RULES ANNOUNCEMENT - HARD CAP CHANGE

[MagicGM]

REMINDER THAT THE NEW HARD CAP RULE IS IN PLACE NOW.  IF YOU ARE OVER 100m AS OF SIM 1 YOU WILL HAVE YOUR BEST PLAYER AUCTIONED.

Yes, you can be over 100m in the offseason as long as you are under by sim1.

ANOTHER NOTE: THE HARD CAP IS OFF IN THE GAME NOW SO IT WILL LET YOU GO OVER 100m.  YOU NEED TO TURN OFF YOUR PREVIOUS BIDS IF YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE YOU OVER 100m.


Have been talking about a few rules changes for some time - for some I will solicit feedback, and for others where it just clearly isn't working, I will not.

In short, we are going back to the old hard cap rule, beginning in 2079 (that is, not this upcoming season, but the season after).  I don't know if anyone currently is over or close to the hard cap (those of us that were over the hard cap traded out, I think), but I didn't think it was fair to change this rule with immediate effect. 

The existing hard cap just isn't working - it's confusing for people (how is anyone ever over the hard cap?)  We've had GMs get up to 110m too by just giving a bunch of long term contracts that kept inflating.  It's just not fair - the main reason we changed the hard cap rule for FBB3 is so it is easier to track.  But that's not enough of a reason for a rule that just isn't working. 

That is, beginning in 2079, if you are EVER over 100m in total salary at the time of a sim, your highest scoring player will be put on waivers for the rest of the league to claim (there's more details, but that's the short of it). 

For this upcoming season - the existing hard cap rules are still in effect, except one change: If you are ever over the hard cap, the only trades you can make are if it gets you below the hard cap (previously, any trade that left you with less salary than you started with was permissible).  So if you're at 105m, and you would be at 101m after the trade, you cannot make that trade.  You must get under 100m. 

Sorry for the late notice - just wanted to make sure I posted about this before FA started.

[CelticsGMOld]

I absolutely agree, a hard cap simply cannot be exceeded.  Otherwise it becomes a flex cap, which does not create a fair competitive environment. 

I do have some concerns about the consequences.  I am not sure sending the highest scorer to the waivers is always going to be a bad thing.  They might be expiring on a team that does not intend to resign them.  They might be on a bad contract (highly likely if one is over the hard cap.)  People might start abusing this system to simply get out of bad contracts. 

I think it might be better to punish teams via TBDs and first round draft picks.  I.e. Teams will lose their next two available first rounders, and be fined TBDs. i.e.  If a team has the 14th pick, they might pick 60th with every one else moving up a spot. 

We can also come up with a TBD luxury tax system where, for example, if you have a pay roll over 75,000,000 you have to pay a tax for every sim you are over. For a 100.000,000 payroll, 1TBD for every million over =  (25 TBDs/sim = 300-325 TBDs a season)  This might generally encourage GMs to try and earn TBDs while discouraging them from over spending.  This should be in addition to, not in lieu of, a hard cap. 

These are just some brainstorm suggestions.  Feel free to ignore them, if they are confusing or impractical. 

[BucksGM]

I absolutely agree, a hard cap simply cannot be exceeded.  Otherwise it becomes a flex cap, which does not create a fair competitive environment. 

I do have some concerns about the consequences.  I am not sure sending the highest scorer to the waivers is always going to be a bad thing.  They might be expiring on a team that does not intend to resign them.  They might be on a bad contract (highly likely if one is over the hard cap.)  People might start abusing this system to simply get out of bad contracts. 

I think it might be better to punish teams via TBDs and first round draft picks.  I.e. Teams will lose their next two available first rounders, and be fined TBDs. i.e.  If a team has the 14th pick, they might pick 60th with every one else moving up a spot. 

We can also come up with a TBD luxury tax system where, for example, if you have a pay roll over 75,000,000 you have to pay a tax for every sim you are over. For a 100.000,000 payroll, 1TBD for every million over =  (25 TBDs/sim = 300-325 TBDs a season)  This might generally encourage GMs to try and earn TBDs while discouraging them from over spending.  This should be in addition to, not in lieu of, a hard cap. 

These are just some brainstorm suggestions.  Feel free to ignore them, if they are confusing or impractical. 

We used to use this "highest scorer" rule in the old system and I think while on paper it seemed exploitable there wasn't ever a circumstance over the 60+ seasons where anyone wanted/tried to use the hard cap as a contract void. I think it ends up being because if no one claims your highest scorer it goes to #2 and so on - and if the contract is so atrocious (even for your top scorer) that you'd try to get rid of him this way, no one else in the league will want him either.

I brought up the same "tax" system in before we converted but it didn't get too much traction, mostly due to the work involved I believe.

[AsstJazzGM]

I absolutely agree, a hard cap simply cannot be exceeded.  Otherwise it becomes a flex cap, which does not create a fair competitive environment. 

I do have some concerns about the consequences.  I am not sure sending the highest scorer to the waivers is always going to be a bad thing.  They might be expiring on a team that does not intend to resign them.  They might be on a bad contract (highly likely if one is over the hard cap.)  People might start abusing this system to simply get out of bad contracts. 

