How could the Jazz ...

[CelticsGM]

... signe PG Shireman on day 1 when they are over the hard cap ?

[CelticsGM]

And how could the Bucks sign Royal Jackson on day 2 when they are over the hard cap ?

Questions over questions and nobody paying attention ...
 

[SpursGM-old]

These are VERY legit points.  If I recall we had a similar situation last FA.  If we are not going to enforce the limits on the hard cap then we should vote whether to continue or not.


At this point IMO the two signees should be released back into the FA pool.  And these two teams should be limited to min bids only...even for their FA with bird rights.

[CelticsGM]

BEFORE FA days 2 they already should have been limited to
- complete inactivity on the Jazz side, since their roster had 14 people on.
- inactivity until AFTER FA has concluded (and a little more *) for the Bucks, so they can THEN fill their roster to the mandatory 12 with min FAs

(*) not sure if teams over the hard cap - and the Bucks moved there completely unnecessary by signing Jack Vice of all people to a MLE contract on day 1 - shouldn't be punished not being allowed to sign a FA after TC for like 24 hours, otherwise they could still get the top TC guys. There's still a day left before preseason starts then ...

[NetsGM]

I think it's quite obvious that them being over the cap was simply not noticed.  I'm not sure what world you guys live in, but when you ask someone to do a hobby, and do to it on their spare time, and to do it on a regular basis, mistakes happen.  It's not that these "aren't being enforced", it was simply a mistake.

You guys are free to PM/notify us if you see someone over the hard cap, so we can make sure it's enforced properly.  There are 27 (?) GM's in this league.  If just one person remembers to check the Salary page, we're set.

As for going forward, I've never supported putting players back in the FA pool, because once someone signs with a team, it sets off a chain of events that can't be turned back, and putting them back in the FA pool doesn't fix that.

[CelticsGM]

hey, that wasn't supposed to be harsh critizism just identifying one small mistake.

the bigger issue is what to do with
- Shiremen - the Kings should have one bird year, could offer up to 5.4 mill, will they get it back?
- Jackson - will the Bucks be allowed to keep his bird year IF they manage to get below the hard cap before day 5?
- Bucks - will the be allowed to put min FA bids in or do they have to wait?

again, just a lame attempt being funny ...
:-/

[CelticsGM]

...

As for going forward, I've never supported putting players back in the FA pool, because once someone signs with a team, it sets off a chain of events that can't be turned back, and putting them back in the FA pool doesn't fix that.

Ahem, both players were signed AFTER their teams had exceeded the hard cap already. There's no possible way they should be allowed to keep them (no matter if stiffs or not). Sure cutting them now isn't fair to everybody, but there's no other possibility.

A rollback of day 2 should definitely not be an option, not with FBB's unpredictability ...

[NetsGM]

hey, that wasn't supposed to be harsh critizism just identifying one small mistake.

It was more to the complaint of "if the rules not enforced, it should be removed".  This was simply a mistake, which does happen, and IMO doesn't constitute the rule not being enforced.

Ahem, both players were signed AFTER their teams had exceeded the hard cap already.

Obviously.  Otherwise there wouldn't be a problem.

There's no possible way they should be allowed to keep them (no matter if stiffs or not). Sure cutting them now isn't fair to everybody, but there's no other possibility.

Cutting them now would be unfair to those who have already used their MLE or cap space.  I don't think that's the answer.

Furthermore, my opinion on this is if the commish's didn't notice, and if the rest of the league didn't notice until after the fact, congratulations. 

And this is coming from someone who wanted both Shireman and Jackson.

[RaptorsGM]

So why have rules in place that we forget to enforce? I have a hard time wrapping my head around that concept...if the commish is strained for time - and certainly I don't think anyone is complaining about anything like that, I'm very thankful we have the PacersGM to run the sims and I'm sure Tom and everyone else is too - why not just eliminate our "SSBA specific" rules and let FBB do the enforcing? Takes out all human error and makes sure everyone can be play on an equal playing field?

Like I said, I certainly don't want this to be construed as a complaint, just a simple suggestion. I love how smoothly SSBA has and will continue to run.

[HornetsGM]

I am very against abandoning the SSBA cap. Two of my major personnel decisions (Natt / Sampson) have been based in part on the existence of the cap.

[NetsGM]

So why have rules in place that we forget to enforce? I have a hard time wrapping my head around that concept

Because we're friggin human?  IIRC this is the first time this situation has come up.  Shit happens.  That doesn't mean the rule in and of itself is a bad idea.

IMO rules like the hard cap, like banks (and what you can do with them), like the hall of fame, greatly enhance this league.  Throwing them away because of one human error would be like cutting off your finger to get rid of a hangnail.

[RaptorsGM]

I don't see something like the hall of fame ever been an issue. That's an entirely different topic. If teams get away with signing players over the hard cap, that's a double standard, and I don't think double standards belong. Plenty of available solutions, so let's explore one.

I'll volunteer right now to monitor team caps and personally notify the Pacers or whomever when a team goes over the cap. No problem doing that, and it saves having to have this conversation again.

[NetsGM]

If teams get away with signing players over the hard cap, that's a double standard, and I don't think double standards belong

That's not a double standard.  That's a mistake.

A double standard would be:
"hey, I like tom.  I won't enforce it if he goes over the cap".

A mistake would be: "damn.  nobody noticed, not one person in the entire league, that two teams were over the hard cap until after they signed someone else".

See the difference?

There's no one person that needs to monitor it.  Everyone monitor it.  That way if one or two people forget (like Pacers and I did here), the other 27 people have a chance of noticing it.

[SpursGM-old]

Bods...I think you misread my intention.  In no way was my comments a degradation of the work put in by Pacers, you or any of the people who have gone to great lengths to make this a great league.  But since there are only 29 GMs and salaries are 1 click away it shouldn't take a lot of work to determine what teams cannot put in anything more than min bids.  If they submit "illegal" bids then the commish just doesn't input them.

But it seems that this issue (hard cap violation) comes up regularly.  And why should there be a "police force" to ensure that the rules are followed?  If we can't trust GMs to recognize they are over the cap and to make only min bids then how can we trust them not to renege on deals?  It isn't like it is a new rule.  

[NetsGM]

From my perspective, when i used to run the sims, checking the salaries page just isn't one of the first things that pop up in my mind.  FA (particularly day 1 and day 2) is already a painstakingly grueling, long process.  You're concentrating so much on inputting bids, that it's just a step that's easy to forget.  You really have to make a conscious decision to remember to check to see if anyone's over the cap, and it's just simple human error.

As for trust, I don't think either Bucks or Jazz intentionally violated the rule.  I know as a GM, it's not something I'm necessarily cognizant of.  Particularly the Bucks, who went over the hard cap on day 1 of FA.  How do we know he didn't just have Jackson's bid submitted for day 1 (it was a re-signing, after all), and Jackson just accepted on day 2?  IMO it's much more likely to have been a mistake than it was not being able to trust someone.