|
Post by Atlanta Hawks on Dec 2, 2009 23:17:27 GMT -5
I here your arguments, but I disagree that we should have a buyout for those reasons. Bonzi Wells hasn't been a relevant player in the NBA for awhile, if you are willing to trade for him and that salary, then you should be stuck with it. Having a buyout means that GM's don't have to really give long-term consideration to signings or trades, and that isn't fair to GM's who do. First of all there are only a few teams that would be able to do this or have reason to use the buyout each year. You could also limit it to one buyout per year to make it more restrictive. I really don't see a problem with this since it is allowed in the NBA and wouldn't be abused if the rule is written well.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Hawks on Dec 2, 2009 23:19:52 GMT -5
What about someone like Josh Childress? He could have been signed to a four or five year deal in this league two years ago (07/08 season) with absolutely no warning of his desire to play overseas. Then he up and leaves the NBA and that GM would now stuck with a contract for a player that will not see his rating increase but decrease over the course of that contract.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 2, 2009 23:27:40 GMT -5
What about someone like Josh Childress? He could have been signed to a four or five year deal in this league two years ago (07/08 season) with absolutely no warning of his desire to play overseas. Then he up and leaves the NBA and that GM would now stuck with a contract for a player that will not see his rating increase but decrease over the course of that contract. There is always that 1 in a million situation, and in this case it is Josh Childress. However, I don't think we need to implement a rule every time some 1 in a million occurrence happens.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 2, 2009 23:31:41 GMT -5
I here your arguments, but I disagree that we should have a buyout for those reasons. Bonzi Wells hasn't been a relevant player in the NBA for awhile, if you are willing to trade for him and that salary, then you should be stuck with it. Having a buyout means that GM's don't have to really give long-term consideration to signings or trades, and that isn't fair to GM's who do. First of all there are only a few teams that would be able to do this or have reason to use the buyout each year. You could also limit it to one buyout per year to make it more restrictive. I really don't see a problem with this since it is allowed in the NBA and wouldn't be abused if the rule is written well. A buyout isn't a horrible idea that would ruin the league, just something that I personally wouldn't be a big fan of.
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Dec 2, 2009 23:56:29 GMT -5
I don't think it would ruin the league at all, I think it benefits teams such as myself and the bad teams.
You look at my Spurs and realize that we have NOTHING that's going well.
Thus if we are allowed to buy out a few of our terrible players, such as Dan Gadzuric then we can have some more money to compete in the offseason
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 3, 2009 0:31:28 GMT -5
I didn't say it would ruin the league. I just don't think teams should have an easy out for making bad moves. When I 1st joined this league I made a bad move in signing Luis Scola to his current contract. In order to get rid of his contract I had to move 2 1st round picks, I don't think buyouts punish teams enough for bad moves, just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Dec 3, 2009 0:35:29 GMT -5
Guys, players that retire still remain in the legends database. Its just their rating will be 65ish. Same goes for players that go overseas. And for the most part, ratings for those guys will remain the same unless something terribly drastic happens to the player.
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Dec 3, 2009 0:40:39 GMT -5
We can put it to a vote. I dont like to be the admin that says my way or the highway.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 3, 2009 15:12:06 GMT -5
This is the risk though to signing players like Stromile Swift. He has been a bust in the NBA, he has career averages of 8.5 points and 4.5 rebounds per game. Ok, those averages were in never more than about 20 minutes per game. Also, that is an erratic 20 mpg, never really consistent time. One can often assume that an erratic 20mpg giving a player around 9p, 5r, and 1 blk let's not forget, can turn into, when given consistent 30-35 minutes, something more like 15-17p, 9-10r, 2 blk. If you want to take a chance on a guy like that, it's your choice, but to say you had no control over his lack of RL playing time isn't true. You had the choice not to sign a fringe NBA player to the contract you did. You offered the contract and you should be stuck with it. That part in the middle there...how in the WORLD is that not true? I can go plead to an NBA GM to sign him I guess, but I don't think they really care about our sim league or my sim team...just a guess. I of course had the choice to sign him, taking a little bit of a chance in doing so. But as I've already said, and you've glossed over, no one was expecting anything like this. The admin of this league, a person I think we all respect pretty highly, asked for a player option in year 3 of Stromile's contract because he might be playing SO WELL he would want more than the 3.5-4.5 million being offered by the teams bidding for him. Anyway, OKC, a vote is a good way to go. I'll go with whatever results from that vote, as there is no other way to do it that is fair. We should kind of propose the rule in writing, and then make a poll for it. Parts of the rule could be 1) Only one buyout per team, per season. 2) Buyout amount is at least 100% of year 1, plus 50% of year 2, plus 25-50% of any remaining years. This will not be something that can be used very often by anyone obviously, as only one buyout per team per season. Also, people who have saved cap for multiple reasons should be able to use that cap for things like this. BTW, I'd personally like to see it more than 1 per season, maybe no more than 3 at the most, but I'd settle for even the 1 per season.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 3, 2009 20:35:25 GMT -5
