The case for more buyouts

[Brian Scalabrine]

My name is Brian Scalabrine, and I demand the league's attention on this issue.

The current league rules only allow one buyout per team (at 100% guaranteed salary) every three years. Here's every reason I think we should change this rule.

1. Doesn't align with NBA rules - In the NBA, there is no real limit to buyouts. What makes them difficult, of course, is that they require negotiation between the player, his agent, and the team front office. That is tricky, and all those parties must be able to reach a common ground for a buyout to be agreed upon. I don't think PA's should be involved in D720 buyouts because that seems messy and labor intensive, HOWEVER considering that negotiations on a buyout aren't possible in D720, it seems extra punishing that buyouts themselves are limited to once every three seasons. That is 2 fronts (negotiation and frequency) that stunts D720's buyout market.

2. Cap-strapped teams will be able to move big money contracts more easily if buyouts were either deregulated or less regulated - The main reason that an overpaid player is so hard and expensive to move in this league? Rebuilding teams have to commit to eating their salary long term. If a team has already had a buyout in the last three years, they have two options: eat it, or stretch it and it it over more years. Neither are very appetizing, which is why rebuilding teams will usually demand at least a future star or valuable first rounder to take them on, and even that might not be enough. If buyouts were less regulated, even at 100% cost, big contracts would be more movable, which would ultimately only increase viability of ALL franchises in the league, because two albatrosses on your roster would be much less of a death sentence.

3. Rebuilding teams still capitalize - Sure, they will get less return for taking on a big contract, but they could do it much more often. A smart team with cap space could capitalize by facilitating three team deals where they take on a contract that they plan to buy out in exchange for some valuable assets. If they have a lot of space, they can even do this multiple times a year.

4. Wastelands become more salvageable - Remember when the Clippers sent MPJ to get rid of Mike Conley? I'm not knocking on them, that's just the market they were operating in, but if buyouts were more frequent, we would see bottom tier teams give and give and give.

5. More quality talent becomes available to the league at large - here's a list of at least half-decent to actually good players that are trapped on their teams because they'd cost more to move than their GM's are willing to spend: Terrence Ross, Al-Farouq Aminu, JR Smith, Serge Ibaka, Mike Conley, Al Horford, John Henson... The list surely goes on. In a more vigorous buyout market, these guys are likely to become available to teams on reasonable market-value contracts during the season. Some would even be MLE level signings.

6. Low maintenance - It's just a spreadsheet update when a player gets bought out--very few moving parts. More buyouts would be an easy change for us to make.

I'll be real--do I want to buy out JR Smith? Absolutely. But, I wouldn't be bringing this up if I didn't think it were good for the league at large--I truly believe that everyone in the league stands to gain from a change to our buyout rules. Ultimately, either lowering or eliminating our buyout restrictions in this league just makes the D720 market more sustainable, and more likely to self-correct. Teams at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom all would greatly benefit. And, imo most importantly, "trash tier teams" have a much easier path back to viability. We have nothing to lose.

Not out here trying to be pushy, but I know we've got a pretty mature league that's willing to listen. If you made it all the way to the end of this post, thanks.

[Theodore Duncan]

Didn't know that the 3 year limit was on the rules. I support getting rid of the limit, or at least making it bit more flexible. I guess there is some historic reason why this has been implemented in sim leagues rules? Anyone knows the origin? Maybe someone had found a loophole to abuse buyouts.

But I don't see the harm really if they would be unlimited or limited to one time a season, or something like that..

[Brian Scalabrine]

See, I don't see why there should be any limit--because it would be limited by the team's cap space anyway. And it terms of being abused, I think that all viable loopholes are already closed because you can't re-sign someone you've released in the same season.

[Stuff The Magic Dragon]

those players signed their contracts at those price, right? who offered those contract?

[Brian Scalabrine]

Aug 8, 2018 4:17:23 GMT -5 Stuff The Magic Dragon said:

those players signed their contracts at those price, right? who offered those contract?

