Nets/Lakers Over Hardcap

[Craig]

Can we start penalizing these teams that go over with loss of draft picks?
There is no way they should get to keep Pierce. He's gonna find a team that wants to tank to take Coffield for nothing probably and then sign 4 rookies and be fine.
I'm pissed about my own situation so this doesn't sit well with me. I'm probably extra mad.

I get what you're saying, it's not really a hard cap and it's also exploitable (intentionally or not). I think the practical issue is it's just difficult for the commish to be able to keep track of keeping people under during free agency.

[Cellar-door]

Can we start penalizing these teams that go over with loss of draft picks?
There is no way they should get to keep Pierce. He's gonna find a team that wants to tank to take Coffield for nothing probably and then sign 4 rookies and be fine.
I'm pissed about my own situation so this doesn't sit well with me. I'm probably extra mad.

I get what you're saying, it's not really a hard cap and it's also exploitable (intentionally or not). I think the practical issue is it's just difficult for the commish to be able to keep track of keeping people under during free agency.

To me there are two types of going over, and we should approach them differently:

1. Where you submit a bunch of bids, and you end up with multiple acceptances that put you over the cap....
I think this should either be treated as it is now... you have time to get under, or it should cost you a 2nd and you have time to get under.

2. Situations like the Nets this year, where you only are bidding on 1 player and you bid more than you should be allowed.
These should be treated differently... you should be responsible for tracking your own hardcap room and not bidding more. these should be punished one of 2 ways to me:
1. The player is released and you lose a 2nd.
or if that makes it hard for the commish
2. You lose a 1st, and are subject to losing more picks if you don't get under in the allotted time.

[the goat]

I don't think it should be on the Commish to enforce people's bids. If you only have 8M in cap but send an offer for 9M and it gets accepted, that player should go back in FA (coughcough)

[UOducksTK1]

True, we should undo the transaction that sent him over. But how do you handle the situation where 3 players sign at one period and sends him over the cap. Which player goes back?

[Briezy]

No love at the top for the nets. I guess after last off-season they thought they could just have their pick of the litter.

[dd10snoop28]

as a strict constitutionalist, that would be a modification of the rules without due process. although we likely operate in a benevolent dictatorship so this seems changeable.

the claim of negligence may be made against me; however, 60k (which is the amount I am over the cap) would likely make no difference in the FA results. Additionally, the 48hr rule is there for a reason to allow for professional accountants like me who make calculation errors when making bids to be able to correct their 60k error.

although u can make the case that my error was 4.5m + 60k over the cap b/c I offered the mle (not sure what I was thinking on that one) but OO cancelled that bid.

[dd10snoop28]

No love at the top for the nets. I guess after last off-season they thought they could just have their pick of the litter.

blazers have executed their propaganda scheme to perfection over last 1.5 season.

[UOducksTK1]

as a strict constitutionalist, that would be a modification of the rules without due process. although we likely operate in a benevolent dictatorship so this seems changeable.

the claim of negligence may be made against me; however, 60k (which is the amount I am over the cap) would likely make no difference in the FA results. Additionally, the 48hr rule is there for a reason to allow for professional accountants like me who make calculation errors when making bids to be able to correct their 60k error.

although u can make the case that my error was 4.5m + 60k over the cap b/c I offered the mle (not sure what I was thinking on that one) but OO cancelled that bid.

Burn him!!! Burn him!!!!! - Blazers GM

[dd10snoop28]

multiple gm's come out of the woodworks at the same time to appeal to the executive branch for unprecedented severity of punishment in order to take down a potential dynasty?

conspiracy written all over this one....and we know who the ringleader is.

FOIA request! show the pm's between blazers/hornets/celtics/lakers!!!!

[The Bean Regime]

multiple gm's come out of the woodworks at the same time to appeal to the executive branch for unprecedented severity of punishment in order to take down a potential dynasty?

conspiracy written all over this one....and we know who the ringleader is.

FOIA request! show the pm's between blazers/hornets/celtics/lakers!!!!

If anything I'm annoyed by the Bucks for taking the hit for free. Should have demanded a first!

[offtheheezy]

To me there are two types of going over, and we should approach them differently:

1. Where you submit a bunch of bids, and you end up with multiple acceptances that put you over the cap....
I think this should either be treated as it is now... you have time to get under, or it should cost you a 2nd and you have time to get under.

2. Situations like the Nets this year, where you only are bidding on 1 player and you bid more than you should be allowed.
These should be treated differently... you should be responsible for tracking your own hardcap room and not bidding more. these should be punished one of 2 ways to me:
1. The player is released and you lose a 2nd.
or if that makes it hard for the commish
2. You lose a 1st, and are subject to losing more picks if you don't get under in the allotted time.

I agree, I think we should just set consistent rules.

For situation #1, this seems to be whether or not the commish can "catch" you (again, unintentionally or intentionally). I think it's just impossible and should not be commish's responsibility to keep track of this. Way too much work when he's already putting in a ton of time for FA.

Two years ago my offers for my MLE and resigning together were rejected because if they both hit I'd be over the hardcap. This year I messaged commish about whether I can submit like a "priority list" to release a player if it puts me over the cap and he told me that I cannot submit bids that have any possibility of me going over. As a result I had to lower a lot of my bids for some stars back down to 11.25M, and lower my bid to my resigning down to 10M in order to even submit a max bid to Jordan/Turpin (which was a long shot cause everyone hates Vancouver ). This makes it seem like it would have been better if I had not asked and gone over and sold off someone after the fact for someone with cap.

We just need to be consistent then whether
1. this is going to be actually enforced and if something is missed that player is released
2. the last player that puts you over the cap is released like what happened here (https://ducksattack.com/forum/viewtopic ... 23&t=36581)
3. everyone is allowed to do whatever they want under the cap space that they have and if they go over the hard cap they have 48 hours to figure it out or lose a 1st.

(FWIW again, don't really care about Pierce )

[dd10snoop28]

heezy in on it too!

my 2 cents as the defendant, but moreso just as a general commentator:

1/ I think it is generally a bad idea to have inflexible rules (I mean moreso than the 48hr rule) for going over the hardcap in a league where we all are pretty good about knowing/following the rules. obviously, I did not follow the rules in this case but to say that anybody who goes over the cap should be punsihed by X or Y is a bit restrictive and not flexible for the specific situation. there is a difference between someone going 6m over the cap vs. someone going 500k over the cap. the 48hr rule is good b/c it is 100% guaranteed that somebody will make a mistake when calculating their bids and the like so it allows some flexibility for minor negligence. with that being said, it makes sense for Ownage to make an exception to the 48hr rule if there is gross negligence or a significant advantage gained (i.e. the mistake seemingly was done on purpose).

[UOducksTK1]

I feel a bunch of DASL political articles coming soon...

[Marzeial]

I enjoy this discourse but I'm also down for a good old fashioned witch hunt so let's pick which one we're going for and go all in on that one

[offtheheezy]

I enjoy this discourse but I'm also down for a good old fashioned witch hunt so let's pick which one we're going for and go all in on that one

Down with the Nets! Release Ralph Sampson to the Magic! Equality!