ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Cross-Court Dynasty => NBA Leagues => Cross-Court Dynasty: Archives => Topic started by: Billy on April 28, 2022, 01:41:29 PM
-
Ok we are starting this vote over with new options as it seems we have hit a stalemate with the original vote. I want to get this vote figured out before teams start going crazy in offseason moves. No discussions on other options, these are the final options on where we go with cash exchanges.
So post your vote below.
Option 1- Leave as is
Option 2- Eliminate cash exchanged on contracts entirely
Option 3- 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.
Option 4- Same as option 3 except $10m net instead of $25m
Option 5- Change to a max % allowed of 25% of a player's contract. Meaning if the player is on a 2 years contract on deal at $30m per season, the max total that can be paid on player is $15m (25% of the player's $60m contract value).
If after we get near end of vote and 2 options are close in votes, we will remove the lower 3 options and just re-vote at the 2 higher selected optins.
On options 2 and 5, previous trades would not be impacted. If someone already has money exchanged, it would be grandfathered
Vote Tally
Billy- 2
OUDAN- 5
STLBlues91- 5
IndianaBuc- 2
Vik- 5
cloud91- 5
jojowalkwalk- 1
uli17bg- 2
DynastyDeacon- 2
Brent- 2
gem9n9- 2
Daddy- 2
jimw- 2
interpaga- 5
seebnova- 4
Milton- 5
rotodojo- 2
RyanJames5- 5
DMarch47- 5
Teton- 5
Braves155- 5
ajm5551- 5
BadHabit- 2
tdtdtd
Anthony- 5
-
:CHA-NBA: votes Option 2
-
Just a clarification for option 3 and 4. Is the 15/25$ net limit on annual basis or include all the cash exchanged also for following years?
-
Just a clarification for option 3 and 4. Is the 15/25$ net limit on annual basis or include all the cash exchanged also for following years?
It's the same as the previous vote. It's net per year.
-
My vote goes to option 5
-
On option #5 is it a 25% limit per year or 25% over the whole contract? IE: A player makes $30m per year on a 4 year contract. Is the max paid of 25% per year ($7.5m max paid each year) or per contract (can be $30m fully paid in one year, $0 paid across the other 3 years).
25% across the contract still leaves us with the same issues, but just curbs out the shorter term contracts, which makes it even less like the NBA. IE: Anthony Davis is on a 4-year, $30m per year contract. Brent could trade him to a team and fully pay this year ($30m of $120m total is 25%) meaning that team could have a true salary of $140m just off of that 1 player. Any 4 year contract can still be fully paid for a whole year as that's your 25%. Since you can go above cap in future years you can just accumulate a lot of max contracts (4 years contracts or more) fully paid in the first year and you could operate several years above the cap in the same way teams did last year. That option is more of the same, but written differently. Compared to now it just means the rebuilding teams that have a veteran on an expensive 1 year contract they don't intend to resign can't be dealt easily or for as great a return as they are limited to only paying 25% of the single year.
-
On option #5 is it a 25% limit per year or 25% over the whole contract? IE: A player makes $30m per year on a 4 year contract. Is the max paid of 25% per year ($7.5m max paid each year) or per contract (can be $30m fully paid in one year, $0 paid across the other 3 years).
25% across the contract.
-
Option 4 changed. That should have said $10m not $15m
-
Option 2
-
Option 2.
-
Option 4
-
:DAL-NBA: votes for Option 5
-
Option 2
-
I normally don't get involved and let the league vote decide, but I would be wary of Options 1, 2 and 4. Here are basic reasons why.
1.) Keeping as is allows for 'Super' teams to form if rebuild teams are not careful and sacrifice too much cap to more power teams who want great players and max contracts.
2 Really impedes dealing and the idea of trying to mirror the NBA. Could anyone imagine the NBA or any sport ever not allowing cash to be exchanged in deals? 2 words: No, no.
4.) 10M is too little as a bunch of players on resign alone will exceed 15M or so, and if you have a hard cap of only being able to deal away 10M, it can b hard to deal and stay under cap if you have a max contract player.
