LEAGUE-WIDE VOTE- CASH EXCHANGED IN TRADES

[DynastyDeacon]

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.

[Brent]

Option A.

Paying on contracts is circumventing the salary cap. 

[DynastyDeacon]

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.

[Billy]

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

[Billy]

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

[OUDAN]

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?

[Billy]

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.

[tdtdtd]

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.

[Braves155]

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.

[Billy]

The below are only ones who have checked in who have not casted a vote yet

- STLBlues91
- uli17bg
- indiansnation
- gem9n9
- Teton
- Braves155
ajm5551
BadHabit
Anthony