RR NBA Dynasty League - S1

[tucas]

I propose a slight rule change to be made in the off-season. Call me out if I'm totally out of line on this, please.

I am of the opinion, that in the current set up, those managers who are at the 40-year-cap actually hold a slight advantage over Managers who are not, by being able to sign and drop players off the waiver wire as they please with no consequence to their cap situation.

I believe those Managers who are NOT at the Cap limit, should have the option of signing the player to a deal for the remainder of the season that does not count against their cap, by waiving their right to restricted free-agency of that player.

And we could streamline the book keeping a bit as well with this, as any player who is declared to be signed in this regard will simpy be left off the books altogether; similar to what the masterful Soft Euros doing now with those players signed to Capped out teams.

And then any player not on a teams books is in the pool at the end of the year.

What do you guys think?

I was thinking the same thing too. Chances are if your at 40+ your not going to find a player on waivers who you'll extend so there isn't much of a penalty. It seems like its penalizing those under the cap and rewarding those over the cap with a shopping spree. I like your idea, I'm all for it.

[Soft Euro]

I need a bit more explanation. Is the suggestion that signing players won't count against the cap for all players if you say that you waive your right at re-signing them?

[joey_hesketh]

I need a bit more explanation. Is the suggestion that signing players won't count against the cap for all players if you say that you waive your right at re-signing them?

Exactly.

What do you think?

[Matt52]

I propose a slight rule change to be made in the off-season. Call me out if I'm totally out of line on this, please.

I am of the opinion, that in the current set up, those managers who are at the 40-year-cap actually hold a slight advantage over Managers who are not, by being able to sign and drop players off the waiver wire as they please with no consequence to their cap situation.

I believe those Managers who are NOT at the Cap limit, should have the option of signing the player to a deal for the remainder of the season that does not count against their cap, by waiving their right to restricted free-agency of that player.

And we could streamline the book keeping a bit as well with this, as any player who is declared to be signed in this regard will simpy be left off the books altogether; similar to what the masterful Soft Euros doing now with those players signed to Capped out teams.

And then any player not on a teams books is in the pool at the end of the year.

What do you guys think?

I don't like it.

advantage then goes to team under on completing trades and puts no consequence in place for adding and dropping a gazillion times to make up extra games.

I am happy to roll with majority but prefer to keep as same.

[Soft Euro]

I'm with Matt.

[joey_hesketh]

advantage then goes to team under on completing trades and puts no consequence in place for adding and dropping a gazillion times to make up extra games.

All the more incentive to keep yourself under the cap.

But right now the advantage lies with the Capped out team who can add and drop a gazillion times, and thats not right, in my opinion.

[Matt52]

All the more incentive to keep yourself under the cap.

But right now the advantage lies with the Capped out team who can add and drop a gazillion times, and thats not right, in my opinion.

The advantage of the capped team comes at a consequence: all trades must have equal years sent out coming back for the capped out team. So by your proposed rule the team under the cap now has a double advantage in trade and adding/dropping.

If the goal is to make this as close to the "real" thing as possible, then you need to have any player added count towards the cap. In the NBA even 10 day contracts count towards the cap and luxury tax calculations.

Also, as the rules currently stand, you can only extend 2 guys currently on your roster for the following season. Once you have 2 guys you want to keep and extend, this rule also adds another benefit to a team under the cap.

I think this rule takes away from the intended purpose of running a dynasty league. Every action needs to have implications.

[skywalker]

Also, as the rules currently stand, you can only extend 2 guys currently on your roster for the following season. Once you have 2 guys you want to keep and extend, this rule also adds another benefit to a team under the cap

I'm probably misunderstanding this, but can't a team that's over the cap now, still extend 2 players currently on the roster for the following season in the off season?

The rule states "At the end of the year you are allowed to two sign players on your roster to an extension for as many years as you want provided you remain under cap. This decision must be made prior to the draft."

I'm reading 'under the cap' in terms of my 2013-14 cap.. is that right? OR is the rule saying you can only extend 2 players if you have 'current' cap space. If it is the latter, only drizz, joey, and appollo are under the cap.

