|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Dec 11, 2007 10:15:08 GMT -5
Here is the rule:
We set it the "hard cap" at $72,500,000. If you are above that, the 125% cannot be used when you trade. The only way you can trade is if you have more money going out than coming in. If you are under $72,500,000 but over $67,500,000 you may use the 125% rule. How does everyone feel about this?
Basic thinking is, Teams that are already over the hard cap get help from the MLE (5 million a year) and they shouldn't get anymore help from trading.
I am over the cap, so there is no bias from me at all. I agree that we should enforce this rule.
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Dec 11, 2007 10:51:32 GMT -5
Yes from me, pretty much a luxury tax like the NBA except you don't have to pay money.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Lakers on Dec 11, 2007 11:57:03 GMT -5
simple answer.
F*CK NO.
|
|
|
Post by raps03 - TOR on Dec 11, 2007 15:13:17 GMT -5
yeah im with Lakers
no way
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Dec 11, 2007 17:09:41 GMT -5
No for me...who knows if someday Ill have to be other that cap to make my team better....
|
|
|
Post by frankg90 - CHA on Dec 11, 2007 17:15:10 GMT -5
yea we should...it makes it more realistic and harder to form a team
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia 76ers on Dec 11, 2007 17:18:51 GMT -5
I like it the way it is
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 11, 2007 18:04:37 GMT -5
I vote no because...
part of the reason I vote no is that it's too small of a difference between the soft cap and the hard cap. 5 million is just very small. I think the 125% rule should just be for all teams over the soft cap, regardless of how far over.
I prefer to have my youthful team with like 20 million cap space, but if someone wants to try and have like AI, KOBE, and SHAQ, they're already over the soft cap probably. I just don't think that we need to limit the trading of teams/players quite so much. If the trade is even talent wise and both sides agree to the deal, and it passes through the committee, it is fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by theanswer - IND on Dec 11, 2007 23:01:29 GMT -5
no for me
|
|
|
Post by sharmoot - POR on Dec 12, 2007 0:11:54 GMT -5
its a yes for me because it just requires GMs to have more knowledge skill and trade wisely not just pull triggers, you know, like what real life GMs encounter
and for people who said NO for me or NO
EXPLAIN WHY so we know and understand ur sitaution atleast, explain it, dont just say yes or no
|
|
|
Post by dagr81 - MIN on Dec 12, 2007 11:21:11 GMT -5
i vote no, unless we make the hard cap like $80,000,000
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Hawks on Dec 12, 2007 16:15:56 GMT -5
Make the hard cap 8-10 mil above the soft cap and I'd say yes. Otherwise it is a no for me.
|
|
|
Post by sharmoot - POR on Dec 12, 2007 19:37:26 GMT -5
so is that why people are saying no? because the hard cap is too close to the max cap? if thats the case we could work something out i thought ppl were saying no because they want that 125% rule
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Hawks on Dec 13, 2007 2:53:25 GMT -5
For me if the hard cap was increased from the 5 mil more than the soft cap I would be in favor of it.
|
|
|
Post by dagr81 - MIN on Dec 13, 2007 18:14:24 GMT -5
If we made the hard cap ten million more than the soft cap--or something like that--i would vote yes.
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Dec 13, 2007 19:42:32 GMT -5
Nah. Just forget about it. I don't want that high of a hard cap
|
|