|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 4, 2009 23:02:29 GMT -5
Cleveland you are reacting to something that would not even happen. I'm in other leagues with buyouts and I don't see any problems with it damaging the Free Agent classes or anything like that.
Just like SAS just said, as long as the player agent isn't stupid and wants to do what is best for the league, which he should, players won't get contracts that are too large for their talents.
Also, to Boston, I felt the need to capitalize certain sentences because you clearly did not read my "small print" previously, as you put incorrect words into my "mouth," or type, if you will.
Anyway, I'm reading through the posts of people against this and I have to wonder where you are getting your thoughts for how this would ruin the league? Is the NBA ruined? Is it going down the drain as we speak? If it is, it is certainly not because they allow buyouts.
What is the big deal? Things happen in real life that we have little to no control over. There are always chances to be taken, some big, some small, with any trade or free agent signing. That's fine. But if a team has enough cap to do a buyout of a player who has fallen apart IRL, then they should be allowed to do a buyout. The NBA, which is obviously full of people who do this stuff for a living, thinks it is necessary, so why not us?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 5, 2009 0:22:14 GMT -5
Not sure what words I put into your mouth, I feel you are the one putting words in my mouth. I never said a buyout would ruin the league. I just don't like the idea of a buyout. I don't like the rule in real life, and I wouldn't like it here. No different set of standards for us having fun or those who do it for a living.
You keep saying that the NBA has a buyout so why shouldn't we. Players in the NBA are bought out of their contracts for multiple reasons. Sometimes you have a player who becomes disgruntled and a locker room distraction, so the team may buy him out. An older player may get traded to a young team out of contention, so they buy him out save some money and let him go sign on with a contender. You also have cases like the PHX and Cavs trade with Shaq. The Suns had no interest in Sasha or Wallace. They wanted to save some money, so they bought out both Sasha and Wallace and saved some money. We are having buyouts for one reason, to bail people out of bad moves. However, why punish people who make smart moves and don't need to be bailed out (for the record I wouldn't mind being able to buyout Jamaal Tinsley, and I am not saying that I don't make bad moves myself). Every player is tradeable as long as you have realistic expectations of what you are going to get back. So why put in a buyout rule when it isn't needed, people can trade their bad contracts if they need to. Don't give teams an easy out like a buyout would give them. They made the signing/trade make them do a little work finding a trade to get out of it.
|
|
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 5, 2009 1:45:26 GMT -5
An older player may get traded to a young team out of contention, so they buy him out save some money and let him go sign on with a contender. You also have cases like the PHX and Cavs trade with Shaq. The Suns had no interest in Sasha or Wallace. They wanted to save some money, so they bought out both Sasha and Wallace and saved some money. Sasha Pavlovic's buyout has nothing to do with Big Ben's wallace. Wallace's contract was bought out based on a mutual agreement. Pavlovic's contract was bought out based on a buy-out clause that said that his contract could be bought out in 2009/2010 season for $1,250,000. I agree that a buyout of mutual agreement could not work in a sim league but Buy-out clauses should work just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 5, 2009 2:56:29 GMT -5
An older player may get traded to a young team out of contention, so they buy him out save some money and let him go sign on with a contender. You also have cases like the PHX and Cavs trade with Shaq. The Suns had no interest in Sasha or Wallace. They wanted to save some money, so they bought out both Sasha and Wallace and saved some money. Sasha Pavlovic's buyout has nothing to do with Big Ben's wallace. Wallace's contract was bought out based on a mutual agreement. Pavlovic's contract was bought out based on a buy-out clause that said that his contract could be bought out in 2009/2010 season for $1,250,000. I agree that a buyout of mutual agreement could not work in a sim league but Buy-out clauses should work just fine. You missed the point. I didn't say their buyouts were the same. You actually in a way even made my point further, which is buyouts are made for many different reasons in the NBA. However, here in our sim league, would be made for one reason only, and that is to bail out bad moves (signings and trades). We don't need a buyout for that reason, when a GM already has a way out of bad contracts, it is called a trade. We don't need to install a buyout rule because a GM doesn't want to make a potential trade enticing to other teams by including another player/pick with the bad contract. If you are unwilling to find a way to make a trade work then you should be stuck with your bad move, not given a bail out, and a buyout is just that. |
