SSBA

I think that it is too easy to get out of a bad deal right now.  Many teams, myself included, have got out of numerous mistakes by using these points.  This being said, I think that the current cost is too little for reducing a contract.  I think that raising the cost is another way to make the league competitive and increase the value of the team bank system.  But I want to know your opinions, please give some reasoning behind your votes.  I will ultimately have the final decision, along with Derek's input.  I will leave this open until the after FA period is over, a decision will be made then.  If you think we should raise it, give me a number that you think might be fair.

I voted yes. As an example, it costs $750 to reduce a contract by 1 year in my league. Its because what Hawks brought up, the "easy out" factor.

I can't agree more. It is too easy.

I think it should go up a little based on how large the contract is, kinda like how extension does.  It should be harder to get out of the last year of a guy making $20 million than a guy making $2 million.

i agree with pistons but i disagree it is too easy. since most of us don´t make more than 400 a year it is already pretty high. in most leagues you don´t pay half the money you can get in a season. also we should consider how often it was used before. some gms here don´t even know we can do that.... :D

I used it twice last season alone.

Yeah.  half of the seasons income isn't too high.  in fact, it's far too low.  With the current system, if you had two free agents coming up that were 33 years old.  You could max them out to 6 year deals each, then at the end of the season make them expiring, just off the $ you made that year.

Does that seem right?

I'm not sure I follow this...


It would take $2200 to reduce two contracts for 5 years. 

Just to reduce a contract for 1 year takes $300 which is more than half of what can be earned in 1 year.  It even states the max one could earn in a year is $570...and that includes improving by over 15 games and being the team with the largest improvement (which only 1 team can earn each season).  So most teams realistically will earn between $320-400.   If a team improves 15 games and isn't the highest improvement then they only will earn $470 (closer to a true max.)

Otherwise I basically agree with Pistons that the larger the contract the bigger the buyout...that is realistic.  It takes more money to buy out a $10 mil contract in the NBA than to buy out a $3 mil contract.  I'm not sure how high the buyout should be since right now it costs the majority of one year's earnings.

However I have one concern...I have saved and planned to reduce both Stocker & Jefferson's contracts this season.  IMO it isn't fair to anyone who has made plans based on the current amounts to change them without given some type of grandfather clause.

I would agree that there should probably be a grandfather clause for a few years. 

I was looking at this closer because I still haven't voted.  Currently a 1 year reduction costs $300.

For 2017 - 17 of 29 teams earned > $300 however only 7 earned more than $320 (max for perfect attendance + DC) with only 1 team earnng more than $400.  The average for the 17 teams was $349.  The average for the whole league - $262

For 2018 - 15 teams earned > $300 and only 8 earned more than $320.  Four teams earned over $400; none of which were the same as the one over $400 in the prior year.  The average for the 15 teams was $369; for the league - $268.

Therefore I would say that contract reductions are priced fairly right now.  As it stands about half the teams could afford one buyout per season...and that would limit them to almost no other bank transactions.  The only possible change would to be to modify slightly so that there is a sliding scale as bigger contracts are bought out. 

Remember that earning the money isnt the only way you can get it ;)

I agree completely.

Also, maybe we could have a sliding scale for most things. For example, we could make it cost more to scout players already on your team than it would cost to scout players in the draft.

Except for the minimal amount paid for trades ($10)...the total pool of money doesn't change.  It just gets shifted around.  If someone trades you $300 then you can buyout another contract but then whoever traded $$$ to you will no longer be able to buyout someone.

Bottom line there is not even enough total cash earned in 1 season so that every team could buyout 1 contract for 1 year.  And that would leave no cash for buying potential, extending contracts, making trades, etc.  As it is now several teams don't even earn enough in 1 season to buyout a contract.  And for those that do they have to decide if that is the best use of their money.

This is why I voted no.

My opinion is it should go up with the amount of the salary.  It may need to start lower, but a $20 million buyout should be more difficult than a $2 milion.

And the total pool doesn't stay the same from year to year, as not everybody spends all their money.

I don't know if I should be taking part in polls like this since I I have one foot out the door, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

I voted yes.  I think the cost should be directly related to the contract value.  I.E.

$20.2M = $2020 cost
$1.5M = $150 cost

I think this would be the fairest way to do things.  Very straightforward too which is good.

Also, instead of grandfathering it in (which is a fine idea itself) I would personally try to implement it the sooner the better.  I'd give 2-3 years notice and then the year it is being implemented give each team one "amnesty clause" that it could use to get out of one bad long-term contract.  This would minimize the chances that a team's long term plan's would be hindered by this rule change.  Grandfathering is just as good, but takes longer and is more complicated to administer.

This is basically what I meant by grandfathering.  Let the increased costs start next season...that will allow anyone who has been planning for this year the chance to use established costs.  With a provision to allow a 1 time buyout at existing price after next year's money is posted.

IMO the costs shouldn't escalate so quickly.  Something like the cost for extensions. Only altered a little:

less than $4 mil........$200
4.1 mil to 10 mil........$400
over 10 mil......$600

That lets a team out of a rookie contract for less than they earn in 1 season.  Which will leave them cash for other things.  A mid level contract basically costs 1 year earnings.  Big contracts will cost about 1 1/2 years of earnings.  And the cost is the same for each year you want to buy.


Which would support the argument that buyouts are not that common.  Many GMs choose to just let contracts expire or players to retire instead of using buyouts.  So they must be priced fairly.

Scaling like it the extensions is a pretty decent compromise in my opinion.

So what is the final ruling on this? 

i am still trying to figure out what to do.  It will most likely be an increase, but not sure what kind of increase yet.

I voted yes, but with a tiered system whereby the cost goes up with the amount of the contract to be cut.

I like teams having to be frugal, gives us more management/decision-making tasks (do I cut this guys salary or do i check the potential of these rookies...or do i save it to add cap to a potential deal). Human nature is to want things now without much thinking, this forces GMs to think ahead and could make GM's pay for their impatience or benefit from taking risks, and it increases legitimacy of the simulation and gives us more to consider than just player stats and wins/losses.

I haven't voted...since I don't know what I'm voting for.

I think that a change should be made, but I don't agree with some of the proposed methods of change.