. I like the reasoning for amount of times, I can live with that. As for 75%, covering 75% combined of next two years is same if you combine 75% one year and 75% the next as well I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors (Caleb) on Jan 3, 2017 21:42:12 GMT -5
Yeah sorry that exact 75 75 example was dumb I just meant you can cover a different amount each year
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Hornets (TJ) on Jan 4, 2017 2:04:52 GMT -5
I can ruin more future with a trade limit than I can with a set amount.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Hornets (TJ) on Jan 4, 2017 2:06:50 GMT -5
Not that I'm looking at it as a challenge or anything lol
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Jan 4, 2017 10:49:04 GMT -5
I would suggest a limit on both number of transactions, to prevent tracking headaches, and dollar amount, to prevent horrible deals; without a dollar limit, some team deciding to go full "rebuild" could end up with half their cap gone for two years in exchange for a bunch of shitty youngsters, which is exactly what fucked 25. $10M seems perfectly reasonable to me... if you get one guy like Millsap (to use wars' example), that's already a ridiculous advantage, you really shouldn't be allowed much more than that. But then, I'm against this whole thing anyway, so y'all should expect me to want the dollar amount lower.
Sent from my Pixel using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Jan 5, 2017 12:49:44 GMT -5
I also would suggest that the maximum percentage of cap that can be covered in the year following the deal be lower than it is in the initial year - significantly lower. The idea of allowing future cash considerations at all is deplorable to me; if the deal doesn't work out (i.e., whatever young "stud" the team covering cap gets isn't so studly after all), it's ruined a team's immediate future, and made that team immensely undesirable to a potential owner if whoever's rebuilding gives up, which we all know happens. Again, I'm always going to suggest extreme low numbers in discussions like this just because of my general position on it, but I'd say that if you're allowing a team to cover 75% of a player's salary in the year of the trade, they should only cover a max of 25% the next year. Teams on the other end (we'll just call it TJ's end, b/c that's the best way I can think of to make it clear) are all about win now anyway, it should be their responsibility to figure out how to fix their cap for the following season; paying such a large chunk (by which I mean the previous suggestion of 75%) the year after the deal happens seems quite unfair to the team covering the money, and too many people don't factor in future considerations heavily enough. Also, most players' contracts gradually increase, often substantially, so the amount of cap covered is likely to be significantly higher in the year following the deal if the percentage doesn't go down, which is ridonkulous, as it's essentially punishing the future of the team that is supposedly trading to improve their future situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Hornets (TJ) on Jan 5, 2017 13:53:04 GMT -5
I agree with limiting future season cap trading 100%. I don't think we should put a transaction limit on it tbh. Example if I need to move a small amount of cap like 1m to make a deal happen it sucks Cuz that's one less transaction I have for such a small amount. Putting a figure on it, should be all you need.
|
|
