To help people understand how to structure legal contracts, I've created a simple tool that you should be able to access and edit. Enter (N, BYS, r) values in the purple cells, and the spreadsheet will calculate the total contract value (C) and the annual value for each year of the contract.
CP3-RocketsDWM(no other star at PG) Curry-Snake(RFA) Durant-4andrew(can offer a starting spot at SF after moving wright to SG) Love-nsink(has no starter at either PF or C) Howard-Jim(no starter at C with Jefferson listed as a PF) LeBron-TheRobSays(no starter at either PF/C)
The extra point for bird rights means all of the home teams would keep their stars right now. If other players are signed by those teams before they sign their star, i'll change it accordingly.
TheRobSays wrote:Why dont you just let us sign these guys now?
Because signing other free agents could either cause the team to not be able to afford their star. Therefore letting the process play out is the right course of action. For example, if you go out and spend enough elsewhere to not have 20M to offer to your star, then someone can swoop in and steal them. Right now, I see one player in the top tier of our free agents that could switch teams because of cap concerns.
Our rules right now say that you have to match salaries by either 150% or 100% + 5 million dollars, whichever is lower. This follows the NBA model, but the NBA uses a soft cap, while we have moved to a straight hard cap.
Option A) keep it as is, 150% rule or 100% +5 (the lesser of the two numbers) Used in all trades even when both teams are under the cap.
Option B) no percentage restrictions on trades, as long as both teams remain under the hard cap of 75 million after the trade, the trade is legal.
Here's how to vote: I'm including a poll with option A or B, you click which you prefer. Your vote is final after first submission(no changing Later)
Or you can post option A: number, option B: number
DVauthrin wrote:Our rules right now say that you have to match salaries by either 150% or 100% + 5 million dollars, whichever is lower. This follows the NBA model, but the NBA uses a soft cap, while we have moved to a straight hard cap.
Option A) keep it as is, 150% rule or 100% +5 (the lesser of the two numbers) Used in all trades even when both teams are under the cap.
Option B) no percentage restrictions on trades, as long as both teams remain under the hard cap of 75 million after the trade, the trade is legal.
Here's how to vote: I'm including a poll with option A or B, you click which you prefer. Your vote is final after first submission(no changing Later)
Or you can post option A: number, option B: number
My vote is option A: 2 Option B: 1
could we make the % rule, whichever is larger not smaller. the smaller makes it real hard to trade a cheap overperforming player (150% of 300K is only 450K, but if it ws 100%+5 he cld be trade for a comparbly peforming player just someone on a more vetern contract up to 5.3M) (for example Kevin love last year was only 2.something million he was just as valuable as anyone in the league but it'd have been hard to trade him for anyone except the cheapest players in the league)
I'm of the opinion that simpler is better, and the current rule isn't simple. As nsink said, Love would have been untradeable last year - even with the lesser changed to greater you couldn't have got fair value for him. Disputes over mistakes with trades are just not fun either.
Hence I voted for no restrictions provided both teams are under cap. If someone wants to take on a big salary hit & someone else wants to let a good player go for cap relief, so be it.
DVauthrin wrote:Our rules right now say that you have to match salaries by either 150% or 100% + 5 million dollars, whichever is lower. This follows the NBA model, but the NBA uses a soft cap, while we have moved to a straight hard cap.
Option A) keep it as is, 150% rule or 100% +5 (the lesser of the two numbers) Used in all trades even when both teams are under the cap.
Option B) no percentage restrictions on trades, as long as both teams remain under the hard cap of 75 million after the trade, the trade is legal.
Here's how to vote: I'm including a poll with option A or B, you click which you prefer. Your vote is final after first submission(no changing Later)
Or you can post option A: number, option B: number
My vote is option A: 2 Option B: 1
could we make the % rule, whichever is larger not smaller. the smaller makes it real hard to trade a cheap overperforming player (150% of 300K is only 450K, but if it ws 100%+5 he cld be trade for a comparbly peforming player just someone on a more vetern contract up to 5.3M) (for example Kevin love last year was only 2.something million he was just as valuable as anyone in the league but it'd have been hard to trade him for anyone except the cheapest players in the league)
If we keep the percentage rule, the 150% works both ways . Like last year if I'm trading love(3.92M) I can take on 5.88 mil or 2.62 mil in salary back.
4ndrew wrote:I'm of the opinion that simpler is better, and the current rule isn't simple. As nsink said, Love would have been untradeable last year - even with the lesser changed to greater you couldn't have got fair value for him. Disputes over mistakes with trades are just not fun either.
Hence I voted for no restrictions provided both teams are under cap. If someone wants to take on a big salary hit & someone else wants to let a good player go for cap relief, so be it.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Hockey
by dasein » Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:31 am 
