Jackie Kong
Posts: 2,287
Likes: 2,077
Total Bank: 76,050
|
Post by Jackie Kong on May 28, 2019 13:14:51 GMT -5
But you only read part of what it says in the link you gave. Keep reading, lololol. www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q64 - There it is much better explained how waivers work.
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on May 28, 2019 21:57:59 GMT -5
When you release a contract and you want to stretch him You do that right away or you need to wait till he clears waivers. I mean, waivers apply if you want to release and stretch? You can say it right away, but he'll go through waivers first under the original contract. The stretch will take effect once he clears waivers
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on May 28, 2019 21:58:46 GMT -5
|
|
Jackie Kong
Posts: 2,287
Likes: 2,077
Total Bank: 76,050
|
Post by Jackie Kong on May 28, 2019 22:10:55 GMT -5
|
|
Shaq O'Neal
LA Clippers
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 627
Total Bank: 93,509
|
Post by Shaq O'Neal on Jun 3, 2019 14:06:02 GMT -5
Can we queque a trade with a team that is still in the playoffs?
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Jun 25, 2019 15:57:42 GMT -5
If a player has the last year of their contract as a PO, and that is the only year their salary is in italics---if that player declines their PO, will the GM still have their bird rights? Or do we only retain bird rights if they accept?
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Jun 25, 2019 19:16:51 GMT -5
You only get BR if the player opts in
|
|
Scott Pilgrim
Philadelphia 76ers
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 821
Total Bank: 58,184
|
Post by Scott Pilgrim on Jul 12, 2019 10:14:58 GMT -5
Does early bird rights exist in D720?
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Jul 12, 2019 16:58:23 GMT -5
Does early bird rights exist in D720? No
|
|
Shaq O'Neal
LA Clippers
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 627
Total Bank: 93,509
|
Post by Shaq O'Neal on Jul 18, 2019 12:03:34 GMT -5
Will the contracts roll over on July 20th?
|
|
Nino Brown
Cleveland Cavaliers
Posts: 444
Likes: 239
Total Bank: 55,600
|
Post by Nino Brown on Jul 18, 2019 13:06:38 GMT -5
As soon as FA starts
|
|
|
Post by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Jul 21, 2019 23:20:16 GMT -5
Can you buyout a player if you're over the hard cap? ^^
|
|
|
Post by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Jul 21, 2019 23:21:27 GMT -5
Can you buyout a player if he has PO in his last year? ^^
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Jul 21, 2019 23:23:02 GMT -5
Can you buyout a player if you're over the hard cap? ^^ A buyout requires you to have the cap space (under the salary cap) to fit the entirety of the contract (including a PO).
|
|
Scott Pilgrim
Philadelphia 76ers
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 821
Total Bank: 58,184
|
Post by Scott Pilgrim on Jul 22, 2019 2:58:43 GMT -5
Can you buyout a player if you're over the hard cap? ^^ Tony Allen's probably going to retire soon, so you'll be able to clear his contract then.
|
|
Theodore Duncan
Portland Trail Blazers
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 1,414
Total Bank: 57,500
|
Post by Theodore Duncan on Jun 8, 2020 5:35:07 GMT -5
I'm assuming that the luxury tax penalty will be added at the end of the off-season? So it adds as penalty towards the hard cap, but not for the available cap space in beginning of the FA? Allan Houston billy can you clarify? Scenario A: Salary cap is 110mil. Team was over luxury tax previous season, and has contract cap holds to 95mil (excluding luxury tax penalty) So, team can sign a FA for 15mil, and then in the end of off-season the 10% penalty (11mil) will be added. Total salary is 121mil or is it... Scenario B: At start of off-season there is a contracts caphold of 95mil + 11mil for luxury tax penalty. --> cap number is 106mil So, team can sign a FA only for 4mil, Total salary is 110mil It's not really clearly in the rules, so I just want to make sure? But I think the intention is the scenario A. As luxury tax penalty rule should make it difficult to stay under hard cap in long run, but not make it more difficult to sign FAs. Like in NBA paying luxury tax doesn't anyway penalize signing FAs. Only for the amount of MLE you get, but that we have also already covered in our rules.
|
|
Jackie Kong
Posts: 2,287
Likes: 2,077
Total Bank: 76,050
|
Post by Jackie Kong on Jun 8, 2020 7:06:03 GMT -5
|
|
Theodore Duncan
Portland Trail Blazers
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 1,414
Total Bank: 57,500
|
Post by Theodore Duncan on Jun 8, 2020 8:13:14 GMT -5
Ok, I didn't see that it was discussed last season. I guess I wrote in the thread also myself that it reduces the amount of FA money.. didn't really think of it then in detail as I was not over the line, but now seeing in action I think it's very counter-intuitive actually.