I think the best option honestly is, as a league agree that any team may deal up to a certain percentage of cap away for a max of 3 years, but then must return to normal cap for at lest 2 yrs after that lowering. Also, any team may have up to a certain percentage above the current cap for 3 yrs, but that percentage is around or just lower than the amount any team may deal away. Same years restriction will apply.
I would say for example, if you want to have a lower cap, and the cap is 100M, you may go no lower than 80M, and on the upper bound, say 115M, to keep a competitive balance.
Maybe this doesn't make total sense, but could be a ay to allow cap deals and keep a competitive balance.
-
The options are not changing. The 5 that are listed are what we are voting on. Place your vote for which choice.
-
Option 2.
-
Option 5 :CHI-NBA:
-
Spurs vote for option 5 even if, as discussed by other managers, it would probably make sense, in our opinion, to include also a limit to total net cash received per year ($25m for example as in option 3), in order to limit the creation of 'super teams' and to really differentiate the new rule from the existing one. Anyway we know that the options cannot be modified, so we confirm the vote for option 5 as it is
-
Hard for me to vote as I'd say a combo or something of that nature of 3 and 5, so (Not trying to be funny either) so Option 5 (Might accidentally be quoted below).
-
Pls disregard. Accidental quote of above vote.
-
My primary goal with my vote of #4 $10m net cash exchange is to find a reasonable compromise to save cash exchanges from being eliminated, while also allowing for a competitive league.
I really really want to keep cash exchanges. I am very frustrated with the votes for #5 because I view that as not being reasonable and therefore not being able to beat a head to head vote with no cash exchanges in a final vote. A vote for #5 is essentially a vote for no cash exchanges.
Option #5 of 25% limit of total contract still means a team can trade for stars like Anthony Davis $120m total contract (4 years at $30m) and get him fully paid in the current year. A team can trade for anyone fully paid in the current year as long as their contract is 4 years or more as that is 25%. So a team can trade for Anthony Davis fully paid this year and another star or two fully paid this year, get to $175m+ total cap, then since you can be over the salary cap in future years they can have that same team locked in (assuming all other players also on long term contracts) for the next 3 years after the current one.
25% of total contract also means rebuilding teams looking to trade decent/good players on expensive contracts cannot do so because they are limited to only 25% paid. So they cannot trade the player away or get very little in return. IE: Toronto Raptors traded Norman Powell $11.3m on an expiring contract fully paid to Oklahoma City Thunder last year. Toronto is probably stuck with Norman Powell who doesn't fit the rebuild if there is a 25% limit as the max paid could only be $2.8m (25%) so any team getting him would still have to pay $8.5m. Not many if any teams are making that trade. A net $10m would mean that Powell could go to any number of competitive teams (assuming they didn't have other trades that affected net $10m) at a cost of only $1.3m for the acquiring team as Toronto could pay $10m. If a team had paid on other players they could potentially still get Powell fully paid.
If it comes down to a head to head of no cash exchanges vs. 25% of total contract limit I am reluctantly voting to eliminate cash exchanges as the alternative isn't reasonable. I think others will also vote the same way. I really really want to keep cash exchanges so this is extremely frustrating as I think net $10m can beat no cash exchanges, but $25m net, 25% contract limit, and keeping things the same don't have much of a chance. I think 25% contract limit is even worse than $25m net cash exchange limit as you can still go as high as you want in the current season and have everyone fully paid as long as they are on 4 year or more contracts. Plus then you have more stars and superstars than net $25m would allow and you can keep those players with the total team contract well above the net $25m limit for the next several years.
Everyone is entitled to their vote and to vote however they want. I certainly respect everyone's vote and know people vote differently for their own reasons, but I would consider what the final vote will be when making a vote in this qualifier round to narrow down the options in a future vote. Unwillingness to compromise now means you may get something further from what you want in the end.
-
We generally agree with the post above, with the difference that, between option 2 and option 5 (the two most voted options), we prefer option 5. We really do not like removing at all cash exchanges.
