Finances

[Brophdog88]

You act like this is some magic formula to fix contracts. The magic formula is for GM's to not offer the Marion's of the league a 125 million when the highest anybody else can offer is a 14 million dollar starting first year. Given max raises, the max a team coulda given a Marion type is 105 million. Thats 20 million less than what you resigned him to over 6 years. You coulda given a 16.5 million dollar first year with raises of 2.5% and beaten that overall, and really, even flat is pretty well guaranteed to win since it offers over 2.5 million more in year 1, and more in year 2 and 3 (FBB loves year 1).
How would you recommend handling resignings? If a guy like Marion offers to resign for more than the new limit, should it just be accepted that that is him resigning for the new Max (I'd say in this case it has to be no, pretty large gap between what he wanted and what the actual value is gonna be, may have wanted to sign elsewhere if given the same money anywhere.), So now the guy has to go to FA, far more often and with far more risk involved than now for the team trying to keep the player. Sure would be nice if they could offer that extra money. But if you allow that, but cheapen the overall contracts, well now the system is the same, but you've just discounted veteran players, making it far too easy to keep teams together, because you still have the easier time keeping them around, only now you don't have the downside of the extra salary. The current system works best given the way the game is designed. Put the impetus on GM's to NOT offer huge contracts unnecessarily, since there are no real instances where they are needed with the games emphasis on first year salary.

[dave]

So what do 6-7 year vet max deals add to the league? What are the positives?

a downside to having vets. You keep acting like you HAVE to give these contracts out or something

You didn't answer the question.

Again, teams are not FORCED to offer 6 or 7 years, so they add flexibility for GM's to use those years, and, if GM's do a poor job managing their situation, its a punishment for needing to offer that to keep the team safe.

What are the positives? You keep ducking the question.

[Brophdog88]

So what do 6-7 year vet max deals add to the league? What are the positives?

a downside to having vets. You keep acting like you HAVE to give these contracts out or something

You didn't answer the question.

Again, teams are not FORCED to offer 6 or 7 years, also they add flexibility for GM's to use those years, and, if GM's do a poor job managing their situation, its a punishment for needing to offer that to keep the team safe.

What are the positives? You keep ducking the question.

No, I didn't, I just didn't realize you needed a list of positives laid out so plain.

• They make vets more expensive than standard rookies, and keep teams from hoarding talent as has been said before
• They offer flexibility to keep your player, you continually act like the 6th and 7th year must be something awful like you gave Marion, but its entirely not necessary, you coulda cut his final year salary by almost 10 million and kept him, or, just let him walk, there was nobody forcing you to sign him back, if you felt you absolutely had to keep him, why should you be limited somehow from keeping him on a large deal if that's what you want to do.

Now, a few questions, what would you want to do with resignings. Take the contract Marion resigned for, should that just magically be reduced to a 4 year max of the size you wanted? I'd say no, the player should go to FA if he doesn't sign the deal under the expected max (because lets be fair, it would make resignings WAY easier if the resigning range was some 7 million dollar gap for the first year. You haven't explained how to adjust the contracts down, you act like your "fix" is simple, straightforward, but it is anything but. If these guys now go to FA, now the only thing teams can offer is a 4 year deal the same as everybody else with 2.5% extra raises? Hope you like tanking the value of older players, because FA is going to be a complete crapshoot, probably going to lose vets left and right to other teams. Wanna give them that extra year and salary back again to help hold the vets? Well, now all you have done is make vets cheaper, making it easier to hold onto them AND other younger talent as it gets older and needs to be paid. Dynasties are not fun for the league in general, making it easier to keep them is a terrible idea.

[Skyhooker]

So what do 6-7 year vet max deals add to the league? What are the positives?

a downside to having vets. You keep acting like you HAVE to give these contracts out or something

You didn't answer the question.

Again, teams are not FORCED to offer 6 or 7 years, so they add flexibility for GM's to use those years, and, if GM's do a poor job managing their situation, its a punishment for needing to offer that to keep the team safe.

What are the positives? You keep ducking the question.

It's pretty clear that for GM's that are smart at managing money and the rest of their team that 6-7 year contracts on vets can lock up a great player. That seems pretty obvious. And in fact you could lock up 4-5 great players with the cap where it is and take a chance at winning 3 or 4 straight titles. But you also take a chance that 1 or 2 of them don't pan out and you'll have a hard time trading them or getting rid of their contract. This seems just like real life risks that teams take.