It's basically a double penalty and very unrealistic compared to NBA. You might get 20% penalty for repeater tax which basically means that you are right at the hard cap. That's penalty nr 1..
Even if you have done your long term salary planning perfectly.. meaning that for example that all your big salaries salaries are ending at the same time at the end of the year you are on repeater tax, you are still not out of the trouble. I think the idea would be that it's not anymore possible to sign up the same core for third year in row, if that would get you the 30% penalty for going over the luxury tax again.. and also over hard cap likely.
But anyways, if the 20% penalty is also taken away from available cap for FA's it's giving you a second penalty. It's definitely not realistic compared to NBA and I think encourages against making a quick rebuilds as you are handcuffed the first season coming off being over luxury tax (definitely after 2nd year in row). So basically on top of the penalty of forcing to break up your team, you also are forced to take one full year break of team building. I think this encourages going from contending to full tanking for at least one year, instead of just quickly rebuilding. And I think tanking is bad for the overall competitive nature of the league.
So I'm proposing we change the rule to match the Scenario A I wrote earlier. It's shitty that some teams got penalized about that last year, but I think for future we should change it as it equally will help all teams in long term.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Jun 8, 2020 8:15:03 GMT -5
I'm assuming that the luxury tax penalty will be added at the end of the off-season? So it adds as penalty towards the hard cap, but not for the available cap space in beginning of the FA? Allan Houston billy can you clarify? Scenario A: Salary cap is 110mil. Team was over luxury tax previous season, and has contract cap holds to 95mil (excluding luxury tax penalty) So, team can sign a FA for 15mil, and then in the end of off-season the 10% penalty (11mil) will be added. Total salary is 121mil or is it... Scenario B: At start of off-season there is a contracts caphold of 95mil + 11mil for luxury tax penalty. --> cap number is 106mil So, team can sign a FA only for 4mil, Total salary is 110mil It's not really clearly in the rules, so I just want to make sure? But I think the intention is the scenario A. As luxury tax penalty rule should make it difficult to stay under hard cap in long run, but not make it more difficult to sign FAs. Like in NBA paying luxury tax doesn't anyway penalize signing FAs. Only for the amount of MLE you get, but that we have also already covered in our rules. Kong is correct. The idea is we use your season-ending salary (to get an idea of how much was on your payroll for the previous season) and if that is over the luxury cap (implying you were over the luxury tax for at least part of the regular season/after trade deadline at least) a penalty is then added to your cap figure for the following offseason as a penalty for operating over the luxury tax the previous season. I hope that makes sense! To be specific, in your case, you are over the luxury tax. If you don't get below the luxury tax before the end of the regular season, we will add a luxury tax penalty in the form of a 10% of next years salary cap, that lasts until the same time next year. If you are over AGAIN (including the cap hold) you will be penalized 20% of the next next years salary cap for that next season, ad infinitum until you theoretically hit the hard cap and suffer severe penalties.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Jun 8, 2020 8:17:19 GMT -5
Ok, I didn't see that it was discussed last season. I guess I wrote in the thread also myself that it reduces the amount of FA money.. didn't really think of it then in detail as I was not over the line, but now seeing in action I think it's very counter-intuitive actually.
It's basically a double penalty and very unrealistic compared to NBA. You might get 20% penalty for repeater tax which basically means that you are right at the hard cap. That's penalty nr 1..
Even if you have done your long term salary planning perfectly.. meaning that for example that all your big salaries salaries are ending at the same time at the end of the year you are on repeater tax, you are still not out of the trouble. I think the idea would be that it's not anymore possible to sign up the same core for third year in row, if that would get you the 30% penalty for going over the luxury tax again.. and also over hard cap likely.
But anyways, if the 20% penalty is also taken away from available cap for FA's it's giving you a second penalty. It's definitely not realistic compared to NBA and I think encourages against making a quick rebuilds as you are handcuffed the first season coming off being over luxury tax (definitely after 2nd year in row). So basically on top of the penalty of forcing to break up your team, you also are forced to take one full year break of team building. I think this encourages going from contending to full tanking for at least one year, instead of just quickly rebuilding. And I think tanking is bad for the overall competitive nature of the league.
So I'm proposing we change the rule to match the Scenario A I wrote earlier. It's shitty that some teams got penalized about that last year, but I think for future we should change it as it equally will help all teams in long term.