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Hawks on Dec 5, 2009 7:21:23 GMT -5
How is that a free out. You will almost certainly strap your cap for that season and won't be able to make a lot of different types of trades because of it. How could this possibly destroy the league? If you really feel that way then look at every team and give the list of teams that could even buyout a bad contract (need cap room) and then the teams that are most likely to buyout a player. I highly doubt it is more than 10 or 11 teams and that would be 10 or 11 player at most. Oh, and there is a thing called a trade in the NBA too but they still feel the need to allow buyouts. Also, when did expiring contracts all of a sudden lose value?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Dec 5, 2009 11:43:55 GMT -5
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. And you want the league to succumb to your needs because you screwed up your team? You want a bailout of sorts? That is more along the lines of intoxication. |
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Dec 5, 2009 13:05:22 GMT -5
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. And you want the league to succumb to your needs because you screwed up your team? You want a bailout of sorts? That is more along the lines of intoxication. I don't want the league to succumb to my needs, notice I'm not the one who created the thread. I'm saying it benefits more than just me to have a REAL LIFE RULE in a SIMULATION LEAGUE. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 5, 2009 14:04:38 GMT -5
How is that a free out. You will almost certainly strap your cap for that season and won't be able to make a lot of different types of trades because of it. How could this possibly destroy the league? If you really feel that way then look at every team and give the list of teams that could even buyout a bad contract (need cap room) and then the teams that are most likely to buyout a player. I highly doubt it is more than 10 or 11 teams and that would be 10 or 11 player at most. Oh, and there is a thing called a trade in the NBA too but they still feel the need to allow buyouts. Also, when did expiring contracts all of a sudden lose value? Free out was the worng term, it's a bail out. As far as the NBA having a buyout, I explained in my post why I think it is different. So I don't really want to explain it again, but if needed, I will. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 5, 2009 16:03:57 GMT -5
Lol, we are asking for a buyout for the GOOD of the league. I really don't understand those of you saying that it will hurt the league. Makes no sense.
Don't you want everyone in the league to be as competitive as possible?
These are the teams with more than 5 mil in cap space as of the last Database update. Less than 5 mil isn't going to be any buyout really at all. I realize that database is old, but generally, the number of teams with space this season, and the amount of space overall, should be pretty similar. And actually, I think there were FA signings after that was updated which means there is even less available cap spread out among these teams. The cap is 70,000,000 btw.
Atlanta - $60,122,740
Chicago - $44,140,020
Golden State - $59,839,500
Indiana - $63,019,693
LA Clippers - $44,053,360
LA Lakers - $54,589,337
NY Knicks - $62,210,080
Portland - $60,767,224
Sacramento - $56,953,165
SA Spurs - $43,129,307
Utah - $63,076,912
Alright, we have 11 teams that could do any kind of buyout at all...but if we take away the teams with around 10 mil or less, which aren't going to be any league shattering buyouts with that much space...we are down to
Chicago, LAC, LAL, SAC, and SAS.
Chicago - would probably buy out Dampier if he still has him. And he's barely have cap to do that. Who knows, he might not even want to buy him out, I dunno. The only other person he might want to buy out is Chris Mihm. Those are the only two options really.
LAC - Only guy I'd really consider buying out right now is Stromile, but his 3-4.5mil yearly contract for the remainder of his contract isn't all that harmful. I might keep him depending how things worked out in FA...if I needed a backup C or something.
LAL - Maybe would by out Sasha? Other than that, guys have team options he can just not pick up, or they are paid very cheaply and are good enough to keep.
SAC - He would benefit greatly from being able to buy out more than one player. Reggie Evans has 3 years at about 5 mil each. Mikki Moore has 4 years at 5 mil each. Vlad Rad makes 6 mil for this year and next...probably wouldn't buy him out b/c this year is over, so he's basically a 6 mil expirer next season. one or two other candidates, but probably don't get bought out b/c they have options coming up, making their contract expirers after next season.
SAS - Gadzuric makes 6-7 mil the next two seasons after this one. That's probably the only guy to be bought out.
SO, we're talking Gadzuric, Stromile Swift, Sasha, Dampier, and Reggie Evans/Mikki Moore.
Make the rule one buy out per team per season, and make sure they have to pay a pretty significant amount of money to buy the player out...like 100% year 1, 50% year 2, 25-50% each year after.
