It's going to be interesting. Shortens timelines for teams for sure since extensions build year after year.
Less dynasties and more player movement
In 1.0, the last ten or so seasons, there was not much movement between non playoff teams and playoff teams as they stacked players for depth so it was difficult for other teams to breakthrough.
Now with the lower hardcap, GMs need to make more decisions on resigning players instead of just resigning and keeping them on the bench. IMO, this will make the league more competitive in a good way and GM’s will need to make hard decisions
Zyme wrote:It means you can only have 4, 15 mil max players.
15M isn't the max. There are already players signed for more.
I do think we'll need to discuss a cap bump down the road because of how extensions work, with no max and cap hits increasing significantly by year. It dis-incentivizes keeping your stars and encourages everyone to build in 2-3 year windows, which I guess helps keep the less involved teams involved, but also isn't particularly in keeping with how a good GM would operate in real life.
Craig wrote:A good GM operates and does well within the system in place.
I agree to an extent, but my issue is more that, if you are going to artificially hard cap, you need to either take that into account when calculating extensions, or take how the game calculates contracts into consideration when setting the cap. Basically the game anticipates a real world scenario, with a soft cap that rises each year when calculating the extensions, but we made a hard cap, in 1.0 we periodically raised the cap to account for that, if we aren't doing that in 2.0, it creates the weird incentive where you are better off not extending players, and instead blowing up contenders very early.
I get Oregon's idea that 1.0 suffered from too high a cap, though generally I disagree. Teams got loaded in 1.0 because more than half the league was in a constant tank, thinking they were going to somehow put together a title team with a bunch of draft picks (none of them did).
I mean...I wouldn’t call it “blowing up a contender” to do something like decline Greenwood’s extensión offer and try to re-sign him for a lower number lol. This scenario just means you have to be more calculated with your spending
Craig wrote:I mean...I wouldn’t call it “blowing up a contender” to do something like decline Greenwood’s extensión offer and try to re-sign him for a lower number lol. This scenario just means you have to be more calculated with your spending
Oh I'm not just looking at my scenario.
I took a calculated change on Greenwood, knowing I'd need to trade one of my big 4 in a couple years.
But further down the line if you have 2 stars, you're looking at something like 35-45M just for 2 players 4-5 years down the road in this league as guys hit 2nd extensions.
Craig wrote:I mean...I wouldn’t call it “blowing up a contender” to do something like decline Greenwood’s extensión offer and try to re-sign him for a lower number lol. This scenario just means you have to be more calculated with your spending
Oh I'm not just looking at my scenario.
I took a calculated change on Greenwood, knowing I'd need to trade one of my big 4 in a couple years.
But further down the line if you have 2 stars, you're looking at something like 35-45M just for 2 players 4-5 years down the road in this league as guys hit 2nd extensions.
At max you end up with two aged stars and an up and comer then a bunch of MLE roleplayers
DASL1 Rings: '93, '94
K's HOF:
Mark "Wholly Mammoth" Eaton | Retired 2002, age 44: 24 min/8pts/8reb/1stl/2.5 blks/1 TO
Michael "Sweet Home" Ansley | Retired 2007, age 42: 33 min/16pts/8 reb/1.5stl/.5 blks/.5 TO Lifetime .550 shooting %
Gheorghe "Ghiţă (Ghitza, Little George)" Mureșan | Retired 2008, age 36: 35Min/16.2pt/12.2reb/2.1ast/1.6stl/2.9blk/1.3TO (.461/.715/.000)
I think we need to discuss 2 rule changes for next year's FA..
1. Maximum salaries for 1 year offers to guys under 31... (7M max on 1 year deals) It's actually in the rules we just never enforced it.
2. Punishment for knowingly making bids that put you over the hardcap. In particular bids where you get big $ players by offering a salary you know isn't possible. to me that should be an automatic loss of a 1st. (if you have no firsts to lose commish should cut the player and make you carry his salary).
Cellar-door wrote:I think we need to discuss 2 rule changes for next year's FA..
1. Maximum salaries for 1 year offers to guys under 31... (7M max on 1 year deals) It's actually in the rules we just never enforced it.
2. Punishment for knowingly making bids that put you over the hardcap. In particular bids where you get big $ players by offering a salary you know isn't possible. to me that should be an automatic loss of a 1st. (if you have no firsts to lose commish should cut the player and make you carry his salary).
Agree with #1.
I think #2 is hard to tell intention. Let's just try and abstract away human error by setting it to be consistent and not dependent on being caught. Either always release the player that makes you go over the cap (I think FBB gives you an order of offers accepted based off the screenshots), or make it up to the GM and enforce the 48 hour rule.
Another rule I think we should add starting this offseason....
you can't make a trade with no benefit to your team.
If you want to tank you need to get back picks or clear future cap, or get young players or something.
Trades of good players for bad players where you get no benefit are not in keeping with how a real league should work, and we should ban them.
Cellar-door wrote:Another rule I think we should add starting this offseason....
you can't make a trade with no benefit to your team.
If you want to tank you need to get back picks or clear future cap, or get young players or something.
Trades of good players for bad players where you get no benefit are not in keeping with how a real league should work, and we should ban them.
Trading to get worse is a benefit though. A better lottery position is better than a 2nd rounder.