The idea is to penalize teams for operating over the luxury tax the previous season! So you got to take advantage of 149M in payroll this year, in real life most (almost all) teams don't operate over the luxury tax multiple years in a row, so we implemented the penalties to reflect this and make it more difficult to operate over the luxury tax multiple years in a row.
|
|
Theodore Duncan
Portland Trail Blazers
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 1,414
Total Bank: 57,500
|
Post by Theodore Duncan on Jun 8, 2020 8:29:34 GMT -5
The idea is to penalize teams for operating over the luxury tax the previous season! So you got to take advantage of 149M in payroll this year, in real life most (almost all) teams don't operate over the luxury tax multiple years in a row, so we implemented the penalties to reflect this and make it more difficult to operate over the luxury tax multiple years in a row. Yes, but you ARE being penalized for being over luxury tax line even when you add the penalty at the end of the off-season instead of beginning. That doesn't change
Luxury tax is 125% and hard cap 150%, so it's impossible to be over 2 years in luxury tax by getting cumulative penalties.
For example my case.. I'm hoping to be under luxury tax next year.. so I have to basically make sure to stay under 115% of salary cap in contracts to do so.. so it's already penalizing my next years bankroll,even if you add it at the end of the season. And for repeater tax payers, it means that they need to be under 105% of actual contract salaries to be able to prevent third year in row in penalty. That will happen also if you add the penalty at the end of off-season. It's quite huge penalty already.
So I don't understand, why do you also need to double penalize the ability to make offers to FA's. You should be still be able to offer normally, but just take into consideration to not go too much again over the cap line to get repeater penalties.
Edit.. I think I was actually the one suggesting this 10% penalty as this was discussed some years ago.. so this is how I had it in my head when I did that. lol
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Jun 8, 2020 12:01:46 GMT -5
The idea is to penalize teams for operating over the luxury tax the previous season! So you got to take advantage of 149M in payroll this year, in real life most (almost all) teams don't operate over the luxury tax multiple years in a row, so we implemented the penalties to reflect this and make it more difficult to operate over the luxury tax multiple years in a row. Yes, but you ARE being penalized for being over luxury tax line even when you add the penalty at the end of the off-season instead of beginning. That doesn't change
Luxury tax is 125% and hard cap 150%, so it's impossible to be over 2 years in luxury tax by getting cumulative penalties.
For example my case.. I'm hoping to be under luxury tax next year.. so I have to basically make sure to stay under 115% of salary cap in contracts to do so.. so it's already penalizing my next years bankroll,even if you add it at the end of the season. And for repeater tax payers, it means that they need to be under 105% of actual contract salaries to be able to prevent third year in row in penalty. That will happen also if you add the penalty at the end of off-season. It's quite huge penalty already.
So I don't understand, why do you also need to double penalize the ability to make offers to FA's. You should be still be able to offer normally, but just take into consideration to not go too much again over the cap line to get repeater penalties.
Edit.. I think I was actually the one suggesting this 10% penalty as this was discussed some years ago.. so this is how I had it in my head when I did that. lol
It’s not double penalizing, it’s still just one penalty with multiple consequences for poor salary planning... If you were over the luxury tax line, you get a 10% (times x numbers of years) cap hit as penalty. If that penalty keeps you from making a signing you could have otherwise made due to expiring contracts, you should have prioritized ducking the tax so that you’d have the ability to make the signing, unimpeded by the luxury tax penalty. More often than not (way more often than not), any teams over the luxury tax line were contenders and either won’t be moving into the offseason with any notable cap space or proceed with a rebuild such that the penalty doesn’t really hinder their team building much. The ultra-rare scenario where a team is a contender operating over the luxury tax line, intends to still continue contending, and ALSO has salaries lined up meant to create cap space to make signings, the consequences of operating over the cap are more unique, but certainly not doubled. Also worth noting, when I tried to push for a pre-established 20-21 salary cap initiative so that our GMs wouldn’t be fumbling in the dark with financial planning, this exact type of thing was always a possibility but you were still against doing anything.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Jun 8, 2020 18:39:04 GMT -5
Yeah Theodore Duncan Steve summed it up pretty. Well. The penalty is in less flexibility the year after the luxury tax. And the penalties are purposefully designed so a contending team can be over the luxury tax multiple years in a row. You still have time to get under fwiw.
|
|
Theodore Duncan
Portland Trail Blazers
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 1,414
Total Bank: 57,500
|
Post by Theodore Duncan on Jun 9, 2020 10:17:13 GMT -5
I still thinks it this discourages against long term multi-year salary planning.
Yes team can be over luxury tax for few year in row, but a team can't plan to go all-in for 2 years and be over luxury tax in those two years, and then have a quick rebuild in third year. After the two year period, perfect planning would be to have most of your salaries expiring and then going on for new cheaper/younger guys, as long as you stay under the luxury tax in 3rd year. But because you have the penalty already at start of FA for third year, your options are limited even if most of your guys are expiring.
