SSBA

I'm thinking of implementing a new rule, a hard salary cap in which you cannot go over (i.e. no signings or trades can put you over).  Something like either 2x the salary cap or 100 million.  If I would implement this it would be something like 2-3 years after we agree on it before it would be implemented to give teams time to get under the limit.  Thoughts?

I like that idea. It adds a much bigger strategy element, which is a good thing.

I'm all for it.

Speaking as the team with the highest payroll, I am all for it.

By the way, my salary = $121,489,489

Quick question:

If the salary cap is set for the beginning of the year, how will this impact signings during the year?  (since cut players salaries factor into the entire salary total)

I agree too

I actually have $122 million ;)

The salary would be set at any point in the year.  At no point would you be allowed to go over the hard cap, cut salaries would be included in that total (and obviously come off after the playoffs when salaries roll over).

Great idea!

Well...personaly i don't agree. I think we should have the same rules as the real NBA.

But if everyone agrees ok then.

I like the idea, it would prevent teams to just signing guys to max deals to keep them and it may end up devaluing the expiring contract which can get you almost anybody with a pick.  I think this would be a great rule.

the problem lies with the fact that most teams have owners who, to some extent, restrict their spending.  Here, people can spend as much as they please without worrying.  Once you're over the cap, there's no worries to adding as much payroll as you want.  In my opinion, that's NOT like how it is in the real nba at all.  In the real nba you've got Brad Miller traded for Scott Pollard to save money for the owner.  You've got Marc Jackson traded for a 2nd round pick to save money.  Kenyon Martin traded for picks.  Here you've got Aaron Williams given 10 million per year to keep as a trade chip.

Eh, but in real NBA you also have Marc Cuban, the Sixers, The New York Knicks and Allan Houston getting 20 mio a year.

And how you mean Kenyon Martin traded for picks? Isn't that happening here all the time too? Aren't guys here hesitant to resign 30 year olds for some long term contracts? I know i am for sure. I don't think it's a problem spending some crazy amount of money if you're having a contender (like you for example) and that is justifiable IMO. If you're getting a player who makes some large amount of money while you're miles and pieces away from being a contender, then well, you're a bad GM. But isn't that happening in NBA too? You have bad GM's and good GM's. Carelles owners (like Cuban and Layden - i think the Knicks cap was over 100 mio the year they make the finals) and guys like Sterling who is carefull with the money etc.

I don't like the idea.  I'm already overpaid couple of my guys.  If you want to put a hard cap then you should do it from the start of the league not at middle of no where.

All 3 of those teams you have listed have lost significant players due to salary concerns (Mavs getting rid of Finley and Nash, Knicks and 76ers both using their luxury tax cut, 76ers trading Marc Jackson for a 2nd round pick and refusing to use either Mashburn's contract or their trade exception because we don't want to add salary).

BTW, KMart was ONLY traded because the Nets wouldn't do so financially.  If you remember, Kerry Kittles (himself an expiring contract) was traded for a  2nd round pick that summer also.

I'm sorry, but unlimited spending is NOT realistic as to the NBA.  Not even for the Cubans, Comcast's or NY's of the world, and certainly not for guys like the Bucks.

That's why I said it would be many years down the road.

I would do something like:
By 2015 you need to be below $110 million
By 2018 you need to be below (whatever final # we decide).

That gives teams times to let current contracts expire.

I'm not a particular fan of the idea.

But I think the best way to do this would be to put it off until the last current contract expires.  

For example, in 4 years I'll be paying my top 6 players a combined $103 million, unless Pierce retires.  Some teams would almost certainly have to pawn off some of their best players.

Personally I think the SSBA is perfectly fine the way it is.  However, like most issues regarding this league, I'm neutral.  I don't really care which direction we go in.  I'll adjust  :)

I really like this idea, I was wondering what the penalty would be for a team who is over the hard cap?

There would be no penalty. You just won't be able to make deals if it gets you over the 100 mio, nothing more. Just like you can't trade players cause of 24 hour or 60 day rule, or sign a free agent if if you don't have enough cap etc etc.

well, i don't think you answer me anything. Mavs did get rid of Finley but ONLY cause of his age and cause they have young surging players that can replace him (Daniels, Howard). It was the same story with Nash. He's over 30 and off course you're hesitant to give him a new, almost the max contract. That's pretty much the same as here.

As i said, it's all about being a contender. Owner doesn't have the problems with money as long as you have a great shot or you're a heavy canditate for a title. Nets and Dallas, rightfully so, choosed to part ways with their stars cause they knew that they won't bring them the title any time soon. So why would they spend the money if they're gonna be the same with or without them? Always near the top, but never at the top?