In particular, we agree that after the first vote equally split between no cash and $25m net limit, probably the best solution for the league is something in the middle. The problem is that, in our opinion, option 4 is too much close to having no cash exchange and not attractive for some teams if applied without a phase-out period (a net limit of $25m in 2023, decreasing to $15m from 2024 would be definitely better for us). A combination of option 5 with the addition of a limit for total net cash exchange would be the best solution for us but, considering that options cannot be changed, we confirm vote for option 5
-
Orlando Votes Option 5
Thanks for organizing this, and great discussion! All great ideas
:toast:
-
Seems option 5 is the best of these, since I don't want cash exchanges to go away
-
I vote Option 5. However, I do think there should be a strict cash amt per transaction (Ie 10-12M/player) and an absolute MAX and MIN a team may give and/or receive any given year.
If we go by an ABSOLUTE MAX received/dealt in a season, I propose something along the lines of $50/$40. This way it will enable teams some flexibility in terms of competing/rebuilding, but keeping the competitive balance within the league. I do think much more either way could bring about potential issues, so we will need to discuss limitations if #5 is most popular/voted for.
-
3
-
5
-
Option 1
-
5
-
Option 5 for :DET-NBA:
-
2
-
2
-
FIVE
:toth:
-
Option 5
-
Current vote
Option 1- 1
Option 2- 7
Option 3- 1
Option 4- 1
Option 5- 11
-
I'd like to change my vote from 3 to 5 given the current vote.
-
Option 2
If I've already voted please count my vote twice. :rofl:
-
Whoever has not voted let?s get this done. We can get some deals rolling once everyone knows what is happening here.
-
Whoever has not voted let?s get this done. We can get some deals rolling once everyone knows what is happening here.
Agreed, we just need a decision so we can get things moving
-
I am giving this vote till Friday night at 10 PM EST. If no one else votes, option 5 will be the winner and that will be the new cap exchange rule moving forward.
-
Option 4
-
I am giving this vote till Friday night at 10 PM EST. If no one else votes, option 5 will be the winner and that will be the new cap exchange rule moving forward.
Another vote was cast, but it was for an option that now has only two total votes.
A few questions.
1) Are we able to post trades starting at 10 PM EST tomorrow night that involve cash exchanges or do we have to wait for you to make a post declaring that option the winner?
2) I am assuming the 25% max contract rule applies to the max paid cumulatively by all teams. IE: De'Aaron Fox has a $26m per year contract for four years. Washington Wizards trades him to me and pays $26m on him in 2023 making it 25% of total contract. Can I then trade him again and pay $26m in 2024 making De'Aaron Fox fully paid in 2023 and 2024, which would be a max 25% of total contract per transaction, but 50% of total contract overall. I guess the question is whether the 25% max of total contract is per transaction or max of 25% over the course of the whole contract across all transactions?
*EDIT* As IndianaBuc pointed out to me via PM there is also the option of 25% of remaining contact (25% of $78m after $26m of original $104m contract paid per the Fox example).
-
Option2
-
Option 2
-
I would like to change my vote from option #4 to option #2.
I believe that makes the voting as follows:
Option #2 - 11
Option #5 - 12
-
Not looking to cause any drama or add to this long thread, but?
I just wanted to once again double down on my decision for voting on option #5.
A very strong chance I would step down as GM if we eliminate cash exchanges completely. There has to be middle ground here? and I think option 5 is it.
Thanks!
Alex
-
Another vote was cast, but it was for an option that now has only two total votes.
A few questions.
1) Are we able to post trades starting at 10 PM EST tomorrow night that involve cash exchanges or do we have to wait for you to make a post declaring that option the winner?
2) I am assuming the 25% max contract rule applies to the max paid cumulatively by all teams. IE: De'Aaron Fox has a $26m per year contract for four years. Washington Wizards trades him to me and pays $26m on him in 2023 making it 25% of total contract. Can I then trade him again and pay $26m in 2024 making De'Aaron Fox fully paid in 2023 and 2024, which would be a max 25% of total contract per transaction, but 50% of total contract overall. I guess the question is whether the 25% max of total contract is per transaction or max of 25% over the course of the whole contract across all transactions?
*EDIT* As IndianaBuc pointed out to me via PM there is also the option of 25% of remaining contact (25% of $78m after $26m of original $104m contract paid per the Fox example).
