|
Post by Celtics GM (Jose) on Nov 22, 2012 3:03:18 GMT
Here you can post any suggestion that you might think worthwhile...
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 22, 2012 5:32:35 GMT
The issue I have is with the rules restricting cap trading
Lets face it: the 2 rules (only 5M per trade, 10M total either way) just restrict the creativity and just the general well being of trade discussions
I have had or heard of numerous trade discussions broken up by these limiting and unnecessary trade restrictions
In other salary cap leagues, I have seen rebuilding teams buy a tall number - maybe 7 or 8- 1st round picks for something like 5M a piece. This strategy helps rebuilding teams rebuild and competing teams compete. The only issue is competing a year and leaving after that year after many cap deals
Instead of trade restrictions with money, I vote for restrictions on # of picks sold as well as free drops for the new owner if such an unfortunate occurrence were to happen
I also have issue with the not trading cap for future years rule. Trading cap for future years is often a good bargaining chip as well as a good method to prevent the problem state above. Teams can start planning money wise for the future. However, for organizational purposes, the trading of future money would be limited to maybe 2 years ahead
Thank you for your consideration as I put forth these suggestions that I believe will help make this league more fun and competitive.
Edit: IN LIGHT OF DISCUSSION WITH OTHER OWNERS: I am only in support of the 10M OUT rule as I stated in a later post.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Nov 22, 2012 5:32:47 GMT
I agree with Brandon. H2H Each cat allows for a lot more strategy and shows a better picture of the teams performance.
Having said that, the current format is still lots of fun and has its own challenges. If any changes are made, I am strongly opposed to making them mid-season.
Thanks, Adam
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 22, 2012 5:36:12 GMT
As for the scoring issue I planned for as it is now and I'm in support as leaving scoring as it is now as I have based multiple trades such as the Blake Griffin trade which left my big men depleted because d te current stats. Changes to the scoring would be unfair based on the moves made in accordance to the current stats
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Nov 22, 2012 14:46:37 GMT
This is just a vote for leaving the salary trade restrictions as they currently are.
Because this league uses almost all the players in the NBA player pool, it is very possible that a team could mortgage its future to such a degree that recovery becomes nearly impossible. If a team has no chance of competing and reduced salary in the coming year(s) it becomes more likely that the owner simply stops participating. The "per trade" and "per year" limitations also serve as a barrier against having too much disparity between the competing and non-competing teams.
In my opinion, in a way, the restrictions still allows for creativity by making the owner look for other ways to move cap space,(such as Milwaukee taking on Brandon Rush)
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Nov 22, 2012 14:47:21 GMT
I have 40million + cap space left for 2012, but I really think that it's for our own good that they have that 10 million rules. You don't want one team to gain a lot from other teams and build a super team this year and leave a big mess and just leave this league after 1 year of fun.
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Nov 22, 2012 14:48:28 GMT
100% agree with the spurs
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 22, 2012 16:05:36 GMT
I believe I addressed the issue in my suggestion please read it thoroughly guys
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 22, 2012 16:30:15 GMT
Another suggestion to follow that one up is to just get to of the 10M OUT rule
There would still be a 10M in rule to prevent te problem you have suggested, but with no 10M out rule, we would have more of an ability to make creative trades without that problem
For example I agreed to a trade last week where the other owner sent me 5M. However, he had already dealt 8M and fr could not do it. The 5M would NOT ruin my team as I am under the 10M IN. But the 10M OUT rule negated another good trade. Taking this rule away gives more flexibility and excitement in trading but allows the 10M IN rule to stay to prevent te "ruining" of a team
EDIT: THIS IS MY MAIN OBJECTION / SUGGESTION
|
|
|
Post by 76ers GM (Giga) on Nov 22, 2012 23:35:31 GMT
10 day contracts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2012 23:46:00 GMT
Change m0nth of trading fa to two weeks
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 23, 2012 3:18:47 GMT
I am also in support for a new system for how suggestions are processed.
Suggestions are to be processed in a way similar to the US
In the US, something like 90,000 signatures are to be on a petition for it to be consideration
So we have a 7 member system: you need support of 7 members for a suggestion to get consideration. The suggestion is then put up to vote (go through the Congress) and then taken to the LMs (president) for veto consideration. If the LMs decide to veto the suggestion passed by the league managers, they provide a reason as to why they have to go against the majority for the goodness of the league.
Good, organized way to manage suggestions. You start a suggestion board and if you support the suggestion you reply or "sign" the petition. It then goes in a thread for issues to be voted upon and then is shipped in a PM by the founder of the suggestion with evidence of support as well as a conclusion to wrap and sum up the suggestion and then the LMs send a league wide PM and post in the petition the final verdict.
I like this proposal but I am also fine with just a 7 person petition system. Seperates crazy ideas with good ones for the LMs.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Nov 23, 2012 4:12:26 GMT
How long do these suggestions have to get 7 votes
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 23, 2012 16:40:12 GMT
Dunno if you misunderstood but that was a suggestion lol
But if the suggestion were to be put in place I would suggest a time limit of like a month to give everyone a chance to consider it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2012 1:01:13 GMT
I would suggest a time limit be placed on trade votes--48hrs to come to a decision either way should be long enough, and if a decision can't be reached in that time, the trade is automatically voided
|
|