This is the risk though to signing players like Stromile Swift. He has been a bust in the NBA, he has career averages of 8.5 points and 4.5 rebounds per game. Ok, those averages were in never more than about 20 minutes per game. Also, that is an erratic 20 mpg, never really consistent time. One can often assume that an erratic 20mpg giving a player around 9p, 5r, and 1 blk let's not forget, can turn into, when given consistent 30-35 minutes, something more like 15-17p, 9-10r, 2 blk. If you want to take a chance on a guy like that, it's your choice, but to say you had no control over his lack of RL playing time isn't true. You had the choice not to sign a fringe NBA player to the contract you did. You offered the contract and you should be stuck with it. That part in the middle there...how in the WORLD is that not true? I can go plead to an NBA GM to sign him I guess, but I don't think they really care about our sim league or my sim team...just a guess. I of course had the choice to sign him, taking a little bit of a chance in doing so. But as I've already said, and you've glossed over, no one was expecting anything like this. The admin of this league, a person I think we all respect pretty highly, asked for a player option in year 3 of Stromile's contract because he might be playing SO WELL he would want more than the 3.5-4.5 million being offered by the teams bidding for him. Anyway, OKC, a vote is a good way to go. I'll go with whatever results from that vote, as there is no other way to do it that is fair. We should kind of propose the rule in writing, and then make a poll for it. Parts of the rule could be 1) Only one buyout per team, per season. 2) Buyout amount is at least 100% of year 1, plus 50% of year 2, plus 25-50% of any remaining years. This will not be something that can be used very often by anyone obviously, as only one buyout per team per season. Also, people who have saved cap for multiple reasons should be able to use that cap for things like this. BTW, I'd personally like to see it more than 1 per season, maybe no more than 3 at the most, but I'd settle for even the 1 per season. One could also assume that a player is given erratic minutes for a reason and isn't really deserving of consistant minutes. So offering such a player a multi year deal worth around 15 mil is a big risk, not a little one like you said. On a side note, did you really say nobody was expeting this, you really thought Stromile would outplay that contract.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 3, 2009 22:53:17 GMT -5
No I didn't say that. Actually our Admin requested the Player Option be put in the contract, in case Stromile would be playing so well he'd want out of the "smaller" contract that he was signing.
I'm just saying, teams with the cap available to buy out a player or two should be allowed to, just like in the NBA.
You're basically holding us joe shmoe's to a higher standard than real life NBA GM's who get paid to do what we're doing for fun...but of course they are in charge of multi-million dollar operations, as opposed to us just doing it for fun. We're not allowed to be wrong ever, but if a real-life NBA GM messes up, BUT HAS HIS CAP SITUATION IN GOOD ORDER (has enough cap space to do so), he can rectify that mistake because of the good work he's done staying under the cap.
Not having a buyout rule is pretty unreasonable and clearly unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Dec 3, 2009 23:30:07 GMT -5
I am not in favor of a buyout rule.
It will screw up the whole economics of this league lol. The free agent classes will be affected, and it will ultimately lead to larger contracts in the end for teams who will have loads of cap space having even more just throwing it out on free agents who are undeserving of that kind of money.
Teams that are rebuilding will now want to take on bad contracts so they can buy them out, and that future salary will take away any importance that free agency money had, or the impacts bad contracts have in trades.
Of course it will help alot of teams out there, but it will hurt the league in the long run. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 3, 2009 23:36:15 GMT -5
No I didn't say that. Actually our Admin requested the Player Option be put in the contract, in case Stromile would be playing so well he'd want out of the "smaller" contract that he was signing. I'm just saying, teams with the cap available to buy out a player or two should be allowed to, just like in the NBA. You're basically holding us joe shmoe's to a higher standard than real life NBA GM's who get paid to do what we're doing for fun...but of course they are in charge of multi-million dollar operations, as opposed to us just doing it for fun. We're not allowed to be wrong ever, but if a real-life NBA GM messes up, BUT HAS HIS CAP SITUATION IN GOOD ORDER (has enough cap space to do so), he can rectify that mistake because of the good work he's done staying under the cap. Not having a buyout rule is pretty unreasonable and clearly unrealistic. No need to capitalize certain sentences, I can read the small print just fine. I understand we are here for fun, and that we are not professional GM's. However, there are other ways to rectify your situation other than buyouts, you can always trade the player. The problem with buyouts to me is, people can go over the top with contract offers, and don't have to worry about if the player is "tradeable" or not, they can just buy him out if he doesn't work out for their team. I think in order to hold people somewhat accountable for their moves, they shouldn't be a given a do over.
