ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Cross-Court Dynasty => NBA Leagues => Cross-Court Dynasty: Archives => Topic started by: Billy on April 11, 2022, 05:35:35 PM
-
Please post your vote here for which option you would rather go with.
Option A- Completely get rid of allowing cash to be paid on players in trades.
Option B- A team can have no more than a net $25m in cash paid from another team on their roster. Meaning if you have are paying say $10m in cash on player's trade away from your roster, you can not have more than $35m coming in from other teams.
-
I am voting for option A.
-
Option B, no payments at all seems like a bit of a rash move.
-
option A for me as well.
-
If these are only 2 options, I am voting for B.
That said, if plan is to make the change starting this offseason (which makes sense), then I think it would be fair to not penalize teams that previously made moves with cash for future seasons. My Jazz as is are over the 25m net for 2023.
-
If these are only 2 options, I am voting for B.
That said, if plan is to make the change starting this offseason (which makes sense), then I think it would be fair to not penalize teams that previously made moves with cash for future seasons. My Jazz as is are over the 25m net for 2023.
Yes, it would go into effect immediately. It just would go like the salary cap. Meaning if you started off season over the cap, every move has to be to clear some cap. Would just mean any deal involving cash on a players contract, would need to get you closer to the net $25m
-
If anyone has another option that would be good for this vote, let me know. I?m good to listen on another option. Just can?t be to keep it the same. The cash exchanged on players contracts does need to be reigned in
-
Option A
-
Voting for option B.
I feel option A is just like a generic fantasy league😅.
-
Yes, it would go into effect immediately. It just would go like the salary cap. Meaning if you started off season over the cap, every move has to be to clear some cap. Would just mean any deal involving cash on a players contract, would need to get you closer to the net $25m
That's fair, I am on board with this should option B pass.
If anyone has another option that would be good for this vote, let me know. I?m good to listen on another option. Just can?t be to keep it the same. The cash exchanged on players contracts does need to be reigned in
My suggestion would be to not limit overall number, but rather limit the amount on any given player. Say no more than 50% (or a lower number if preferred) on a given salary.
Player % option 1: Simply say each year of contract no more than 50% can be paid per a season.
e.g. player on a 2 year 20m contract, max payment would be up to 10m each year 2023 and 2024.
Player % option 2: Variation to above but instead of 50% being per a season it is allowed to be spread over total contract in any way agreed up.
e.g. player on a 2 year 20m contract, max payment allowed would be 20m total. Should a team wish they can pay 20m in 2023 and zero in 2024 as 1 scenario... the 10m each season as per option 1 or any other combination of 20m is still allowed.
Again 50% can be changed, I just find it works well for other leagues (both options I have played with).
However, still no issue with the proposed option B if this makes more sense for CCD.
-
I'm not sure how I'm voting yet.
I will say that percentages are tough for some to understand and are harder to keep track of, which I think is part of how the cash exchanges got a little out of control. I think some people have a hard time figuring out the current/future impact of the cash exchanges. I know it took me a little bit to figure them out myself and I like to think I know what I'm doing. Fortunately, my first trade proposal with a cash exchange in this league the manager accepted, but asked me to not pay as much as I had offered to pay on the player I was sending him.
Just my 2 cents.
-
I'm not sure how I'm voting yet.
I will say that percentages are tough for some to understand and are harder to keep track of, which I think is part of how the cash exchanges got a little out of control. I think some people have a hard time figuring out the current/future impact of the cash exchanges. I know it took me a little bit to figure them out myself and I like to think I know what I'm doing. Fortunately, my first trade proposal with a cash exchange in this league the manager accepted, but asked me to not pay as much as I had offered to pay on the player I was sending him.
Just my 2 cents.
I do see what you mean.
Not to steer discussion too far off from the vote, but 1 factor in salary payment/relief is usually teams give up more assets. When it comes to draft, a team like my Jazz has no picks for several years due to trades, as an example.
Either way, I do agree some adjustment helps league.
-
Please post your vote here for which option you would rather go with.
Option A- Completely get rid of allowing cash to be paid on players in trades.