I think it might be better to punish teams via TBDs and first round draft picks.  I.e. Teams will lose their next two available first rounders, and be fined TBDs. i.e.  If a team has the 14th pick, they might pick 60th with every one else moving up a spot. 

We can also come up with a TBD luxury tax system where, for example, if you have a pay roll over 75,000,000 you have to pay a tax for every sim you are over. For a 100.000,000 payroll, 1TBD for every million over =  (25 TBDs/sim = 300-325 TBDs a season)  This might generally encourage GMs to try and earn TBDs while discouraging them from over spending.  This should be in addition to, not in lieu of, a hard cap. 

These are just some brainstorm suggestions.  Feel free to ignore them, if they are confusing or impractical. 

We used to use this "highest scorer" rule in the old system and I think while on paper it seemed exploitable there wasn't ever a circumstance over the 60+ seasons where anyone wanted/tried to use the hard cap as a contract void. I think it ends up being because if no one claims your highest scorer it goes to #2 and so on - and if the contract is so atrocious (even for your top scorer) that you'd try to get rid of him this way, no one else in the league will want him either.

I brought up the same "tax" system in before we converted but it didn't get too much traction, mostly due to the work involved I believe.

Fendi did exploit this once. Though he may not agree if you ask him

[BucksGM]

I absolutely agree, a hard cap simply cannot be exceeded.  Otherwise it becomes a flex cap, which does not create a fair competitive environment. 

I do have some concerns about the consequences.  I am not sure sending the highest scorer to the waivers is always going to be a bad thing.  They might be expiring on a team that does not intend to resign them.  They might be on a bad contract (highly likely if one is over the hard cap.)  People might start abusing this system to simply get out of bad contracts. 

I think it might be better to punish teams via TBDs and first round draft picks.  I.e. Teams will lose their next two available first rounders, and be fined TBDs. i.e.  If a team has the 14th pick, they might pick 60th with every one else moving up a spot. 

We can also come up with a TBD luxury tax system where, for example, if you have a pay roll over 75,000,000 you have to pay a tax for every sim you are over. For a 100.000,000 payroll, 1TBD for every million over =  (25 TBDs/sim = 300-325 TBDs a season)  This might generally encourage GMs to try and earn TBDs while discouraging them from over spending.  This should be in addition to, not in lieu of, a hard cap. 

These are just some brainstorm suggestions.  Feel free to ignore them, if they are confusing or impractical. 

We used to use this "highest scorer" rule in the old system and I think while on paper it seemed exploitable there wasn't ever a circumstance over the 60+ seasons where anyone wanted/tried to use the hard cap as a contract void. I think it ends up being because if no one claims your highest scorer it goes to #2 and so on - and if the contract is so atrocious (even for your top scorer) that you'd try to get rid of him this way, no one else in the league will want him either.

I brought up the same "tax" system in before we converted but it didn't get too much traction, mostly due to the work involved I believe.

Fendi did exploit this once. Though he may not agree if you ask him

I forgot this and am somehow not surprised.

[MagicGM]

Yes, Fendi abused it once because Brian's predecessor was stupid and bailed him out.  But if the contract is really that bad, why is someone else agreeing to take it on?

In general it seems like an appropriate punishment though. 

[WizardsGM]

Two questions - forgive me if you already went over this and I didn't see it:

1 - Is there a salary floor?
2 - With the sudden change, everyone should be allowed 1 amnesty, because what if someone is signed for 4 years and the contract runs into the year this rule starts (good idea or bad? I don't think I'll be effected, but it seems reasonable)

[MagicGM]

Two questions - forgive me if you already went over this and I didn't see it:

1 - Is there a salary floor?
2 - With the sudden change, everyone should be allowed 1 amnesty, because what if someone is signed for 4 years and the contract runs into the year this rule starts (good idea or bad? I don't think I'll be effected, but it seems reasonable)

We are already giving a year's notice.  No one should be so close to the hard cap that this seriously impacts them.

[BucksGM]

Horace Baker and Trenton Daniels are the only players with double digit millions in the 4th year right now.

[WizardsGM]

Fair enough. What about a salary floor?

[BucksGM]

Fair enough. What about a salary floor?

No rule for it and as the NBA rule is the smallest punishment ever I don't think we should implement one. Extra complication for no reason.

[CelticsGMOld]

Have you guys used coaching/finances/scouting etc. in the past?

[KnicksGM]

Have you guys used coaching/finances/scouting etc. in the past?

Coaching would require you to make adjustments for every single game.

Finances are already in effect and probably has a slight impact on home record.

Scouting would require you to factor in salary into finances and, in my opinion, would eventually create a bigger gap between perennial contenders and people like me.

[WizardsGM]

Have you guys used coaching/finances/scouting etc. in the past?

Coaching would require you to make adjustments for every single game.

Finances are already in effect and probably has a slight impact on home record.

Scouting would require you to factor in salary into finances and, in my opinion, would eventually create a bigger gap between perennial contenders and people like me.

#OliverLivesMatter

[MagicGM]

Scouting is already on.  Everyone has the same scouting accuracy - so you won't know exactly what ratings a player has, and your ratings may be different from another GM's ratings.