You just brought some examples from this year. All of that teams are paying the price for their mistakes from the past. That forced them to act the way the act (Comcast is probably fed up with overpaying medoiocre guys like Corlis Williamson, Kenny Thomas etc. The players they probably felt that were the "missing pieces" so now, after years of delussions they decided to be sparefull). But what about the past seasons? Look at the money Cuban was giving to the players? Look at the Knicks in the 90's, the Sixers, look at the Dampier's and Houston's of the world etc.

Frankly, i pretty much don't care about this rule cause i was never near and i probably never will be at 100, but i'm just saying i would love to be realistic as can be, cause spending a crazy, large amount of money on your team is reality IMO.

In other league that I was in, they too had hard cap and the penalty for a over the hard cap was they would loss their first round pick and cann't sign any FA(include their own).

There would be no penalty because you would not be able to become over the hard cap. That's the whole point of it. Lol.

In real life, teams would never sign a guy to a 1 year, 10 million dollar contract just to use as a trade piece. Here, the money is meaningless so there is no difference between signing a guy to 1 year for 1 mil or 1 year for 10 mil.

So you're telling me Dallas wouldn't be better with Finley and Nash?  

And that's a perfect example, here there's NO worry about age and contracts, because if a guy retires he doesn't count against the cap.  I have no problem giving Earl Boykins the 4 year, 52 mil deal at age 32 I gave him, because I'll be over the cap regardless.  

Tim Duncan, AT AGE 33, is given a 7 year, 224 million dollar deal.  For real.  That doesn't happen in the NBA.

All the teams in the NBA who spent frivously are feeling the adverse effects of it.  It's costing them.  It doesn't cost us.



It's not.  I"ve showed you how every team that does so has been hurt because of it.

i wasn't sure if it was an option on FBB to put a hard cap in or or if bods was just going to enforce one, never played around with it, but from what you guys are saying it appears that you can

I like the idea.

First, let me say I like a hard cap, as proposed, but i doubt it will have much influence on this league. We only have a handful of teams over this hard cap now and some only due to signing trade fodder to big short term deals.

But on the other hand I'd really really like a higher salary cap soon. We're playing with the initial 43.8 mio for more than 6 seasons now and it's time for some "upgrade". Do it to the rookie salary scale too and all corresponding values (min, max, ...), but I don't see a reason keeping it at the current level forever.
A higher cap would favor teams who manage the cap better allowing them to offer more (and better) FA contracts. Last FA period with only ONE team (i know technically it were four but after own resignings only the Blazers were left) below the cap is not good for the league since the competition factor in FA falls away.

And finally ...

I believe that's why they invented the luxury tax, to keep salaries undercontrol (and even though it has never been executed so far, it DID have an effect on salaries being much lower now than before i believe)

i like the idea of a hard cap...however gms should choose if they want to follow the hard cap in the season or not...the penalty is that they would lose their first round pick if they would go over the hard cap..

because a gm thinks he can win it all after resigning a huge contract and would go over the cap....he wouldnt mind giving up a first round pick.....

if he thinks the player isn't worth the pick then he wont resign....

hmmm.... i think it would be a good idea it would provide more thinking  :lol:

And if the GM is on a great team he might WANT to give away his pick, so what thinking is involved there?

Don't like that idea.  And I like keeping the cap constant as wel.

I really like the idea.  Adds a little extra parity to the league as well, and makes you think about some financial decisions.

BTW, maybe the implementation of the Allan Houston rule (every team can dump one contract) would make it more palatable for the teams that are so far over the cap.

I definitely like the proposed new rule.

Any new thoughts on this.  Any rule like this going into effect could have an impact on possible trades.

We also forgot that REAL GM's have maybe more easier times with resigning their OWN FA's cause they can actually talk with them and have some kind of a verbal agreement. So, if you have let say 10 milions of cap, you can first sign a free agent from other team and then deal with your own. Here, we send all the offers at once (you don't have to off course but then it's a big risk which could devastate your team) and we never know when or who's gonna accept. So if you end up on Day 1 of FA with resigning your own free agent you end up with no money as well to sign some other players outside of MLE and LLE. So, not "caring" about money would at least compensate those two and make our and real GM's life somehow equal.

Very few free agents have moved in the SSBA, unless the contract offered was just that much better then the one offered by the home team.

But would you be willing to spend your money on other freeagents and then on the last days of FA deal with your own? Would you be ready to take that risk?

Me...  absolutely not.  But that is the risk you take.  If Vlad Radman has received any offers, Seattle would have lost him.  But he really did not, so they kept him.  

In the real NBA, the teams have to worry about salary.  The only team that does not care about salary is the Knicks.  Every other team works very hard to control their profits.

Did we ever decide to implement a hard cap? Can't seem to find it in the rules page.

Erm.....

It's been listed under "News" (both on the main rosters page and on the forums at the top) for a few sim seasons now...

Just to make sure, are we going into 2014 next season or 2015?