Option B- A team can have no more than a net $25m in cash paid from another team on their roster. Meaning if you have are paying say $10m in cash on player's trade away from your roster, you can not have more than $35m coming in from other teams.
I vote option A.
I understand both sides but at the end of the day option A is better for the franchises & being able to have new GMs come in with a real shot to compete.
We have to fix this going forward gentlemen.
:toast:
-
I vote option A.
I can live with either. Either would be better than unlimited. But I usually vote for rules that make it more like real life. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that cash traded in the NBA does not lower the salary cap of the team receiving cash. Not sure why it would be necessary here.
-
Voting for option B
-
B
-
Option A
-
We slightly prefer option B (maybe with a limit lower than $25m) just to have some additional flexibility in the trades. We are also open to accept option A but we would like to understand better what are the effects of the new rule on teams which already finalized deals with cash exchanges. In particular, if option A is applied, is it valid only for new trades or will be retroactive (in this case, it would probably make sense to have a ramp up period to give teams some time to come back within the new limit)?
-
Option B.
The reality for me, is cash can be included in NBA trades in real life. It's not like we apply it here, which is much more like the MLB system, but it can be included. The NBA also has limitations on it, so including limitations here 100% makes sense.
I'm not sure that it makes it any easier or complicated, but since the NBA system just allows cash to be traded, what if our system moves to something more like that? The cash is no longer tied to a contract or a player. Simply you can be paying up to 25M to other teams in any calendar season?
I vote B either way, just something that may add a bit more realism to the league where it's possible.
-
My vote is option A
-
I'm wondering if a third option that is in the middle of the two options might be better all around and more palatable to more managers. Right now by my count the vote is 7 to 7.
I think at least some people are voting for Option A because they still feel that net $25m in cash exchanges is a rather significant advantage and they don't necessarily want to get rid of cash exchanges, but want to get rid of the significant advantage. I also think at least some people are voting for Option B because they want to save the cash exchanges regardless of the $25m or any limit and may believe $25m is still rather high.
A middle ground of say $10m net cash exchanges might be more desirable for some that voted Option A and those that voted Option B. Option A and Option B seem very far apart to me. I certainly want to reign in cash exchanges, but also really like the concept and would like to keep it. I'm stuck in the middle with thinking $25m is still a lot, but also thinking getting rid of cash exchanges would be removing a fun and intellectual aspect of the game. An Option C of a max of net $10m on cash exchanges would be my vote if it were an option.
-
Option A.
Paying on contracts is circumventing the salary cap.
-
I would vote for an Option C of a lower net limit of $10m on cash exchanges.
Choosing between the two Options I will go with Option A.
$25m is a little too much for me still and removing the cash exchanges is easier for everyone to understand and for the commissioner to process. Option A would remove some rebuilding strategies, such as those employed by Toronto Raptors last year and Detroit last 2 years, but overall will make great teams pay up to rebuilding teams even more if they want to unload a bad salary.
I think overall Option A is better than Option B for the league.
-
We slightly prefer option B (maybe with a limit lower than $25m) just to have some additional flexibility in the trades. We are also open to accept option A but we would like to understand better what are the effects of the new rule on teams which already finalized deals with cash exchanges. In particular, if option A is applied, is it valid only for new trades or will be retroactive (in this case, it would probably make sense to have a ramp up period to give teams some time to come back within the new limit)?
If option A is what we go with, it would have no effect on past deals. Anyone that has already been traded and has money paid on their contract will be grandfathered in. Just no new trades would be able to have cash exchanged
-
In my opinion, if we're gonna go as low as $10m net allowed for cash exchanges, might as well completely remove it.
Vote Tally currently as of this post
Option A- 9
Option B- 7
-
If option A is what we go with, it would have no effect on past deals. Anyone that has already been traded and has money paid on their contract will be grandfathered in. Just no new trades would be able to have cash exchanged
Would this stand for deals made before this decision is finalized?
-
Would this stand for deals made before this decision is finalized?
Any deals involving cash exchanges will need to wait until the vote is finalized.
-
I don't like either, but prefer option B.