A) You don't have cap space to sign any new guys as you are handcuffed by the -20%, so either re-sign with BR only half of your old core and make sure to stay under 3rd year luxury tax--> go from contender to likely mediocre B) Or...As you are forced to basically skip FA for one year due to 20% penalty, and it doesn't make sense to run it back with only part of your old core, so the easiest solution is just blow it up and tank for at least one year and go for FA in the year 4. I think this is the way most people are forced to go as the 3rd year is basically lost.
Also another point is that by having likely 5+ teams over the luxury tax each year, you are taking away potentially 50-100million in the total FA-pool from teams to use. Less of total money being available I think will have impact on players generally being offered less money in FA. IT will naturally balance that less teams in our league will be over luxury tax, but I don't think it's wanted that our salaries are getting lower in comparison to NBA. Because that's just not realistuc
Of course, I can just get under luxury tax this year, and forget the whole thing.. But I'm arguing because I generally think it's going to have an negative effect on our league in long run. And be one step away from realism. And there is really a simple fix for it which would not make it easier to stay under luxury tax or hard cap.. It would be still challenging and realistic enough, but just not handcuffing our FA also.
If this is changed, I'm happy to be exempted from the rule for this off-season. You can add my luxury tax penalty at start of this off-season. And for everyone else in luxury tax penalty you could do it at the start of season 2021.
|
|
Theodore Duncan
Portland Trail Blazers
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 1,414
Total Bank: 57,500
|
Post by Theodore Duncan on Jun 9, 2020 10:25:07 GMT -5
Also worth noting, when I tried to push for a pre-established 20-21 salary cap initiative so that our GMs wouldn’t be fumbling in the dark with financial planning, this exact type of thing was always a possibility but you were still against doing anything. lol.. after paying max deals to Simmons and Beal, and being over luxury tax for this year, your salary situation will be one of the most challenging in the league for next years. Your proposal was nothing to do with "being in dark". It was straight up try to get an made-up higher salary cap, so you would be less in trouble.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Jun 9, 2020 13:11:47 GMT -5
Also worth noting, when I tried to push for a pre-established 20-21 salary cap initiative so that our GMs wouldn’t be fumbling in the dark with financial planning, this exact type of thing was always a possibility but you were still against doing anything. lol.. after paying max deals to Simmons and Beal, and being over luxury tax for this year, your salary situation will be one of the most challenging in the league for next years. Your proposal was nothing to do with "being in dark". It was straight up try to get an made-up higher salary cap, so you would be less in trouble.
Yeah, sure, just like me calling out a bad trade made me a sore loser purely because I had DMd someone putting a top 5 player on the table (like literally everyone else who was paying attention).. Don’t be an ass. I straight up said in that thread that I didn’t even care if we agreed to a lower salary cap than what the league settled on, it was worth it for our GMs to be able to plan. And it still would be for you, considering you’re complaining about the exact same cap issue for a far more selfish reason than my discussion post.
|
|
|
Post by Stuff The Magic Dragon on Jun 9, 2020 15:00:10 GMT -5
This is what I got from Google. Considering we don’t pay actual money whenever we’re over the luxury tax, I don’t think there’s any other option than to charge the Luxury Tax Penalty to the Cap Space as some sort of “balancing” the in keeping it competitive. Also, our Luxury Tax Penalty is based on the previous year’s salary cap, so it’s not really 10% of the current year’s. Normally, the salary cap rises every year.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Jun 9, 2020 19:43:44 GMT -5
This is what I got from Google. Considering we don’t pay actual money whenever we’re over the luxury tax, I don’t think there’s any other option than to charge the Luxury Tax Penalty to the Cap Space as some sort of “balancing” the in keeping it competitive. Also, our Luxury Tax Penalty is based on the previous year’s salary cap, so it’s not really 10% of the current year’s. Normally, the salary cap rises every year. It is 10% of the current year, but everything else is true.
|
|
|
Post by Stuff The Magic Dragon on Jun 9, 2020 20:17:01 GMT -5
This is what I got from Google. Considering we don’t pay actual money whenever we’re over the luxury tax, I don’t think there’s any other option than to charge the Luxury Tax Penalty to the Cap Space as some sort of “balancing” the in keeping it competitive. Also, our Luxury Tax Penalty is based on the previous year’s salary cap, so it’s not really 10% of the current year’s. Normally, the salary cap rises every year. It is 10% of the current year, but everything else is true. I meant: Previous year = the year the team was over the luxury tax. Current year = the year when the penalty will be imposed.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Jun 9, 2020 21:02:12 GMT -5
Oh, shit. You’re right. I don’t know how I never noticed that. lol
|
|