[dave]

It's smart to offer a max contract to insure you retain your best talent because if you don't someone looking to make a splash in free agency will.

Under my proposal you'd still be able to do that and you wouldn't be able to hoard 4-5 maxes. Not one team in the league has ever done that so why would they now?

What wouldn't exist is contracts like Tim Duncan. Age 34- 18.2 mil, 19.6 mil, 21 mil. Currently on a rebuilding team, a shell of his former self, and basically praying he retires.

If we had a 3-4 yr cap on over 30yr old maxes Duncan would be back in the free agent pool to either be resigned or acquired by a another team. Pistons would be able to be a much more active franchise in the offseason. Instead he's handcuffed and somewhat rendered to be inactive.

An unnatural contract like Steve Nash would never happen. Basically offered all those years to steal him away from Bucks. It's not perfect.

[dave]

So what do 6-7 year vet max deals add to the league? What are the positives?

a downside to having vets. You keep acting like you HAVE to give these contracts out or something

You didn't answer the question.

Again, teams are not FORCED to offer 6 or 7 years, also they add flexibility for GM's to use those years, and, if GM's do a poor job managing their situation, its a punishment for needing to offer that to keep the team safe.

What are the positives? You keep ducking the question.

No, I didn't, I just didn't realize you needed a list of positives laid out so plain.

• They make vets more expensive than standard rookies, and keep teams from hoarding talent as has been said before
• They offer flexibility to keep your player, you continually act like the 6th and 7th year must be something awful like you gave Marion, but its entirely not necessary, you coulda cut his final year salary by almost 10 million and kept him, or, just let him walk, there was nobody forcing you to sign him back, if you felt you absolutely had to keep him, why should you be limited somehow from keeping him on a large deal if that's what you want to do.

Now, a few questions, what would you want to do with resignings. Take the contract Marion resigned for, should that just magically be reduced to a 4 year max of the size you wanted? I'd say no, the player should go to FA if he doesn't sign the deal under the expected max (because lets be fair, it would make resignings WAY easier if the resigning range was some 7 million dollar gap for the first year. You haven't explained how to adjust the contracts down, you act like your "fix" is simple, straightforward, but it is anything but. If these guys now go to FA, now the only thing teams can offer is a 4 year deal the same as everybody else with 2.5% extra raises? Hope you like tanking the value of older players, because FA is going to be a complete crapshoot, probably going to lose vets left and right to other teams. Wanna give them that extra year and salary back again to help hold the vets? Well, now all you have done is make vets cheaper, making it easier to hold onto them AND other younger talent as it gets older and needs to be paid. Dynasties are not fun for the league in general, making it easier to keep them is a terrible idea.

The integrity of free agency remains the same. Salary is scaled and years are reduced.

Players over the age of 30:

Teams with birds can go 4 years.
Teams without birds can go 3 years.

Vet Max would start at 30% of salary cap. So it would be 12 mil

What is the downside here?

[bellsduck]

What wouldn't exist is contracts like Tim Duncan. Age 34- 18.2 mil, 19.6 mil, 21 mil. Currently on a rebuilding team, a shell of his former self, and basically praying he retires.

If we had a 3-4 yr cap on over 30yr old maxes Duncan would be back in the free agent pool to either be resigned or acquired by a another team. Pistons would be able to be a much more active franchise in the offseason. Instead he's handcuffed and somewhat rendered to be inactive.

No one made him offer Duncan that money. Period.

[catch 922]

What wouldn't exist is contracts like Tim Duncan. Age 34- 18.2 mil, 19.6 mil, 21 mil. Currently on a rebuilding team, a shell of his former self, and basically praying he retires.

If we had a 3-4 yr cap on over 30yr old maxes Duncan would be back in the free agent pool to either be resigned or acquired by a another team. Pistons would be able to be a much more active franchise in the offseason. Instead he's handcuffed and somewhat rendered to be inactive.

No one made him offer Duncan that money. Period.

I've coped with the fact that I may have to put up with three or four years of rebuilding while i wait for his contract to end. I weighed that issue when I made the original offer and I missed out on some other contracts I really feel like i should've gotten but that was part of the risk. There are other PF's going into free agency every year that other people can sign so no one is really missing out on him not going into the free agent pool.

I still had enough cap room to make serious offers during the offseason as well. I just didn't get the guys, but I made competitive offers even with the duncan contract. I've managed around it and will continue to do so until it runs out.

Duncan contract can't really be used in this argument because I knew the issues going into it and it's also not really a detriment to the league me having him for that much.