Almost all of them, if not all of them.

But, irl that doesn't change the fact that those contracts can be bought out.

[Stuff The Magic Dragon]

Aug 8, 2018 4:25:05 GMT -5 Brian Scalabrine said:

Aug 8, 2018 4:17:23 GMT -5 Stuff The Magic Dragon said:

those players signed their contracts at those price, right? who offered those contract?

Almost all of them, if not all of them.

But, irl that doesn't change the fact that those contracts can be bought out.

perhaps a committee should be handling buyouts, as you said, a buyout irl is between the team, the player, the player's agent, etc..
A GM should not be allowed to buyout players whenever he wants to even if he has the cap space to do so.
Flooding FAs with bought out players doesn't seem appealing to me.

[Brian Scalabrine]

Aug 8, 2018 4:33:20 GMT -5 Stuff The Magic Dragon said:

Aug 8, 2018 4:25:05 GMT -5 Brian Scalabrine said:

Almost all of them, if not all of them.

But, irl that doesn't change the fact that those contracts can be bought out.

perhaps a committee should be handling buyouts, as you said, a buyout irl is between the team, the player, the player's agent, etc..
A GM should not be allowed to buyout players whenever he wants to even if he has the cap space to do so.
Flooding FAs with bought out players doesn't seem appealing to me.

Perhaps, I guess. I hadn't really considered that too much because I know it would take more work. But maybe you have a point. Any way that we can have more buyouts I think would be an improvement--once every three years just feels arbitrary and limiting.

[Stuff The Magic Dragon]

still undecided, wanna hear more people speak

[Deleted]

Ill handle buyouts!
Nick "the quick" van exel buyout agent
And im a dick so it wont be easy for a gm to get it done!!

[Tracy McGrady]

I support this.

[Steve Jobs]

I’m all for it, though I can openly admit I don’t think I understand real life buyouts well enough to be concerned with making them more realistic and I’m not sure how much more expanded buyouts will change things vs. just being able to cut players you acquire.

[Pete Maravich]

I think the players would only care if they are taking a % off the total amount owed. If we keep it as only a full buyout option then the player would almost always be for it as they can double dip.  This would help the lower teams as cap space is sometimes one of your only assets. I was there as I bought out that nasty Tyson Chandler contract for a 1st or something.

[Brian Scalabrine]

Aug 9, 2018 13:46:33 GMT -5 Pete Maravich said:

I think the players would only care if they are taking a % off the total amount owed. If we keep it as only a full buyout option then the player would almost always be for it as they can double dip.  This would help the lower teams as cap space is sometimes one of your only assets. I was there as I bought out that nasty Tyson Chandler contract for a 1st or something.

I tend to agree that 100% buy outs are the simplest and most reasonable, most functional option for this league. And even at 100%, if the restrictions weren't there, teams (especially bad ones) would have a lot more options.

[Steve Jobs]

Aug 9, 2018 13:50:51 GMT -5 Brian Scalabrine said:

Aug 9, 2018 13:46:33 GMT -5 Pete Maravich said:

I think the players would only care if they are taking a % off the total amount owed. If we keep it as only a full buyout option then the player would almost always be for it as they can double dip.  This would help the lower teams as cap space is sometimes one of your only assets. I was there as I bought out that nasty Tyson Chandler contract for a 1st or something.

I tend to agree that 100% buy outs are the simplest and most reasonable, most functional option for this league. And even at 100%, if the restrictions weren't there, teams (especially bad ones) would have a lot more options.

Aside from collapsing the entirety of a multi-year deal into one year, which some albatross contracts are too big to do anyway, what’s the difference or benefits between the options available with buyouts vs just cutting the player?

[Brian Scalabrine]

Aug 9, 2018 13:53:16 GMT -5 Steve Jobs said:

Aug 9, 2018 13:50:51 GMT -5 Brian Scalabrine said:

I tend to agree that 100% buy outs are the simplest and most reasonable, most functional option for this league. And even at 100%, if the restrictions weren't there, teams (especially bad ones) would have a lot more options.

