Vote: 2nd Round Draft Picks

[NetsGM]

Like I said, making it no risk for anyone isn't better than making it no risk for some, so we're not going to agree on that.

Being over the cap is a thing that naturally has advantages and disadvantages.  The big disadvantage being you're essentially worthless in FA.  If this is the advantage it gets, I'm not worried about this tiping the scale.

[GoldenStateGM]

And since free agency in this sim has a major advantage over the actual NBA free agency (the fact that you can use the MLE and LLE's in addition to your cap space, where in the NBA, if you are under the cap on a certain date, you do not get the MLE or LLE), this makes it slghtly more even for those over the cap.
Plus, if you have the cap space, just save some of it for the player you wish to sign...

[SpursGM-old]

And since free agency in this sim has a major advantage over the actual NBA free agency (the fact that you can use the MLE and LLE's in addition to your cap space, where in the NBA, if you are under the cap on a certain date, you do not get the MLE or LLE), this makes it slghtly more even for those over the cap.
Plus, if you have the cap space, just save some of it for the player you wish to sign...

But if I had to choose right now to give Gates $3.75 mil it would impact my cap space to resign Bird.  And I don't even get 1 TC to evaluate Gates.

Why would any team under the cap for the following year EVER elect to give a second rounder the additional money?   This rule only helps those teams that are already over the cap.

[NetsGM]

Well, like I said, not all choices in this are supposed to be easy.  And there aren't contracts in the nba that are allowed to be modified after a training camp.

The goal of this wasn't to rid you of decisions  Building a team through the draft has always been risky, and re-signing your own players is only one of those risks.

It's like me.  If I want to make a true run at Carmelo, I should offer him a max contract and not offer Battier a max contract, because if Battier signs first I can then not sign Carmelo.  However, if Carmelo signs first I can then still sign Battier.  But if I don't offer Battier a contract right away, I run the risk of losing him.  I have to make a decision, and sometimes a hard one.

Perfect?  No.  Better?  Yes.

[SpursGM-old]

Well, I don't believe it is better.  IMO it allows those who are maxed out a no-brainer option on the outside chance that they will find someone who will explode in TC.  Any GM who will be over the cap in 2010 has no excuse not to exercise the option in 2009.  For those GMs that will have cap space in 2010 it puts a terrible decision on them.  And the teams that fall into the first camp (maxed out in future years) tend to be the playoff teams.  The strong get stronger.

[NetsGM]

A terrible decision?  YOU DON'T HAVE A DECISION TO MAKE!   If you were going to be under the cap, you don't have the constraints of what contract you can offer 2nd round picks.  Just let the normal salar structure stay in tact and offer him your cap space.

Really, we're talking about 2nd round picks.  The rich get richer?  How many picks in the 50's turn out to be jack?  None.  It's usually the guy's picked in the top 10, which unless you traded your picks (and that's on you), doesn't affect the rich.

[SpursGM-old]

It could make the difference between being $8 mil under the cap or $4.7 mil under the cap in 2010.  That IS A TERRIBLE DECISION.  With no input other than looking at predraft ratings.

Whereas the difference between being 5 mil over the cap or 8.2 mil over the cap is a no brainer.  Add the extra salary what can it hurt.

As far as the trading of picks....I still have my second and the concensus here is that it will be a high second rounder.  I still say having to make a $3.2 mil decision on my 2010 salary cap is a terrible decision.  Where if I traded the pick to the Mavs, Raptors, or Pacers they would have NO decision at all.  Take the higher amount because they are already maxed out.

[NetsGM]

The decision then lies not on whether you should add the salary to the 2nd year of the contract, but whether adding longterm deals in the 2010 fa is worth risking the 2009 2nd round pick over.  Because if you don't add longterm deals in 2010, come 2011 when those 2009 draft picks are up for renewal, if you're under the cap, you didn't have to give the extra salary, as it doesn't make a difference if the last year of the contract was 3.75 or .465 million because you can offer anything.

As for your argument that it helps the good teams way over the cap, phooey.  Yes, it makes their decision easier.  But it doesn't help them.  Why?  Because good teams draft 45+.  Yes, the decision may be easy for them.  But maybe 1 in 50 players drafted at these late picks will have the decision BENEFIT them, most picks won't be good enough where having made that easy decision will be of any value to them.

This primarily helps non-playoff teams who are over the cap.  Teams like the Knicks, or the Cavs.  It also helps the bad teams under the cap.  Why?  Well, first, if you know you got a steal, you have a better chance of keeping them.  And it also raises the trade value of early 2nd round picks, so if you do trade them, you should see a better return on them.  And since bad teams get these picks, it will help the bad teams either way.

It does NOT help teams like the Mavs.  If what we are arguing about is a player who is drafted 57th, I'll take my odds that this will never become an issue.  The only other way the good, maxed out teams benefit is if they acquire an early 2nd round pick in a trade.  And if you traded them, after this rule, then you should have known that and gotten good value for them.

Just because it makes good maxed out teams decisions easier doesn't mean it helps them.  And just because you now have more choices, tougher choices, doesn't mean it hurts you.

[SonicsGM]

The decision then lies not on whether you should add the salary to the 2nd year of the contract, but whether adding longterm deals in the 2010 fa is worth risking the 2009 2nd round pick over.  Because if you don't add longterm deals in 2010, come 2011 when those 2009 draft picks are up for renewal, if you're under the cap, you didn't have to give the extra salary, as it doesn't make a difference if the last year of the contract was 3.75 or .465 million because you can offer anything.

As for your argument that it helps the good teams way over the cap, phooey.  Yes, it makes their decision easier.  But it doesn't help them.  Why?  Because good teams draft 45+.  Yes, the decision may be easy for them.  But maybe 1 in 50 players drafted at these late picks will have the decision BENEFIT them, most picks won't be good enough where having made that easy decision will be of any value to them.

This primarily helps non-playoff teams who are over the cap.  Teams like the Knicks, or the Cavs.  It also helps the bad teams under the cap.  Why?  Well, first, if you know you got a steal, you have a better chance of keeping them.  And it also raises the trade value of early 2nd round picks, so if you do trade them, you should see a better return on them.  And since bad teams get these picks, it will help the bad teams either way.

It does NOT help teams like the Mavs.  If what we are arguing about is a player who is drafted 57th, I'll take my odds that this will never become an issue.  The only other way the good, maxed out teams benefit is if they acquire an early 2nd round pick in a trade.  And if you traded them, after this rule, then you should have known that and gotten good value for them.

Just because it makes good maxed out teams decisions easier doesn't mean it helps them.  And just because you now have more choices, tougher choices, doesn't mean it hurts you.

well stated.