It's not easy to have enough cap to do that, and it's not even going to be used that often. When it is used, it will just be to help the overall competitiveness of the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 5, 2009 19:45:47 GMT -5
Lol, we are asking for a buyout for the GOOD of the league. I really don't understand those of you saying that it will hurt the league. Makes no sense. Don't you want everyone in the league to be as competitive as possible? These are the teams with more than 5 mil in cap space as of the last Database update. Less than 5 mil isn't going to be any buyout really at all. I realize that database is old, but generally, the number of teams with space this season, and the amount of space overall, should be pretty similar. And actually, I think there were FA signings after that was updated which means there is even less available cap spread out among these teams. The cap is 70,000,000 btw. Atlanta - $60,122,740 Chicago - $44,140,020 Golden State - $59,839,500 Indiana - $63,019,693 LA Clippers - $44,053,360 LA Lakers - $54,589,337 NY Knicks - $62,210,080 Portland - $60,767,224 Sacramento - $56,953,165 SA Spurs - $43,129,307 Utah - $63,076,912 Alright, we have 11 teams that could do any kind of buyout at all...but if we take away the teams with around 10 mil or less, which aren't going to be any league shattering buyouts with that much space...we are down to Chicago, LAC, LAL, SAC, and SAS. Chicago - would probably buy out Dampier if he still has him. And he's barely have cap to do that. Who knows, he might not even want to buy him out, I dunno. The only other person he might want to buy out is Chris Mihm. Those are the only two options really. LAC - Only guy I'd really consider buying out right now is Stromile, but his 3-4.5mil yearly contract for the remainder of his contract isn't all that harmful. I might keep him depending how things worked out in FA...if I needed a backup C or something. LAL - Maybe would by out Sasha? Other than that, guys have team options he can just not pick up, or they are paid very cheaply and are good enough to keep. SAC - He would benefit greatly from being able to buy out more than one player. Reggie Evans has 3 years at about 5 mil each. Mikki Moore has 4 years at 5 mil each. Vlad Rad makes 6 mil for this year and next...probably wouldn't buy him out b/c this year is over, so he's basically a 6 mil expirer next season. one or two other candidates, but probably don't get bought out b/c they have options coming up, making their contract expirers after next season. SAS - Gadzuric makes 6-7 mil the next two seasons after this one. That's probably the only guy to be bought out. SO, we're talking Gadzuric, Stromile Swift, Sasha, Dampier, and Reggie Evans/Mikki Moore. Make the rule one buy out per team per season, and make sure they have to pay a pretty significant amount of money to buy the player out...like 100% year 1, 50% year 2, 25-50% each year after. It's not easy to have enough cap to do that, and it's not even going to be used that often. When it is used, it will just be to help the overall competitiveness of the league. You say good for the league, I say good for certain bad teams. I still don't understand why these players just can't be traded, instead of being bought out. |
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Dec 5, 2009 20:20:40 GMT -5
Lol, we are asking for a buyout for the GOOD of the league. I really don't understand those of you saying that it will hurt the league. Makes no sense. Don't you want everyone in the league to be as competitive as possible? These are the teams with more than 5 mil in cap space as of the last Database update. Less than 5 mil isn't going to be any buyout really at all. I realize that database is old, but generally, the number of teams with space this season, and the amount of space overall, should be pretty similar. And actually, I think there were FA signings after that was updated which means there is even less available cap spread out among these teams. The cap is 70,000,000 btw. Atlanta - $60,122,740 Chicago - $44,140,020 Golden State - $59,839,500 Indiana - $63,019,693 LA Clippers - $44,053,360 LA Lakers - $54,589,337 NY Knicks - $62,210,080 Portland - $60,767,224 Sacramento - $56,953,165 SA Spurs - $43,129,307 Utah - $63,076,912 Alright, we have 11 teams that could do any kind of buyout at all...but if we take away the teams with around 10 mil or less, which aren't going to be any league shattering buyouts with that much space...we are down to Chicago, LAC, LAL, SAC, and SAS. Chicago - would probably buy out Dampier if he still has him. And he's barely have cap to do that. Who knows, he might not even want to buy him out, I dunno. The only other person he might want to buy out is Chris Mihm. Those are the only two options really. LAC - Only guy I'd really consider buying out right now is Stromile, but his 3-4.5mil yearly contract for the remainder of his contract isn't all that harmful. I might keep him depending how things worked out in FA...if I needed a backup C or something. LAL - Maybe would by out Sasha? Other than that, guys have team options he can just not pick up, or they are paid very cheaply and are good enough to keep. SAC - He would benefit greatly from being able