Aside from collapsing the entirety of a multi-year deal into one year, which some albatross contracts are too big to do anyway, what’s the difference or benefits between the options available with buyouts vs just cutting the player?

Collapsing an albatross is the big one--which you're right is difficult to do, but it also depends on how you're defining an albatross. If a guy is sub-rotation value, and on a 2 year, 9 mil a year contract, that's a pretty viable one to buy out. Of course, being able to buy that out isn't as valuable as buying out a huge contract--but a beginning rebuilding team that isn't ready to attack the FA market because they're still looking to build through the draft could buy out contracts similar to that once a year at least and use that as a way to gain assets.

[billy]

Okay. This is an interesting idea.

Before I talk about my opinion on it, let's first divulge the thought process behind why the rule is written the way it is.

The rule is basically as follows: you can do buyouts, but they are limited to once every three years. This limitation doesn't exist in real life, as GMs are allowed to buy-out players as often as they want. However, this rarely happens. This rarity is part of the reason why we have the limitation. The other part of the reason for the limitation is because it is necessary to foster the same type of buyout environment in the NBA, because our rules do not work the same that theirs do.

For example, in the NBA buyouts tend to be more rare than they would be here if we rescinded the rule. I believe, at least on face value, this is primarily due to two reasons. 1) Owners don't want to look dumb and spend money on players that won't play, and 2) the salary floor. The 2nd reason is the most important. Because of the salary floor in the real NBA, and I forget what it is exactly, but I believe you have to be pretty damn close to the cap every year at the start of the regular season. That's why you see tanking teams give Carl Landry 8M dollar 1 year deals. To meet the salary floor. This floor makes it more difficult for teams to be able to do large buyouts,

I think if we rescinded the limit, you could distort the player market for two reasons. One is that because of the lack of a salary floor, large contracts could be bought out at any point in the year. The second is that we have a very large number of tanking teams. All these teams would be able to handle buyouts.

That being said, I'm not necessarily against changing the rules. Just wanted to pipe in with the 'other side' in this whole thing. I get it, the limitation sucks. All limitations suck. We should get rid of the salary cap too! But in the end, it's about what creates the best environment for a functioning league, and having 8+ huge buyouts every year seems like an unrealistic one. Whether it could be a good one, I'm not sure. Interested to hear more thoughts.

[Paul Pierce]

Aug 9, 2018 21:11:21 GMT -5 billy said:

Okay. This is an interesting idea.

Before I talk about my opinion on it, let's first divulge the thought process behind why the rule is written the way it is.

The rule is basically as follows: you can do buyouts, but they are limited to once every three years. This limitation doesn't exist in real life, as GMs are allowed to buy-out players as often as they want. However, this rarely happens. This rarity is part of the reason why we have the limitation. The other part of the reason for the limitation is because it is necessary to foster the same type of buyout environment in the NBA, because our rules do not work the same that theirs do.

For example, in the NBA buyouts tend to be more rare than they would be here if we rescinded the rule. I believe, at least on face value, this is primarily due to two reasons. 1) Owners don't want to look dumb and spend money on players that won't play, and 2) the salary floor. The 2nd reason is the most important. Because of the salary floor in the real NBA, and I forget what it is exactly, but I believe you have to be pretty damn close to the cap every year at the start of the regular season. That's why you see tanking teams give Carl Landry 8M dollar 1 year deals. To meet the salary floor. This floor makes it more difficult for teams to be able to do large buyouts,

I think if we rescinded the limit, you could distort the player market for two reasons. One is that because of the lack of a salary floor, large contracts could be bought out at any point in the year. The second is that we have a very large number of tanking teams. All these teams would be able to handle buyouts.

