|
Post by Spencer on Mar 3, 2007 23:12:17 GMT -5
Sixers and Pistons. Didnt even realise they were that far over. The rule is......
-The Hard Cap will start at $86,000,000 (twice the Salary Cap). Once you go over you have 48 hours to get under. If you do not comply you must forfeit all picks in the next 2 drafts(which must include at least 2 1sts), and you will also lose a player to waivers. You will also lose your MLE and LLE, and all FA privileges (even Bird rights) over the next 2 years. If you do not have 2 1sts over the next 2 years, I will take 2 1st of my choice. If within the first 20 days of the season, the picks will go to the worst team from the previous season.
Because neither team can get under the cap withing 48 hours I will only take away MLE and LLE privileges for the next 2 years and they must forfeit 2 firsts over the next 2 years.
Once the season flips over both teams will have 48 hours to get under the hard Cap.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 3, 2007 23:19:13 GMT -5
will that win rating be taking place after the year?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 3, 2007 23:21:07 GMT -5
It didnt seem as though people were very keen on that idea. I doubt it will be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 3, 2007 23:22:52 GMT -5
what are we doing to promote winning? any ideas being implemented?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 3, 2007 23:24:35 GMT -5
what are we doing to promote winning? any ideas being implemented? No one really came up with any good ideas for that unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 3, 2007 23:31:50 GMT -5
How are the 1sts chosen? Can they just go trade for the #29 pick or does it have to be picks currently on their rosters? Are they random? etc...
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 3, 2007 23:34:28 GMT -5
well here's an idea for losing....
a team must have a minimum of 175 wins over a five year span...this is an average of 35 wins per year....after each year, the first year of the five is eliminated and so on....
for instance 30, 39, 33, 32, 56 - won enough games to stay in
the team wins 60 in the next year 31, 33, 32, 56, 60 -- the 30 is eliminated and replaced with the 60
this will definitely promote trying to win, plus it should be easy to track with an excel file and spreadsheet...this will eliminate the three to five year tank jobs teams are committed to doing
i also think something needs to be done for winning....nothing should be changed this year, aig and i should receive the full punishment....but losing two firsts, mle for two years for doing everything we can to put a winning team on the floor? i don't like it
perhaps purchasing mle's with rc's, hitting a certain amount of wins/championships decreases punishments.
i know i'll hear from someone saying manage your cap better, and i agree there are teams out there that do well with it...but why do i have to manage a cap when there's a deal that will put my team over the edge?
that's something i'm going to look into more during the offseason, a real way to reward teams for winning, not punish teams for winning and reward teams for tanking
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 3, 2007 23:35:05 GMT -5
2 1sts in the next 2 years. Should be picks on their roster already, or picks they already own.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 3, 2007 23:37:54 GMT -5
well here's an idea for losing.... a team must have a minimum of 175 wins over a five year span...this is an average of 35 wins per year....after each year, the first year of the five is eliminated and so on.... for instance 30, 39, 33, 32, 56 - won enough games to stay in the team wins 60 in the next year 31, 33, 32, 56, 60 -- the 30 is eliminated and replaced with the 60 this will definitely promote trying to win, plus it should be easy to track with an excel file and spreadsheet...this will eliminate the three to five year tank jobs teams are committed to doing i also think something needs to be done for winning....nothing should be changed this year, aig and i should receive the full punishment....but losing two firsts, mle for two years for doing everything we can to put a winning team on the floor? i don't like it perhaps purchasing mle's with rc's, hitting a certain amount of wins/championships decreases punishments. i know i'll hear from someone saying manage your cap better, and i agree there are teams out there that do well with it...but why do i have to manage a cap when there's a deal that will put my team over the edge? that's something i'm going to look into more during the offseason, a real way to reward teams for winning, not punish teams for winning and reward teams for tanking I already have so many responsibilities, developing a spreadhseet of any kind is just not appealing to me. The more I look at this though, the more I think we dont need cap penalties other then the Hard Cap. The Hard Cap is to level the playing field, and Im not sure i want people to be able to go over. Id be much more interested in giving extra RCs to teams that can maintain a certain win rating.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 3, 2007 23:39:03 GMT -5
^^
Thank you...The salary cap penalties are just as bad as going over the hard cap...lol
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 3, 2007 23:40:12 GMT -5
In the future any deal or FA signing that takes a team over the hard cap shoud be denied. If a team goes over during the season flip due to normal raises they would have 48 hours to get under.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 3, 2007 23:40:24 GMT -5