[Soft Euro]

I'm probably misunderstanding this, but can't a team that's over the cap now, still extend 2 players currently on the roster for the following season in the off season?

The rule states "At the end of the year you are allowed to two sign players on your roster to an extension for as many years as you want provided you remain under cap. This decision must be made prior to the draft."

I'm reading 'under the cap' in terms of my 2013-14 cap.. is that right? OR is the rule saying you can only extend 2 players if you have 'current' cap space. If it is the latter, only drizz, joey, and appollo are under the cap.

You are right. After the season all 1 year contracts come off the books and the others get lowered by one.

[skywalker]

You are right.

No one has ever said this to me.. lol

[joey_hesketh]

Again, this is only my opinion, but the capped out team should not be awarded ANY advantages. Period.
That's the way I look at it. Being at the cap should be something that is dreaded, not incentivized and rewarded.

[Soft Euro]

Again, this is only my opinion, but the capped out team should not be awarded ANY advantages. Period.
That's the way I look at it. Being at the cap should be something that is dreaded, not incentivized and rewarded.

I agree with that part. That's one reason why I want a bit more strict trade rules (team over the cap not being allowed to send out similar contracts but receive less players).

We might add some more rules to restrict possibilities for streaming. One way would be to limit the maximum number of player adds to one per week. This will in effect only hurt teams over the cap.

[Matt52]

Again, this is only my opinion, but the capped out team should not be awarded ANY advantages. Period.
That's the way I look at it. Being at the cap should be something that is dreaded, not incentivized and rewarded.

If the goal is to keep this as "real" as possible, then it should be left as is.

In the NBA you can sign as many guys to the minimum as you please once you are over the salary cap.

As I said originally, I"ll roll with the majority but I don't like the idea of changing the rule.

[Matt52]

I'm probably misunderstanding this, but can't a team that's over the cap now, still extend 2 players currently on the roster for the following season in the off season?

The rule states "At the end of the year you are allowed to two sign players on your roster to an extension for as many years as you want provided you remain under cap. This decision must be made prior to the draft."

I'm reading 'under the cap' in terms of my 2013-14 cap.. is that right? OR is the rule saying you can only extend 2 players if you have 'current' cap space. If it is the latter, only drizz, joey, and appollo are under the cap.

Yes and yes.

My wording might have been confusing but this is what I meant.

[joey_hesketh]

If the goal is to keep this as "real" as possible, then it should be left as is.

Well then we should be adding a Tax or something as well then ... otherwise its a system that rewards those who are over the cap, with almost zero punishment.

And thats much farther from "real" than what I am proposing.

Lost flexibility on trades being the only detriment is far from appropriate punishment to dissuade those from approaching the cap.

[koncept]

Hold on, hold on. So if we signed 2 players after we maxed out our salary cap, do we still have the ability to re-sign those as our 2 guys in the off season?

[joey_hesketh]

So if we signed 2 players after we maxed out our salary cap, do we still have the ability to re-sign those as our 2 guys in the off season?

Technically yes. Just everyone else can bid on them too.

[koncept]

So if tomorrow I added John Lucas and Quincy Acy to my roster and for whatever reason I wanted to extend them in the off-season, it wouldnt be allowed.

[Soft Euro]

So if tomorrow I added John Lucas and Quincy Acy to my roster and for whatever reason I wanted to extend them in the off-season, it wouldnt be allowed.

That hasn't changed since our conversation via pm. When signing players over the cap they are signed to unrestricted one year contracts. They will go the free agent pool and you can bid on them with your waiver money like anybody else once the free agent market opens.

[skywalker]

That hasn't changed since our conversation via pm. When signing players over the cap they are signed to unrestricted one year contracts. They will go the free agent pool and you can bid on them with your waiver money like anybody else once the free agent market opens.

So when i traded away my 1st round pick for Isaiah Thomas, I get him for the rest of this year, but at the end of the year, he's a free agent, meaning i just bid on him as i would any other free agent?

PS - I am really going to have a good handle on this for the 2017-18 season, so just as heads up, beware... lol