That being said, I'm not necessarily against changing the rules. Just wanted to pipe in with the 'other side' in this whole thing. I get it, the limitation sucks. All limitations suck. We should get rid of the salary cap too! But in the end, it's about what creates the best environment for a functioning league, and having 8+ huge buyouts every year seems like an unrealistic one. Whether it could be a good one, I'm not sure. Interested to hear more thoughts.

Have we ever considered using the salary floor? I feel like it's a good idea. Prevents teams from an absolute tank when they only have like 45 mil of there cap used. Then we can also take the limit off buyouts. We don't have to have the floor exactly like the NBA. Maybe like 60 mil? 65?

[Allan Houston]

Irl it's 90% of the cap I believe

[Ben Wallace]

Aug 9, 2018 22:17:42 GMT -5 Allan Houston said:

Irl it's 90% of the cap I believe

That's way higher than I thought.

I'd be in favour of doing something along the lines of this. Because this is a sim league and IS different from the NBA as much as we try to emulate it though, I'd want some kind of restriction, absolutely.

A bit of a sidenote, but one thing I've been thinking about is the huge amount of rebuilding teams in the league. I get it, it's fun to tank and fun to draft high and play "for the future". And it's completely feasible to play that way because there's no repurcussions here, compared to the NBA where you can lose your job as a player, coach, or front office person, or you lose valuation and revenue as the owner, teams will choose to specifically tank strategically whereas here you have half the league racing to post the highest loss totals. Wish there was some kind of reward or points system in place where you'd accrue imaginery internet points based on your standing/postseason result and have a sum total right on your profile to show the world how leet you are at basketball sim games. Or any other way to reward competing.

[Stuff The Magic Dragon]

I believe the NBA is changing the Draft Lottery Odds next year and we are going to implement that here.
I suppose we can have our own Draft Lottery Odds (say, teams who didn't make the playoffs will have the same lottery odds going #1) to at least level the playing field and not promote tanking.
I'm not against tanking but any limitation to minimize the number of teams doing it will do.

[billy]

Aug 9, 2018 22:32:51 GMT -5 Ben Wallace said:

Aug 9, 2018 22:17:42 GMT -5 Allan Houston said:

Irl it's 90% of the cap I believe

That's way higher than I thought.

I'd be in favour of doing something along the lines of this. Because this is a sim league and IS different from the NBA as much as we try to emulate it though, I'd want some kind of restriction, absolutely.

A bit of a sidenote, but one thing I've been thinking about is the huge amount of rebuilding teams in the league. I get it, it's fun to tank and fun to draft high and play "for the future". And it's completely feasible to play that way because there's no repurcussions here, compared to the NBA where you can lose your job as a player, coach, or front office person, or you lose valuation and revenue as the owner, teams will choose to specifically tank strategically whereas here you have half the league racing to post the highest loss totals. Wish there was some kind of reward or points system in place where you'd accrue imaginery internet points based on your standing/postseason result and have a sum total right on your profile to show the world how leet you are at basketball sim games. Or any other way to reward competing.

I actually have had some thoughts on rewarding "Billy Bucks" for certain things and having things you can spend them on. Been wanting to get away from the Comp 2nds. The way we rate players currently makes it hard to figure out what rewards we could have. All ears.

[Ben Wallace]

Stuff The Magic Dragon billy exactly my thought process

[Theodore Duncan]

I think adding salary floor would indeed help. Does't necessary have to as tight as in NBA with 90% of cap. But something like 75-80% would I think would work and also simultaneously limit the buyouts naturally

[Brian Scalabrine]

No one voted that they don't want it to change--where is justice?

[Penny Hardaway]

I probably could use buyouts the most, but dont see how its fair unless you have restrictions like we do now or you put a penalty on it and make it unlimited.

Like Billy said buyouts barely happen because really the player is losing out by taking one and it's not to often a player turns down money just to leave a team.

Since this is s sim what would stop teams from overpaying in free agency only to turn around a year later to buy them out without a penalty since the player cant say no like IRL.

