|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:10:20 GMT -5
96 million
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Sept 3, 2007 15:11:31 GMT -5
can't be next season because that is totally unfair notice
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:14:09 GMT -5
Ive been saying for the last couple years it would go to 95, then 93.
Next year is 95.
Year after is 93.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:17:37 GMT -5
I did a little research and found this... Im thinking 96 this and next year. 93 for 2 years. Then 90 after that. So it stays at 96 this year, 93 next year.
|
|
|
Post by aaronjh on Sept 3, 2007 15:18:21 GMT -5
Spence, that was two seasons ago.
|
|
|
Post by Outlawz on Sept 3, 2007 15:18:28 GMT -5
next year meaning this upcoming offseason? or when would it take effect exactly.
You should lower the soft cap to around 50 Mil to help keep contracts down.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Sept 3, 2007 15:19:25 GMT -5
well thanks for fucking me big time again. I've worked so hard to make my team be under the 96 mil as my team has projected salary of 95.7 mil for next season and you pull an announcement after the trade deadline of a season. I had to deal off Luke Walton against my will just to abide to the rules of the hard cap. Also now I'll hit the hard cap and won't be able to sign Nash, Dirk, or Brand. Won't have my picks til 2015, I guess just fire me now.
With rising rookie deals every year a max deal keeps going up but the hard cap goes down? This is such a phantom announcement and really hope this is a joke to piss me off
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:19:26 GMT -5
Spence, that was two seasons ago. Ya, but Im not gonna go down to 93 right now. Im gonna change the rules to 93 now, but itll be 96 for this year.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:20:06 GMT -5
well thanks for fucking me big time again. I've worked so hard to make my team be under the 96 mil as my team has projected salary of 95.7 mil for next season and you pull an announcement after the trade deadline of a season. I had to deal off Luke Walton against my will just to abide to the rules of the hard cap. Also now I'll hit the hard cap and won't be able to sign Nash, Dirk, or Brand. Won't have my picks til 2015, I guess just fire me now. With rising rookie deals every year a max deal keeps going up but the hard cap goes down? This is such a phantom announcement and really hope this is a joke to piss me off LOL, youre so self serving.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Sept 3, 2007 15:20:28 GMT -5
I did a little research and found this... Im thinking 96 this and next year. 93 for 2 years. Then 90 after that. So it stays at 96 this year, 93 next year. You also said you were thinking of making any player eligible for RCs and you recanted that and said I never completely agreed to that you were just "thinking" about it.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:20:37 GMT -5
next year meaning this upcoming offseason? or when would it take effect exactly. You should lower the soft cap to around 50 Mil to help keep contracts down. I dont want to mess with the soft cap. I think this makes it more difficult to stay on top, which promotes parity, which is what I want.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:20:54 GMT -5
I did a little research and found this... So it stays at 96 this year, 93 next year. You also said you were thinking of making any player eligible for RCs and you recanted that and said I never completely agreed to that you were just "thinking" about it. Wah.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:21:28 GMT -5
I get to make the rules, since Im the commish, wooo hoo!
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:23:13 GMT -5
Ive wanted to change this for the last couple of years, and I always forget to give fair warning. I have no problem leaving it at 96 this up coming year, then having it go to 93 for the year after this coming year.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:24:07 GMT -5
I did a little research and found this... So it stays at 96 this year, 93 next year. You also said you were thinking of making any player eligible for RCs and you recanted that and said I never completely agreed to that you were just "thinking" about it. I dont like the idea of older players progressing. I was always against it, and I dont think the league was in favor of it by a large enough margin to change the rule that is currently in place.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 3, 2007 15:25:00 GMT -5
this sounds fine.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Sept 3, 2007 15:25:33 GMT -5
The only reason you made this rule is because Jordan gave you a PM to ask you what it was and all of sudden you decide to post this. Its bullshit and I am sick of you changing rules at the drop of hat. You continue to punish teams that win and GMs that work hard and are active in this league. This is my last season in BBS, I quit.
|
|
|
Post by Outlawz on Sept 3, 2007 15:26:10 GMT -5
next year meaning this upcoming offseason? or when would it take effect exactly. You should lower the soft cap to around 50 Mil to help keep contracts down. I dont want to mess with the soft cap. I think this makes it more difficult to stay on top, which promotes parity, which is what I want. Well i think the top teams are the top teams because they can manage around all of that anyways im just worried more about teams like the Hawks that don't look at long term plans as in depth as some of the top guys do who are making moves a year or 2 before to make sure they're ok.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Sept 3, 2007 15:26:27 GMT -5
You also said you were thinking of making any player eligible for RCs and you recanted that and said I never completely agreed to that you were just "thinking" about it. I dont like the idea of older players progressing. I was always against it, and I dont think the league was in favor of it by a large enough margin to change the rule that is currently in place. I don't think so. 16 in favor and 6 against changing the rule shows that a majority of the league was in favor of this. bballsim06.proboards89.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1180766952
|
|
|
Post by Outlawz on Sept 3, 2007 15:26:56 GMT -5
The only reason you made this rule is because Jordan gave you a PM to ask you what it was and all of sudden you decide to post this. Its bullshit and I am sick of you changing rules at the drop of hat. You continue to punish teams that win and GMs that work hard and are active in this league. This is my last season in BBS, I quit. Dont quit. Knicks-Bulls wont be the same.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:30:21 GMT -5
Ive been talking about changing this rule for many years now. I think its pretty fair, and Im gonna do it. I dont take kindly to threats. Dave youre an important part of the league, but the constant chip on your shoulder is very annoying. I didnt do this because of you, I did this because I like the idea of a lower Hard Cap. Jordan did remind me, but after Ducky textd me asking me what the Hard Cap was. I have forgotten the last couple of years to change this, and have realized how unfair it was to lower it without warning. I did some research and recanted my 95 mill Cap for next season, but I wont to lower it. I see nothing wrong with modifying a rule Ive stated numerous times I had planned to modify.
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Sept 3, 2007 15:30:46 GMT -5
my 2 cents, although it probably doesnt matter...
there needs to be a hard cap. there needs to be a reward to winning. if you continue to win, you can have a higher hard cap than the rest of the league (sort of like going over the luxary tax) i think bbs has become too orineted on "evening the playing field" with rules like only one max in season extension per 3 years, which really is a disadvantage to teams that trade for really good picks (like my team).
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 3, 2007 15:31:24 GMT -5
I didnt remember it being such a pronounced difference in votes. Ill set up a poll on whether it should take more RCs to upgrade the over 25 guys.
|
|
|
Post by Outlawz on Sept 3, 2007 15:31:55 GMT -5
Well you did mention it but i was confused as to when it was actually going to take effect. Hard cap is very punishing so maybe you should sticky it to remind people or something so we are up to date with that.
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Sept 3, 2007 15:32:01 GMT -5
I didnt remember it being such a pronounced difference in votes. Ill set up a poll on whether it should take more RCs to upgrade the over 25 guys. great idea
|
|