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Dec 4, 2009 1:30:55 GMT -5
I think in order to hold people somewhat accountable for their moves, they shouldn't be a given a do over. I agree with this to an extent. If there was a buyout rule to be allowed, each GM should have like, a maximum number of buyouts per season. (Personally, I'd prefer a low number, around one every two seasons.) This allows for GM's to fix a mistake once in awhile, and new GM's to fix mistakes the previous GM made, and not them. I never really liked the idea of buyouts, but as long as it's not overused, I don't really have a problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Hawks on Dec 4, 2009 7:11:34 GMT -5
No I didn't say that. Actually our Admin requested the Player Option be put in the contract, in case Stromile would be playing so well he'd want out of the "smaller" contract that he was signing. I'm just saying, teams with the cap available to buy out a player or two should be allowed to, just like in the NBA. You're basically holding us joe shmoe's to a higher standard than real life NBA GM's who get paid to do what we're doing for fun...but of course they are in charge of multi-million dollar operations, as opposed to us just doing it for fun. We're not allowed to be wrong ever, but if a real-life NBA GM messes up, BUT HAS HIS CAP SITUATION IN GOOD ORDER (has enough cap space to do so), he can rectify that mistake because of the good work he's done staying under the cap. Not having a buyout rule is pretty unreasonable and clearly unrealistic. No need to capitalize certain sentences, I can read the small print just fine. I understand we are here for fun, and that we are not professional GM's. However, there are other ways to rectify your situation other than buyouts, you can always trade the player. The problem with buyouts to me is, people can go over the top with contract offers, and don't have to worry about if the player is "tradeable" or not, they can just buy him out if he doesn't work out for their team. I think in order to hold people somewhat accountable for their moves, they shouldn't be a given a do over. Please clarify "over the top". I have seen some pretty unreasonable contracts for free agents without a buyout and in more than one league. Remember if the rule is what is being proposed then it won't be "easy" to buy the player out of their contract unless that team has a bunch of bench bums. I'd consider "over the top" to mean a contract that would cost $18+ million to buy out and there just aren't that many teams that could afford to do that. Also, the teams that could afford that type of buyout are going to have to overpay for players anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 4, 2009 14:17:05 GMT -5
That is a difficult question to answer, because the answer is different for the different ranges of players. I wouldn't have a problem letting new GM's have one buyout when they take over a team. They shouldn't be punished taking over for a screwed up team. However, if you are the one who offered the contract, or traded for the player knowing his contract, I don't think you should be given a free out with the buyout rule. You should have to either find a trade partner or deal with the remaining years on the contract.
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Dec 4, 2009 14:55:38 GMT -5
That is a difficult question to answer, because the answer is different for the different ranges of players. I wouldn't have a problem letting new GM's have one buyout when they take over a team. They shouldn't be punished taking over for a screwed up team. However, if you are the one who offered the contract, or traded for the player knowing his contract, I don't think you should be given a free out with the buyout rule. You should have to either find a trade partner or deal with the remaining years on the contract. Look at my team for example.. If you want to remain competitive it's almost important for me to have the buyout rule. I f**ked up this team, yes but it's impossible to rebuild(in a timely fashion) without buying some of these guys out.
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Dec 4, 2009 18:55:08 GMT -5
That is a difficult question to answer, because the answer is different for the different ranges of players. I wouldn't have a problem letting new GM's have one buyout when they take over a team. They shouldn't be punished taking over for a screwed up team. However, if you are the one who offered the contract, or traded for the player knowing his contract, I don't think you should be given a free out with the buyout rule. You should have to either find a trade partner or deal with the remaining years on the contract. Look at my team for example.. If you want to remain competitive it's almost important for me to have the buyout rule. I f**ked up this team, yes but it's impossible to rebuild(in a timely fashion) without buying some of these guys out. That is what the draft is for... You guys are looking too much into the individual benefits and not what is best for this league. Of course I could benefit from just buying out Adonal Foyle, but then he loses his value for being an expiring contract.. I personally got rid of bad contracts for trading more bad contracts, that were shorter in length. Because i accounted for myself. We'd lose all accountability for poor decisions, the overall league salary would drop, which would make for higher priced free agents. It will drastically upset the balance of this league.
|
|
marco
Rookie GM
19-63 l I swear to Reggie Miller and his holy 3-point buzzer beaters I didn't do it.
Posts: 20
|
Post by marco on Dec 4, 2009 19:04:56 GMT -5
I think the previous Pacers' GM fired some players with long-term contracts. If thats the case, I am ******, lol. A buyout would have been nice if he did fire the players. Also, what about the players that have buyout clauses in real life?... Like Chucky Atkins who had a ~ $3,5M contract and a $0,76M buyout. or Greg Bucker that had something like a 2 years contract for $7M (total) and a $2M buyout (1M for each season) I am asking because i think the previous Pacers' Gm fired Bucker, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Dec 4, 2009 19:05:32 GMT -5
Look at my team for example.. If you want to remain competitive it's almost important for me to have the buyout rule. I f**ked up this team, yes but it's impossible to rebuild(in a timely fashion) without buying some of these guys out. That is what the draft is for... You guys are looking too much into the individual benefits and not what is best for this league. Of course I could benefit from just buying out Adonal Foyle, but then he loses his value for being an expiring contract.. I personally got rid of bad contracts for trading more bad contracts, that were shorter in length. Because i accounted for myself. We'd lose all accountability for poor decisions, the overall league salary would drop, which would make for higher priced free agents. It will drastically upset the balance of this league. Which is why you have a PA keep the salaries down, you don't jack the prices up. Your issues can be easily resolved. Our issues, however, are not as easy. You want me to rebuild through the draft? Are you HIGH? That seriously will take years, and to be honest. Leagues don't last that long. I want to be at least semi competitive.
|
|