[Brian Scalabrine]

What stops them is the money left on the books. If you overpay over multiple years, you're gonna need a lot of capspace to buy that player out. Then, if you do, you're probably not gonna have enough cap space to do a buy out until next season.

Imo, the penalty that already exists is there's no way for the GM to negotiate with the players. Players usually leave some money on the table when they agree to a buyout--that can't happen here (I'm not suggesting it does, either). But my point is, buyouts are already punishing in this league because of that fact, so one every three years feels really outrageous.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think that one a year per team is a lot more reasonable of a restriction. It would be enough to create a more robust salary dumping market, but not one that's over-saturated. I suspect it would stay pretty close to realism that way--a couple buyouts usually happen every year. If in this league each team could do one per year, it's not like we'd have thirty a year. I'd wager we'd see less than ten, because not a lot of teams have enough cap space to perform a worth-while buyout. Ultimately, it would be a tool that rebuilding teams use to clear cap space and likely get assets.

[Penny Hardaway]

Sept 21, 2018 19:08:39 GMT -5 Brian Scalabrine said:

What stops them is the money left on the books. If you overpay over multiple years, you're gonna need a lot of capspace to buy that player out. Then, if you do, you're probably not gonna have enough cap space to do a buy out until next season.

Imo, the penalty that already exists is there's no way for the GM to negotiate with the players. Players usually leave some money on the table when they agree to a buyout--that can't happen here (I'm not suggesting it does, either). But my point is, buyouts are already punishing in this league because of that fact, so one every three years feels really outrageous.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think that one a year per team is a lot more reasonable of a restriction. It would be enough to create a more robust salary dumping market, but not one that's over-saturated. I suspect it would stay pretty close to realism that way--a couple buyouts usually happen every year. If in this league each team could do one per year, it's not like we'd have thirty a year. I'd wager we'd see less than ten, because not a lot of teams have enough cap space to perform a worth-while buyout. Ultimately, it would be a tool that rebuilding teams use to clear cap space and likely get assets.

I see didn't know actual cap space was need etc, thought any team any time can buyout.

[Brian Scalabrine]

Sept 21, 2018 19:52:05 GMT -5 Penny Hardaway said:

Sept 21, 2018 19:08:39 GMT -5 Brian Scalabrine said:

What stops them is the money left on the books. If you overpay over multiple years, you're gonna need a lot of capspace to buy that player out. Then, if you do, you're probably not gonna have enough cap space to do a buy out until next season.

Imo, the penalty that already exists is there's no way for the GM to negotiate with the players. Players usually leave some money on the table when they agree to a buyout--that can't happen here (I'm not suggesting it does, either). But my point is, buyouts are already punishing in this league because of that fact, so one every three years feels really outrageous.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think that one a year per team is a lot more reasonable of a restriction. It would be enough to create a more robust salary dumping market, but not one that's over-saturated. I suspect it would stay pretty close to realism that way--a couple buyouts usually happen every year. If in this league each team could do one per year, it's not like we'd have thirty a year. I'd wager we'd see less than ten, because not a lot of teams have enough cap space to perform a worth-while buyout. Ultimately, it would be a tool that rebuilding teams use to clear cap space and likely get assets.

I see didn't know actual cap space was need etc, thought any team any time can buyout.

Yeah--in our league, to buyout a contract, you need to be able to foot the total salary of the entire contract in one year. So, if a guy's contract is 4 years at four mil per year, you'd need to have 16 mil in free cap space to buy it out, which remains on the books until the end of the year as 16 mil expiring dead money.

[Brian Scalabrine]

Moral of the story--I'll die on this hill

[Shaq O'Neal]

I dont really see why cant we change this rule to one buyout per year as that prevents GMs from abusing buyouts and also increases the flexibility of buyouts more than it is now.Plus it requires a lot of cap space to buy out those large albatross contracts so I dont think really a team can buy out more than one albatross per year