[Brophdog88]

It's smart to offer a max contract to insure you retain your best talent because if you don't someone looking to make a splash in free agency will.

Under my proposal you'd still be able to do that and you wouldn't be able to hoard 4-5 maxes. Not one team in the league has ever done that so why would they now?

What wouldn't exist is contracts like Tim Duncan. Age 34- 18.2 mil, 19.6 mil, 21 mil. Currently on a rebuilding team, a shell of his former self, and basically praying he retires.

If we had a 3-4 yr cap on over 30yr old maxes Duncan would be back in the free agent pool to either be resigned or acquired by a another team. Pistons would be able to be a much more active franchise in the offseason. Instead he's handcuffed and somewhat rendered to be inactive.

An unnatural contract like Steve Nash would never happen. Basically offered all those years to steal him away from Bucks. It's not perfect.

But you are ignoring the fact that a max for some non birds team in FA is well under what the bird year holding team can offer. The offer you beat with that given to Marion was a 14 million/15.4/16.8/18.2/19.6/21M deal, not an equivalent, You don't need to offer the max because THAT is all anybody can do.

[Brophdog88]

a downside to having vets. You keep acting like you HAVE to give these contracts out or something

You didn't answer the question.

Again, teams are not FORCED to offer 6 or 7 years, also they add flexibility for GM's to use those years, and, if GM's do a poor job managing their situation, its a punishment for needing to offer that to keep the team safe.

What are the positives? You keep ducking the question.

No, I didn't, I just didn't realize you needed a list of positives laid out so plain.

• They make vets more expensive than standard rookies, and keep teams from hoarding talent as has been said before
• They offer flexibility to keep your player, you continually act like the 6th and 7th year must be something awful like you gave Marion, but its entirely not necessary, you coulda cut his final year salary by almost 10 million and kept him, or, just let him walk, there was nobody forcing you to sign him back, if you felt you absolutely had to keep him, why should you be limited somehow from keeping him on a large deal if that's what you want to do.

Now, a few questions, what would you want to do with resignings. Take the contract Marion resigned for, should that just magically be reduced to a 4 year max of the size you wanted? I'd say no, the player should go to FA if he doesn't sign the deal under the expected max (because lets be fair, it would make resignings WAY easier if the resigning range was some 7 million dollar gap for the first year. You haven't explained how to adjust the contracts down, you act like your "fix" is simple, straightforward, but it is anything but. If these guys now go to FA, now the only thing teams can offer is a 4 year deal the same as everybody else with 2.5% extra raises? Hope you like tanking the value of older players, because FA is going to be a complete crapshoot, probably going to lose vets left and right to other teams. Wanna give them that extra year and salary back again to help hold the vets? Well, now all you have done is make vets cheaper, making it easier to hold onto them AND other younger talent as it gets older and needs to be paid. Dynasties are not fun for the league in general, making it easier to keep them is a terrible idea.

The integrity of free agency remains the same. Salary is scaled and years are reduced.

Players over the age of 30:

Teams with birds can go 4 years.
Teams without birds can go 3 years.

Vet Max would start at 30% of salary cap. So it would be 12 mil

What is the downside here?

Why do you keep asking questions I already answered in the post you quoted

[dave]

What wouldn't exist is contracts like Tim Duncan. Age 34- 18.2 mil, 19.6 mil, 21 mil. Currently on a rebuilding team, a shell of his former self, and basically praying he retires.

If we had a 3-4 yr cap on over 30yr old maxes Duncan would be back in the free agent pool to either be resigned or acquired by a another team. Pistons would be able to be a much more active franchise in the offseason. Instead he's handcuffed and somewhat rendered to be inactive.

No one made him offer Duncan that money. Period.

I've coped with the fact that I may have to put up with three or four years of rebuilding while i wait for his contract to end. I weighed that issue when I made the original offer and I missed out on some other contracts I really feel like i should've gotten but that was part of the risk. There are other PF's going into free agency every year that other people can sign so no one is really missing out on him not going into the free agent pool.

I still had enough cap room to make serious offers during the offseason as well. I just didn't get the guys, but I made competitive offers even with the duncan contract. I've managed around it and will continue to do so until it runs out.

Duncan contract can't really be used in this argument because I knew the issues going into it and it's also not really a detriment to the league me having him for that much.

Yes you were forced to do this because if you didn't then it was more than likely you wouldn't have landed Duncan. You obviously weighed reward and consequence but the way the league is structured you had to add on extra years.