I admit I am a little biased since my team might be hurt by these rule changes*, but I don't think it helps rebuilding teams either. It will make veterans on medium/large contracts lose a ton of value, which means rebuilders have to just hold on to slightly bad contracts or buy them out. I see this issue in another league I am in with a hard cap and no exchanges. Even slightly overpaid veterans can be nearly untradeable there. Which would also mean rebuilders have even more incentive to tank rather than sign older players in free agency and make the league even more unbalanced.
For example, the Brandon Ingram for three 1sts trade probably helped Detroit rebuild, but it would be illegal under either new rule. Maybe only allowing cash exchanges one year in advance would be an alternative.
Also, this doesn't do anything about teams doing what I did this year and going way over to re-sign players. My thought is doing a hard cap for salary (accounting for cash exchanges) might be better than just limiting cash exchanges. I would recommend 165m (150% of cap), but most owners seem to think that is too high anyway despite being less than a couple teams were at this year.
* I think the teams that benefit most are contending teams with good cap situations like the teams from the finals (NYK and SAS, but more so NYK of those two). Not only do they not lose too much flexibility with rule changes, but it is now harder for other good teams to make win-now moves involving veterans with larger contracts.
-
I play in 2 Dynasty bball leagues, both full 30 teams, and what we have is you are allowed to pay up to 25% of a player's salary for 2 years and I think 20% might be 3 years. Anyways, the way the salary cap is structured, and I am not sure on the exact +/- allowed to deviate total from original cap, but it is structured so that no team can trade more than (Example here) 20% of the original cap nor acquire more than an additional 20% on top of the original cap.
This helps prevent super teams while allowing cap on players to be dealt reasonably and responsibly. Not sure that would fly in these leagues, but just throwing in my 2 cents.
I say allow cap dealt w/players up to a certain % for a max of X years. Specifics could be decided later if we go this route.
-
The below are only ones who have checked in who have not casted a vote yet
:CLE-NBA: - STLBlues91
:BOS-NBA: - uli17bg
:LAC: - indiansnation
:TOR-NBA: - gem9n9
:POR: - Teton
:BRK-NBA: - Braves155
:ORL: ajm5551
:MEM: BadHabit
:CHI-NBA: Anthony
-
Option B
-
Magic vote for Option B
Thanks!
-
A for me
-
Updated Tally
Option A- 10
Option B- 10
-
How would everyone feel if we throw in an extra option or 2 to the vote and just start from the beginning? Seems we are stuck in a stand still at 10-10. Some options I've seen suggested are.
1. Drop the amount allowed to a $10m-$15m net cash exchanged on contracts.
2. Instead of a net allowed on roster, change to 25% max allowed to be covered on a player's contract (meaning if a player makes $10m over 4 years, the max that can be paid on them is a total of $20m).
3. Remove the ability to pay on players contracts but instead institute Cash that can be traded that does not tie to a player's contract. Max allowed would be net $15-$25m cash from other teams.
Or should we just stick with the 2 options?
-
If the net cash exchange were changed to $10m I would change my vote from no cash exchanges allowed to voting for $10m net cash exchanges.
If everyone else voted the same (no cash exchanges or allowing cash exchanges) the vote would then be 9 for no cash exchanges and 11 for net cash exchanges of $10m.
If we did a revote at $10m net cash exchange instead of $25m net cash exchanges as an option and no cash exchanges as the other I think everyone that voted for $25m net cash exchanges would vote for $10m net cash exchanges, while myself and possibly others would change our votes to $10m net cash exchanges from no cash exchanges, therefore causing $10m net cash exchanges to win the vote.
$10m net cash exchanges mostly gives the no cash exchange group what they want in league parity and balance and cuts down on most of the circumventing of the cap, while it gives the net $25m cash exchange group what they want in not wanting cash exchanges to go away. I think it would probably work for the majority of managers.
-
We are still undecided on how to vote.
Would it make sense a combination of option 1 and 3 (cash exchanges are allowed and can be tied or not to a player's contract) with a limit of $15m net cash exchanged on an annual basis?
It would allow some additional flexibility in the trades limiting any potential disparity
-
Vote closed. Please post your vote in the new thread for this vote where there are 5 options to choose from.