well here's an idea for losing.... a team must have a minimum of 175 wins over a five year span...this is an average of 35 wins per year....after each year, the first year of the five is eliminated and so on.... for instance 30, 39, 33, 32, 56 - won enough games to stay in the team wins 60 in the next year 31, 33, 32, 56, 60 -- the 30 is eliminated and replaced with the 60 this will definitely promote trying to win, plus it should be easy to track with an excel file and spreadsheet...this will eliminate the three to five year tank jobs teams are committed to doing i also think something needs to be done for winning....nothing should be changed this year, aig and i should receive the full punishment....but losing two firsts, mle for two years for doing everything we can to put a winning team on the floor? i don't like it perhaps purchasing mle's with rc's, hitting a certain amount of wins/championships decreases punishments. i know i'll hear from someone saying manage your cap better, and i agree there are teams out there that do well with it...but why do i have to manage a cap when there's a deal that will put my team over the edge? that's something i'm going to look into more during the offseason, a real way to reward teams for winning, not punish teams for winning and reward teams for tanking I already have so many responsibilities, developing a spreadhseet of any kind is just not appealing to me. The more I look at this though, the more I think we dont need cap penalties other then the Hard Cap. The Hard Cap is to level the playing field, and Im not sure i want people to be able to go over. Id be much more interested in giving extra RCs to teams that can maintain a certain win rating. well you can give someone the responsibility for 50 pts, like me counting articles....i'd even do it if no one steps up
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 3, 2007 23:50:09 GMT -5
I already have so many responsibilities, developing a spreadhseet of any kind is just not appealing to me. The more I look at this though, the more I think we dont need cap penalties other then the Hard Cap. The Hard Cap is to level the playing field, and Im not sure i want people to be able to go over. Id be much more interested in giving extra RCs to teams that can maintain a certain win rating. well you can give someone the responsibility for 50 pts, like me counting articles....i'd even do it if no one steps up We'll the main problem isnt actually having someone keep track of it, its that I dont want people going over the cap, even if they win. I want all teams within the same salary limit. If we reward winning, it will be with RCs.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 3, 2007 23:50:54 GMT -5
In the future any deal or FA signing that takes a team over the hard cap shoud be denied. If a team goes over during the season flip due to normal raises they would have 48 hours to get under. Unfortunately I obviously dont always check where the teams cap is with a trade. I cant promise that Ill always catch a team being over.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 3, 2007 23:51:51 GMT -5
A spreadsheet for 50 points? Hell I'd do that.....once a season for 20 mins....sure.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 3, 2007 23:52:34 GMT -5
In the future any deal or FA signing that takes a team over the hard cap shoud be denied. If a team goes over during the season flip due to normal raises they would have 48 hours to get under. Unfortunately I obviously dont always check where the teams cap is with a trade. I cant promise that Ill always catch a team being over. You have about 35 other pairs of eyes looking....Hopefully one will catch it.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 3, 2007 23:53:49 GMT -5
A spreadsheet for 50 points? Hell I'd do that.....once a season for 20 mins....sure. If I were to hire a "Reward the Winners" admin Id need them to develop a fair way to determine who deserves extra RCs because of winning. Consecutive years in the playoffs? Consecutive years over 500? Consecutive 50 win years? Just some ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 3, 2007 23:54:40 GMT -5
Unfortunately I obviously dont always check where the teams cap is with a trade. I cant promise that Ill always catch a team being over. You have about 35 other pairs of eyes looking....Hopefully one will catch it. Youd think so, but no one caught this. Andy was way over, like 5 mill plus. It just doesnt always get caught.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 3, 2007 23:59:13 GMT -5
I actually saw Andy was over 90 mil when I made the trade with him but just figured it was at 92 mil or something.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 4, 2007 0:02:23 GMT -5
Cap was 43 all year. Just raised it to 48 for this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 4, 2007 0:52:42 GMT -5
In the future any deal or FA signing that takes a team over the hard cap shoud be denied. If a team goes over during the season flip due to normal raises they would have 48 hours to get under. i like this a lot...why the other penalties? i'm even for lowering the entire hard cap...and this isn't because i'm affected, i believe spence should enforce the rule this year, but more toward rewarding teams for trying to win
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 4, 2007 1:27:37 GMT -5
In the future any deal or FA signing that takes a team over the hard cap shoud be denied. If a team goes over during the season flip due to normal raises they would have 48 hours to get under. i like this a lot...why the other penalties? i'm even for lowering the entire hard cap...and this isn't because i'm affected, i believe spence should enforce the rule this year, but more toward rewarding teams for trying to win The other penalties need to be in place because invariably I will process a trade that lets a team go over the Hard Cap. I will edit the rules. Only a Hard Cap from now on. The Sixers and Pistons still need to forfeit picks and will not get an MLE or LLE for 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 4, 2007 1:39:23 GMT -5
This should be interesting...lol According to rosters and traded future picks thread the Pistons next two picks are Sea 05 1st and Pistons 09 1st. Both the Suns and the Bucks own the Pistons 07 1st as well.
The next 1st that philly owns is in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 4, 2007 1:40:02 GMT -5
This shold be interesting...lol According to rosters and traded future picks thread the Pistons next two picks are Sea 05 1st and Pistons 09 1st. Both the Suns and the Bucks own the Pistons 07 1st as well. The next 1st that philly owns is in 2013. Ill have to fix that 07 pick. Yuck.
|
|
|
Post by GP on Mar 4, 2007 1:40:40 GMT -5
A spreadsheet for 50 points? Hell I'd do that.....once a season for 20 mins....sure. If I were to hire a "Reward the Winners" admin Id need them to develop a fair way to determine who deserves extra RCs because of winning. Consecutive years in the playoffs? Consecutive years over 500? Consecutive 50 win years? Just some ideas. Consecutive Years over .500-- 10 pts Consecutive Years in playoffs-- 20 pts x as many years Consective 50 win season- 25 pts x as many years Division Champion-- 25 pts Conference Champion-- 50 pts Championship winner-- 100 pts Consecutive championship winner- 100 pts x many years
|
|