It's 25% overall. If Fox is traded with the 25% covered, he cannot be dealt again that season with more money covered)
-
Option 1- 1
Option 2- 10
Option 3- 0
Option 4- 1
Option 5- 12
@jojowalkwalk & @seebnova you have voted for options 1 or 4 and are the only ones to do so. Can you change your vote to whichever of option 2 and 5 that you prefer?
-
I am giving this vote till Friday night at 10 PM EST. If no one else votes, option 5 will be the winner and that will be the new cap exchange rule moving forward.
So are we operating under 5 now?
-
So are we operating under 5 now?
Part of what Billy said was "If no one else votes", which several people did vote or changed their votes so I am guessing we are still undecided? At this point I am waiting for a definitive rule change before I assume anything.
-
No. The vote was to be finalized Friday if no one else voted for option 2 to make it closer. Need the 2 that voted for the other options to decide on their preference of those 2 options that are leading.
-
Option 2
-
I?m beyond confused by this voting process. Is it not fair and square moving forward with option 5 as that had the most votes yesterday (Friday)?
It seems like a select few people are pushing hard for option 2 and will do whatever it takes to get it selected. I even received a PM from another owner about a trade they had setup and planned to complete for Anthony Davis if I didn?t change my vote to option 2. That owner was clearly hoping to send a message using the trade he had in place, but it did not change my opinion. Even after that PM I decided to stick with option 5.
More than okay with either option that is selected as I respect the process and league commissioners, but I will most likely step down as GM if we take away cash exchanges. I join leagues on ProFSL for the simulation type GM style, and taking away cash exchanges makes this all much more basic. Please do not take this as a threat, I am just being transparent.
I do agree we need to limit cash exchanges, but it seems way to extreme to end them all together.
Why not go with option 5, give it a year? if it still isn?t working, change to option 2. Doing it vice versa would not help at all. Just my two sense. :azn:
-
How long are we going to wait before calling it and is there a plan if there is a tie?
-
I?m beyond confused by this voting process. Is it not fair and square moving forward with option 5 as that had the most votes yesterday (Friday)?
It seems like a select few people are pushing hard for option 2 and will do whatever it takes to get it selected. I even received a PM from another owner about a trade they had setup and planned to complete for Anthony Davis if I didn?t change my vote to option 2. That owner was clearly hoping to send a message using the trade he had in place, but it did not change my opinion. Even after that PM I decided to stick with option 5.
More than okay with either option that is selected as I respect the process and league commissioners, but I will most likely step down as GM if we take away cash exchanges. I join leagues on ProFSL for the simulation type GM style, and taking away cash exchanges makes this all much more basic. Please do not take this as a threat, I am just being transparent.
I do agree we need to limit cash exchanges, but it seems way to extreme to end them all together.
Why not go with option 5, give it a year? if it still isn?t working, change to option 2. Doing it vice versa would not help at all. Just my two sense. :azn:
I feel I need to clarify things a little. I have had several conversations with managers that didn't fully understand option #5 and whether it was 25% per year or per total contract or they hadn't done the math to see if 25% of total contract makes a difference with the perceived issue of creating super teams. I have a deal in place to obtain Anthony Davis with the first full year fully paid, which is 25% of his contract, should option #5 pass. I used that as a real world example in case you hadn't thought it through and thought that a 25% limit would prevent major deals like that and prevent a star from getting traded with an entire year fully paid. That was all.
In response to that message you said via PM
I?m sticking with my decision!
Best,
Alex
You then posted the following on the cash exchange discussion thread:
Not looking to cause any drama or add to this long thread, but?
I just wanted to once again double down on my decision for voting on option #5.
A very strong chance I would step down as GM if we eliminate cash exchanges completely. There has to be middle ground here? and I think option 5 is it.
Thanks!
Alex
I then responded via PM:
Fair enough. I read your post on the cash exchanges and can totally respect that. Good luck this season!
I feel I need to clarify here that I didn't threaten anyone, simply used a real world example to see if everyone had fully thought through their decision to vote for option #5 and if they hadn't thought it through and now believe option #2 would be a better option they could change their vote. All that took place yesterday afternoon and I thought everything was good so I'm confused by the need to bring me into it today.