With my proposal you wouldn't encounter this problem. Sure you can obviously operate around the contract but wouldn't it be better if you didn't?

[dave]

It's smart to offer a max contract to insure you retain your best talent because if you don't someone looking to make a splash in free agency will.

Under my proposal you'd still be able to do that and you wouldn't be able to hoard 4-5 maxes. Not one team in the league has ever done that so why would they now?

What wouldn't exist is contracts like Tim Duncan. Age 34- 18.2 mil, 19.6 mil, 21 mil. Currently on a rebuilding team, a shell of his former self, and basically praying he retires.

If we had a 3-4 yr cap on over 30yr old maxes Duncan would be back in the free agent pool to either be resigned or acquired by a another team. Pistons would be able to be a much more active franchise in the offseason. Instead he's handcuffed and somewhat rendered to be inactive.

An unnatural contract like Steve Nash would never happen. Basically offered all those years to steal him away from Bucks. It's not perfect.

But you are ignoring the fact that a max for some non birds team in FA is well under what the bird year holding team can offer. The offer you beat with that given to Marion was a 14 million/15.4/16.8/18.2/19.6/21M deal, not an equivalent, You don't need to offer the max because THAT is all anybody can do.

Offer for non-bird players should be lower. It's good to have bird teams having a distinct advantage. Fact is max players usually get max offers so the only way to have best shot of retention is maxing.

[dave]

You didn't answer the question.

Again, teams are not FORCED to offer 6 or 7 years, also they add flexibility for GM's to use those years, and, if GM's do a poor job managing their situation, its a punishment for needing to offer that to keep the team safe.

What are the positives? You keep ducking the question.

No, I didn't, I just didn't realize you needed a list of positives laid out so plain.

• They make vets more expensive than standard rookies, and keep teams from hoarding talent as has been said before
• They offer flexibility to keep your player, you continually act like the 6th and 7th year must be something awful like you gave Marion, but its entirely not necessary, you coulda cut his final year salary by almost 10 million and kept him, or, just let him walk, there was nobody forcing you to sign him back, if you felt you absolutely had to keep him, why should you be limited somehow from keeping him on a large deal if that's what you want to do.

Now, a few questions, what would you want to do with resignings. Take the contract Marion resigned for, should that just magically be reduced to a 4 year max of the size you wanted? I'd say no, the player should go to FA if he doesn't sign the deal under the expected max (because lets be fair, it would make resignings WAY easier if the resigning range was some 7 million dollar gap for the first year. You haven't explained how to adjust the contracts down, you act like your "fix" is simple, straightforward, but it is anything but. If these guys now go to FA, now the only thing teams can offer is a 4 year deal the same as everybody else with 2.5% extra raises? Hope you like tanking the value of older players, because FA is going to be a complete crapshoot, probably going to lose vets left and right to other teams. Wanna give them that extra year and salary back again to help hold the vets? Well, now all you have done is make vets cheaper, making it easier to hold onto them AND other younger talent as it gets older and needs to be paid. Dynasties are not fun for the league in general, making it easier to keep them is a terrible idea.

The integrity of free agency remains the same. Salary is scaled and years are reduced.

Players over the age of 30:

Teams with birds can go 4 years.
Teams without birds can go 3 years.

Vet Max would start at 30% of salary cap. So it would be 12 mil

What is the downside here?

Why do you keep asking questions I already answered in the post you quoted

Because you make no sense. In one breathe you're saying how much bird teams have advantage and in next you're saying how everyone is going to lose players. Then while they're losing these players left and right there is going to be all these dynasties.

The only thing I'm proposing is scaling down max contracts for players essentially in their 3rd or 4th contract and capping the years so we're not having 34-36 year olds making 18-22 mil.

It promotes activity for all GMs and eliminates teams having a financial albatross

[FlDuckFan]

Again, teams are not FORCED to offer 6 or 7 years, also they add flexibility for GM's to use those years, and, if GM's do a poor job managing their situation, its a punishment for needing to offer that to keep the team safe.

What are the positives? You keep ducking the question.

No, I didn't, I just didn't realize you needed a list of positives laid out so plain.

• They make vets more expensive than standard rookies, and keep teams from hoarding talent as has been said before
• They offer flexibility to keep your player, you continually act like the 6th and 7th year must be something awful like you gave Marion, but its entirely not necessary, you coulda cut his final year salary by almost 10 million and kept him, or, just let him walk, there was nobody forcing you to sign him back, if you felt you absolutely had to keep him, why should you be limited somehow from keeping him on a large deal if that's what you want to do.