to buy out more than one player. Reggie Evans has 3 years at about 5 mil each. Mikki Moore has 4 years at 5 mil each. Vlad Rad makes 6 mil for this year and next...probably wouldn't buy him out b/c this year is over, so he's basically a 6 mil expirer next season. one or two other candidates, but probably don't get bought out b/c they have options coming up, making their contract expirers after next season. SAS - Gadzuric makes 6-7 mil the next two seasons after this one. That's probably the only guy to be bought out. SO, we're talking Gadzuric, Stromile Swift, Sasha, Dampier, and Reggie Evans/Mikki Moore. Make the rule one buy out per team per season, and make sure they have to pay a pretty significant amount of money to buy the player out...like 100% year 1, 50% year 2, 25-50% each year after. It's not easy to have enough cap to do that, and it's not even going to be used that often. When it is used, it will just be to help the overall competitiveness of the league. You say good for the league, I say good for certain bad teams. I still don't understand why these players just can't be traded, instead of being bought out. Okay, dude, what else can I trade to get rid of these players? A lottery pick? Hell no?! What else do I truly have? Look at my team. Look at these other teams, we have VERY little talent. We have shitty contracts and we need to get rid of them. It's a matter of being able to manage and have a competitive league. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 5, 2009 20:26:53 GMT -5
I took over a team in rimrockers 1 week before the trade deadline. It had Jerome James, Malik Rose, Jared Jeffries, Eddy Curry, Zach Randolph, Quentin Richardson, Jamal Crawford, and Stephon Marbury on it. I traded all 8 of those players. I find it hard to believe that the 4-5 players that the Clippers mentioned in his post are untradeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Dec 5, 2009 20:45:42 GMT -5
What else did you have? Because some of those players were rated decently in RR1. I know Crawford is a hell of a backup PG and is rated highly. Randolph was an 81. Jeffries was a 64 or whatever. However you want to look at it that way, RR1 has a buyout, why shouldn't Legends?!  ?! |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 5, 2009 20:55:36 GMT -5
Crawford may be a hell of a back-up, but not when you consider he made around 10 mil a season with like 2-3 years left on his deal. All of those players had bad contracts. My point in mentioning that is, you can find a way to trade any player, so what do we need a buyout for?
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Dec 5, 2009 21:02:03 GMT -5
I'm sorry.. You try finding a suitor for Dan Gazuric then..
Tell me what he's actually good at... Yeah, nothing but wasting up 7 million dollars. He has no potential.
Your point is null and void and you're quite frankly beginning to look like a f**king retard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 5, 2009 21:21:28 GMT -5
What exactly were Jerome James and Malik Rose good at, and I am not the f**cking retard that needs the league to put in a rule to help me be competitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Dec 5, 2009 22:18:24 GMT -5
Boston, I realize I f**ked this team up but I did it as a joke. Didn't really take the league seriously and it cost me. Now that I'm active, I want to remain active.
And when does me wanting a REAL LIFE RULE make me a retard?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 5, 2009 22:32:44 GMT -5
We are not the real life NBA, so we don't need real NBA rules. Whats next, is someone going to start a thread that our sim players need to have a dress code.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Dec 5, 2009 23:08:09 GMT -5
LOL Boston you took that way out of line. We're talking about instituting a rule that will help out a limited number of teams, only those who actually have significant cap (as I've shown, 5 or less teams). We're also talking about instituting a rule that affects the Salary Cap and Salary Rules of the league, which is basically what this league is based on. Take away the whole part where we sign players and use "money" to do so, and you just have an elaborate 30-team, 15-man roster Fantasy League.
All that makes this league a sim league is that we have used the Real Life NBA Rules for Salary situations almost completely.
I made this thread to ask why there was no buyout rule, since we had used almost everything else from the NBA as far as salary rules. If the rule is structured the right way, 1 or 2 buyouts, i'll settle for 1 for you hardasses that think this could somehow ruin the league or that it is bad for the league...anyway, 1 buyout per year, and you need significant cap space and need to pay the player a significant amount of money to do the buyout, means that there is no way buyouts will hurt the league.
Lastly, we 4 or 5 managers can keep going back and forth on this, but it's pretty pointless by now. We've all said what we want to say. Why don't we go ahead and put this to a vote, or have OKC make a ruling. He said we'd vote so let's just do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Dec 5, 2009 23:29:51 GMT -5
I agree, everybody has made their point by now, so lets vote.
|
|
?!