To be honest I am really ready for this thing to be decided in whatever way it goes. I think there has to be a better middle ground for these two camps of option #2 and option #5. I think option #2 people want sensible restrictions on cash exchanges and feel option #5 isn't sensible, while those who vote for option #5 feel no cash exchanges isn't sensible. I think the net cash exchange limits were a good common ground. As my wife pointed out this would have been a great opportunity for ranked choice voting. Given the divide a third option of $25m net cash exchange combined with a 25% total contract value might be the way to go as a compromise vs. half of us angry and upset and the other half mostly happy, but still wishing we went with something more toward the middle.
-
Agreed. There must be some sort of compromise. To me, option 2 was the extreme, so that resulted in my vote for 5.
And it sucks to say, but it is something I would leave a league over as it is a very important rule and aspect of deals. But maybe im crazy for thinking that.
Either way, this has just been one confusing thread that has almost made this league feel political and maybe we should look for 3rd party voting websites for future league change ideas.
:toth:
-
I stated at the beginning of the voting process, the options that are listed are the only options. We are not altering them
I also clearly stated that the vote would finalize Friday IF no one else voted for number 2 to close the gap.
This vote needs to be taken care of but I?m not going to finalize it if the vote is so close and neither option has more than half of the leagues votes.
-
then.. I go for option #5
-
The poll is now finalized. Moving forward, option 5 will now be the new rule on cash exchanges Involved in trades
-
Unless I'm incorrect, we will need to adjust how contracts are listed to be able to easily figure out what 25% of the entirety of a contract is correct?
We will need to know how long the deal was for, to be able to figure it out.
-
Unless I'm incorrect, we will need to adjust how contracts are listed to be able to easily figure out what 25% of the entirety of a contract is correct?
We will need to know how long the deal was for, to be able to figure it out.
I'll be removing the RC section of the spreadsheet and replacing that with the players current contract (only listing years/total contract). Everyone is going to be operating as if this year is the first year of any kind of deals with regards to cash exchanges.
-
I'll be removing the RC section of the spreadsheet and replacing that with the players current contract (only listing years/total contract). Everyone is going to be operating as if this year is the first year of any kind of deals with regards to cash exchanges.
Ok sorry I?m confused, we are factoring in the entire current contract and can pay 25% of that? My understanding was you can pay up to 25% of the remaining contract including this year. Obviously either way is ok just wanted some clarification.
-
It's over the total contract so if someone is on a 4 year deal and they are traded with an entire year paid of their contract (which is 25%), they cannot have any more paid on them till their current contract runs out.
-
It's over the total contract so if someone is on a 4 year deal and they are traded with an entire year paid of their contract (which is 25%), they cannot have any more paid on them till their current contract runs out.
Totally get that, My question is whoever is on a 5 year 20m deal but is in the last year of that. We can only pay 25% of the remaining contract in that situation assuming they have no more paid on them, Is that correct?
-
To clarify are you asking if someone originally signed a $20m per year deal for 5 years ($100m total contract) and has 1 year left of $20m can the 25% rule allow them to:
A) trade player and pay up to $20m (as $20m is only 20% of total original contract of $100m)
OR
B) trade player and pay up to $5m (25% of remaining contract of $20m)
-
It's over the total contract so if someone is on a 4 year deal and they are traded with an entire year paid of their contract (which is 25%), they cannot have any more paid on them till their current contract runs out.
On this issue, I would push for 25% of the current contract with the caveat that above say $17-20, the entire contract cannot be fully covered in 1 year. The minimum number of years should be 2-3 depending on the salary/season. The max in this league, from my understanding is essentially a total of 5 yrs/150M, or $30/season. If this is the case, 25% would be $37.5. However, in order to promote league parity (If such thing exists on a contract that large) I would propose the owner covering be limited to $20 in any season for coverage and then for remaining $17.5, that should be over 2 seasons. May not be ideal, but this should be the fairest to the rest of the league, otherwise we will continue to run into the issue of a player being covered in full with a $30 MAX for 1 season, ruining the opportunity for another team to obtain cap relief on said player after Y1 or Y(X) is completely covered by a team in a deal.
There are options I feel. Maybe, as a league Option 5 was misunderstood and it should better be defined.
-
This was like an election...a lot of people didn't vote and apparently some who did aren't sure what they voted for.
-
option 1