|
Post by AuldDawg on Mar 4, 2015 9:01:05 GMT -6
Jusr curious...was this the trade that put the Bucks over the hard cap? And if so, how is it possible that it gets processed?
I thought that any trade that put a team over the hard cap would automatically be void since hard cap relief is only available when teams inadvertently sign too many guys during FA.
|
|
|
Post by John1974 on Mar 4, 2015 9:42:55 GMT -6
I didn't realized it when the Sonics offered the deal to me and Raptors in PM, I thought everything matched since we where all having to match deals and Sonics and I have been trying to trade since the day before working on matching contracts. When I got the offer saying everything should match on my phone I accepted it. It wasn't until after the sim when I uploaded the pages and checked my team page for results/stats that I saw the hard cap issue.
If the league wants it reversed I can do that, I meant to post something yesterday but I was busy working on my business most of the day.
|
|
|
Post by John1974 on Mar 4, 2015 9:44:00 GMT -6
Also if it gets reversed I will reverse the camps on Kelley, and nix the deal with wizards for Free.
|
|
|
Post by AuldDawg on Mar 4, 2015 9:47:13 GMT -6
I don't mind as long as the league rules are consistent. I just think we open a can of worms if this deal isn't reworked. I'm sure you guys can figure out the logistics and make it work but I think it should be done within the framework of the rules.
As an aside, I think its funny that of the guys involved, one was the commish and one was the guy that developed the trade checker with the hard cap feture. Lol
|
|
|
Post by John1974 on Mar 4, 2015 9:54:26 GMT -6
I know that's why when I used my phone to check pm I was like sure I agree. Figured we had everthing worked out, I will get working on the sim and everyone can weigh in on this as they see it.
|
|
|
Post by jlafavor on Mar 4, 2015 9:58:23 GMT -6
I don't mind as long as the league rules are consistent. I just think we open a can of worms if this deal isn't reworked. I'm sure you guys can figure out the logistics and make it work but I think it should be done within the framework of the rules. As an aside, I think its funny that of the guys involved, one was the commish and one was the guy that developed the trade checker with the hard cap feture. Lol i actually rarely use the checker, i just do the math myself and didnt check his hard cap levels.
|
|
|
Post by sidtiancam on Mar 4, 2015 10:06:22 GMT -6
I know I'm a newbie, but this trade is one of the reasons that I asked about the 115% rule, as all teams were over the soft cap, so there shouldn't have been that much of a difference in salary, even if it didn't go over the hard cap.
Now, I don't care if it stays for now, since we're talking a lot of work to reverse several trades, camps, etc... I just wanted to throw out there why I asked the question to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by jlafavor on Mar 4, 2015 10:16:04 GMT -6
I don't mind as long as the league rules are consistent. this is an area of inconsistency in the league. as a general rule, when teams have made trades that inadvertently put them over the cap it has been allowed with the hard cap warning and i dont recall any being reversed (if you have been involved in one that was feel free to call me out) but i am sure trades that were noticed of putting someone over the cap were not allowed. re-working wise, i don't know that we would be able to re-work it, we had limited salaries we could move and john needed to sign free agents to try to match (likely what put him over the cap) really what would have had to happen was something similar to the free trade happening before our three team trade.
|
|
|
Post by pistolpetejr on Mar 4, 2015 10:53:32 GMT -6
Honestly this is complicated lol.
If someone has an issue with it, please say so I guess, and we'll probably have to reverse in that case.
|
|
|
Post by gritter13 on Mar 4, 2015 11:01:25 GMT -6
I personally do not remember any trade being reversed because a team inadvertently went over the hard cap with the trade. I thought that a hard cap warning was given and the team had until the next sim to get back under the hard cap.
I know the IBA is different, and there trades are not allowed where a team goes over the hard cap. In that league, I know trades have been reversed.
I don't think anything needs to be done with this.
|
|
huxley
1st Rounder
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by huxley on Mar 4, 2015 12:33:14 GMT -6
That's nonsense.
Anyone is allowed to make a trade and go over the hard cap even by 50 mil $, but then you have until the next sim to get under.
It's simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by lynchcats on Mar 4, 2015 12:34:05 GMT -6
I think we should come up with a hard rule as it comes to this. As far as the trade for now, it seems too complicated to reverse things. I think a hard rule should be applied starting next season.
|
|
|
Post by erichoya97 on Mar 4, 2015 13:51:36 GMT -6
I think in the in the interest of keeping the league fluid and dynamic some variation of what Huxley mentioned should be considered for an official rule. Perhaps limit the amount it can exceed the hard cap to 10 million or something similar.
|
|
|
Post by lutonlol on Mar 4, 2015 14:14:20 GMT -6
It's a non issue.
There is no rule against it and nor should there be.
The existing penalties for being over the Hard Cap are enough.
|
|
stork15
HIgh School Starter
Posts: 423
|
Post by stork15 on Mar 4, 2015 15:26:01 GMT -6
Agree with the last few posts. You should be able to go over, you just have to get back under.
|
|
|
Post by AuldDawg on Mar 5, 2015 6:06:52 GMT -6
Guess I'm in the minority.
We should just rename it the semi-hard cap since technically you can go over it on purpose.
I understand when teams inadvertently go over during FA because you can't control who signs when. However, being able to go over on purpose violates the spirit of fair play that the hard cap is designed to protect in a similar fashion that the anti-tanking rule does IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Keyser Soze on Mar 5, 2015 6:35:21 GMT -6
I hear what you're saying but the league has always had a "semi hard cap". You can re-sign your guys and go over the hard cap. You can go over in free agency. And you can go over in trades.
|
|
rr1582
2nd Rounder
Posts: 2,895
|
Post by rr1582 on Mar 5, 2015 7:35:22 GMT -6
I know I'm late to the party here...I wouldn't overturn the trade, but I agree with AuldDawg here in that going over the hardcap & allowing trades & such that don't have the requisite terms through another trade to make it work shouldn't go through & does cause a potential divide in competitive balance. I also know the league has had these rules in place for allowing the going over the hardcap (semi hard cap). My suggestion is either to go to never exceeding the hardcap or just institute a luxury tax system that costs you GM cash for being over the threshold. With the penalties getting progressively worse for repeat offenders. For example, if you are over the tax level(hardcap) for 3 seasons in a row you would pay more than being over for 1 season. This is just a thought for going forward. In closing, just because the rule has been in place for years & years regarding the hardcap doesn't mean it's right or couldn't use some tweaking of it.
|
|
|
Post by John1974 on Mar 5, 2015 10:10:17 GMT -6
I hear what you're saying but the league has always had a "semi hard cap". You can re-sign your guys and go over the hard cap. You can go over in free agency. And you can go over in trades. This is why we have hard cap fine, and rule that the owner or owners who are over hard cap get 1 sim to get under.
|
|
|
Post by yourkers15 on Mar 5, 2015 10:39:28 GMT -6
I will say this I think you should not be able to go over the hard cap period. Because it allows people to keep stacked teams without ever having to worry because you can go over and get under later. When you have superstars you know you will get value for them and keep retooling a team with out any worries. I understand that you can't control what happens in free agency sometimes but you can control signings and trades.
Just my thought. Also something I think should be discussed. But I am sure most people would be against it.
|
|