scully19 wrote:This is true, while it is a attempt to mimic the league to the best of our ability, we shouldn't have it as the rich get richer and create small market teams because they don't win enough before making it harder to win in the future.
I think it would be a good idea to scrap last years position in the tie breaker, and just use positional availability to determine tie breakers, and if they have the same positional availability then the team who had his rights retain him (if bidding).
The soft cap rule I'm not sure about, it is a rule everyone faces, and is balanced throughout the league (everyone has the same number, no team can get a higher soft cap number somehow). I guess the idea would be to scrap the soft cap all together, but this same problem will happen when you reach the hard cap and can't go higher than that, while someone else can and so outbids you.
My guess is this current system is most upsetting for you because you are in this predicament by someone else's doing. I would imagine that you wouldn't feel the same way if the amnesty clause happened and you could get under the cap and away from the financial problems you inherited. Then you can use that same rule to your benefit if you wanted.
All good points scully.
And if I may, let me rephrase my attitudes towards the soft cap. I'm fine with the rules in place for working within the soft cap, as frustrating as it seems to me. What I'm proposing is we should maybe look into enhancing those rules to give teams, ALL
teams, more flexibility - thus, allowing them to be more competitive.
What if working within the soft cap was based on a percentage of your remaining cap space, as opposed to a fixed number like .25M min, or 6M with the MLE? For me, it would seem a lot less constraining if I knew I could use up to 50, 60, or even 70% of my remaining cap space, within the rules, on one auction - if I wanted
to.** SEE BELOW **
The percentage amount would reset every time you signed a FA. So eventually, you would only be able to offer the .25M min, and even then, only if you were still under the hard cap.
Ex: Say you have 10M in cap space remaining, obviously over the soft cap. Instead of messing with an MLE or any other constraints, the rule would simply state that you could use up to a certain percentage of your remaining cap space. For this example let's use 50% (feeling lazy with the math right now
). So if I have 10M of hard cap space left, I can use up to 5M of that to sign a FA. Say I do manage to sign a FA at 5M. That means I now have 5M left in hard cap space. If I decide to go for another FA, I can only use 50% of that amount to sign that player. So now, I still have 2.5M to work with.
We could even make a stipulation that once within X amount of dollars of the hard cap limit, you can no longer use a percentage of your remaining cap space, thus falling back to the old hard limits of .25M min (or whatever limits we set). So for the example above, say we set that amount at 2M before the hard cap limit. What that means is that once I get within 2M of the hard cap, I can no longer use the percentage rule, only minimum bids. So because I'm at 5M remaining cap space, I can still use the percentage rule to bid on FAs. Once my salary hits 78M (hard cap limit being 80M), I would be restricted from using the percentage rule. And rightfully so, if I'm that close to the hard cap.** FROM ABOVE **
Realistically, I don't know that anyone would want to max themselves out at the hard cap. There just isn't that much true talent out there. And a system like this would make it easier for the squads that need help, especially those over the soft cap. Plus, it would now make FAs worth closer to what makes sense. Having Kris Humphries at 1.2M is great and all, but we can honestly say that his worth during the bulk of his run last season was probably more than that - at least in my opinion, he was worth more than the 2.6M I have in Luke Ridnour, and maybe even worth as much as the 4.5M I have in Tiago Splitter. So, at least having more leverage in bidding will attract premiums for the quality players, making things more realistic. And if someone just happens to sign a guy to a long term, low dollar deal, and it pays off, then congrats on that manager's basketball savvy.
I know the current rules are in place for everybody, and no one really hurts, or benefits, more from those rules than anyone else. I'm just looking at things in terms of competition and fun. And having hard limits to work with is very rigid, in my opinion. I think if we can make some enhancements to those rules, it may open up opportunities to make this particular league even more exciting and fun to play in.
Yeah, I know that sounds all 4th grader-ish, but it's the best way I can explain it.