LEAGUE-WIDE VOTE- CASH EXCHANGED IN TRADES

[DynastyDeacon]

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.

[Vik]

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.

[Daddy]

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.
 

[jimw]

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. 

[seebnova]

Voting for option B

[Milton]

B

[rotodojo]

Option A

[Interpaga]

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)?

[RyanJames5]

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.

[DMarch47]

My vote is option A