Now, a few questions, what would you want to do with resignings. Take the contract Marion resigned for, should that just magically be reduced to a 4 year max of the size you wanted? I'd say no, the player should go to FA if he doesn't sign the deal under the expected max (because lets be fair, it would make resignings WAY easier if the resigning range was some 7 million dollar gap for the first year. You haven't explained how to adjust the contracts down, you act like your "fix" is simple, straightforward, but it is anything but. If these guys now go to FA, now the only thing teams can offer is a 4 year deal the same as everybody else with 2.5% extra raises? Hope you like tanking the value of older players, because FA is going to be a complete crapshoot, probably going to lose vets left and right to other teams. Wanna give them that extra year and salary back again to help hold the vets? Well, now all you have done is make vets cheaper, making it easier to hold onto them AND other younger talent as it gets older and needs to be paid. Dynasties are not fun for the league in general, making it easier to keep them is a terrible idea.

The integrity of free agency remains the same. Salary is scaled and years are reduced.

Players over the age of 30:

Teams with birds can go 4 years.
Teams without birds can go 3 years.

Vet Max would start at 30% of salary cap. So it would be 12 mil

What is the downside here?

Why do you keep asking questions I already answered in the post you quoted

Because you make no sense. In one breathe you're saying how much bird teams have advantage and in next you're saying how everyone is going to lose players. Then while they're losing these players left and right there is going to be all these dynasties.

The only thing I'm proposing is scaling down max contracts for players essentially in their 3rd or 4th contract and capping the years so we're not having 34-36 year olds making 18-22 mil.

It promotes activity for all GMs and eliminates teams having a financial albatross

I have 2 guys making 18+ but that's why I only offered them a 4 year contract and I'm still able to make moves and such.

[dave]

What are the positives? You keep ducking the question.

No, I didn't, I just didn't realize you needed a list of positives laid out so plain.

• They make vets more expensive than standard rookies, and keep teams from hoarding talent as has been said before
• They offer flexibility to keep your player, you continually act like the 6th and 7th year must be something awful like you gave Marion, but its entirely not necessary, you coulda cut his final year salary by almost 10 million and kept him, or, just let him walk, there was nobody forcing you to sign him back, if you felt you absolutely had to keep him, why should you be limited somehow from keeping him on a large deal if that's what you want to do.

Now, a few questions, what would you want to do with resignings. Take the contract Marion resigned for, should that just magically be reduced to a 4 year max of the size you wanted? I'd say no, the player should go to FA if he doesn't sign the deal under the expected max (because lets be fair, it would make resignings WAY easier if the resigning range was some 7 million dollar gap for the first year. You haven't explained how to adjust the contracts down, you act like your "fix" is simple, straightforward, but it is anything but. If these guys now go to FA, now the only thing teams can offer is a 4 year deal the same as everybody else with 2.5% extra raises? Hope you like tanking the value of older players, because FA is going to be a complete crapshoot, probably going to lose vets left and right to other teams. Wanna give them that extra year and salary back again to help hold the vets? Well, now all you have done is make vets cheaper, making it easier to hold onto them AND other younger talent as it gets older and needs to be paid. Dynasties are not fun for the league in general, making it easier to keep them is a terrible idea.

The integrity of free agency remains the same. Salary is scaled and years are reduced.

Players over the age of 30:

Teams with birds can go 4 years.
Teams without birds can go 3 years.

Vet Max would start at 30% of salary cap. So it would be 12 mil

What is the downside here?

Why do you keep asking questions I already answered in the post you quoted

Because you make no sense. In one breathe you're saying how much bird teams have advantage and in next you're saying how everyone is going to lose players. Then while they're losing these players left and right there is going to be all these dynasties.

The only thing I'm proposing is scaling down max contracts for players essentially in their 3rd or 4th contract and capping the years so we're not having 34-36 year olds making 18-22 mil.

It promotes activity for all GMs and eliminates teams having a financial albatross

I have 2 guys making 18+ but that's why I only offered them a 4 year contract and I'm still able to make moves and such.

Your team is actually a prime example. If Terry and Wally were making what I propose it would basically free up about 5 mil for you enabling you to actually extend Torres and have an MLE next year. Instead you're gonna be very tight next offseason with signing Brooks and Murphy and rounding out bench with minimums.