|
|
Post by ib4 on Feb 16, 2011 20:39:03 GMT -5
Buy-out A Player: $1000 per season
deadline: before playoffs start
Have a contract you absolutely hate? Dread paying? Want the player to just GO AWAY!? Well you can buy out a player for $1000 per season. So if the guy's got 5 years left on his deal? $5000.
But...
Whatever the player's owed for the duration of the deal is cut in half and still will count towards your payroll. So say Shaq is owed $30 million (total) over the next 3 years of his contract. That will be cut in half ($15 million) and will be evened out over the duration of those 3 years ($5 million per) and added to your "cut salaries" and WILL count against your cap. If it cannot be cut in half and rounded into the number of years evenly, it will be rounded down to the nearest dollar amount that'd make it work.
why? I didn't like how you get full cap-relief for a measly $5000. At least the buyout rule is more realistic.
this is effective 2007.
Buyout limitation: teams only have ONE BUYOUT PER SEASON
Also, some buy out examples
example 1:
Player A makes 13M / 14M / 15M
I spend $2000 to buy out his last two years. 14+15 = 29. 29/2 = 14.5...this amount, 14.5 is divided evenly by the the amount of years bought out and counts toward my cut salary.. so Player A becomes a 13M expiring but 7.25 gets charged to Year 2 salary and also Year 3 salary.
example 2:
Player B makes 7M / 8 M / 9 M
I spend $3000 to buyout all 3 years. 7+8+9 = 24 and 24/2 = 12 so 12/3 = 4 so 4 mil is applied to Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 of "cut salary". Player B is removed from my roster and becomes a FA (that I cannot re-sign) that is placed on WAIVERS
Wavier System:
if a player is bought out including year 1, he will be placed on waivers. I will make a thread that will be open for 24 hours. Teams interested in signing the player can bid on the player to join their team (for the minimum) but after 24 hours, the team that posted interest with the then-current highest win% will be awarded the player. (tie breakers: home record, playoff seed, then last years win %) Why? In real life, it is understood that players who are bought-out are typically solid and/or veteran players that want to play for a competitor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Akomplice on Feb 16, 2011 20:40:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kmatrixg on Feb 20, 2011 22:11:38 GMT -5
Players on waivers are awarded to those showing interest in order of worst winning % first.
At least that's generally how it works in most major leagues.
Example:
Derek Anderson on Waivers
Interest from 3 teams in 24 Hours:
1. Toronto .641
2. Cleveland .450 Home Record 11-5 (.687)
3. Phoenix .450 Home Record 13-2 (.866)
Cleveland would claim Anderson after 24 hour limit is up, due to their worse Home Record (tie-breaker).
I think the point would be to give teams fighting for a playoff spot get better before the best get better.
|
|
|
|
Post by ib4 on Feb 20, 2011 23:41:25 GMT -5
If Billups is bought out if traded to the Nets (real life), would it make sense for the Twolves to claim him?
i know what you mean, i've been in leagues where lowest win % was awarded, but it didnt make sense for me. Why wouldnt he want to go play for a winner instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by heelsguy25 on Feb 20, 2011 23:50:16 GMT -5
I agree with Raps GM about the rich getting richer. I know most guys would want to play for a winner, but there are some who arent getting the minutes they deserve, so want to go to a bad team and get those minutes, not ride the bench. I think if we allow the better teams to get awarded, how will it make the entire league fair across the landscape?
|
|
|
|
Post by dukefan on Feb 20, 2011 23:54:22 GMT -5
I would have to agree....not smart to make the better teams better imo...
|
|
|
|
Post by ib4 on Feb 20, 2011 23:55:03 GMT -5
I agree with Raps GM about the rich getting richer. I know most guys would want to play for a winner, but there are some who arent getting the minutes they deserve, so want to go to a bad team and get those minutes, not ride the bench. I think if we allow the better teams to get awarded, how will it make the entire league fair across the landscape? what about highest win % for teams (at-the-time) unseeded? |
|
|
|
Post by ib4 on Feb 20, 2011 23:55:55 GMT -5
well in the last (good) league i was in that had a waiver system, they went by lowest win % the prior season.
you guys talking about lowest win % of the (current) season should get the player waived?
|
|
|
|
Post by heelsguy25 on Feb 20, 2011 23:58:00 GMT -5
well in the last (good) league i was in that had a waiver system, they went by lowest win % the prior season. you guys talking about lowest win % of the (current) season should get the player waived? Id say the latter. makes the most sense. The leagues I have been in did it that way, rewarding the bad team and evening out thinsg a smidge. |
|
|
|
Post by dukefan on Feb 20, 2011 23:58:08 GMT -5
I'd say that season yea....unless it was the offseason you'd go with previous season
|
|
|
|
Post by ib4 on Feb 20, 2011 23:58:58 GMT -5
well in the last (good) league i was in that had a waiver system, they went by lowest win % the prior season. you guys talking about lowest win % of the (current) season should get the player waived? Id say the latter. makes the most sense. The leagues I have been in did it that way, rewarding the bad team and evening out thinsg a smidge. alright i guess so. |
|
|
|
Post by heelsguy25 on Feb 21, 2011 0:00:51 GMT -5
I'd say that season yea....unless it was the offseason you'd go with previous season Ray, I wouldnt allow teams to waive guys after say the trade deadline and not during offseason..imo. |
|
|
|
Post by dukefan on Feb 21, 2011 0:03:15 GMT -5
I'm just goin from past leagues I was in too....but things were different in those leagues....where teams could waive any player on their team for say a future first.....as many teams claim as they want offering a future first...and the team w/ the worst record gets him
|
|
|
|
Post by RManske2 on Feb 21, 2011 0:05:53 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm really not worried if it's the highest win percentage or the lowest win percentage that can claim a player off waivers.
Why you ask? Well, I have a feeling that any player that is worth while isn't going to have their contract completely bought out. Probably the only players that will fall into this category are those that won't make much of an impact no matter what team they go to. If they are claimed by a team with a high percentage they will likely be buried on the bench and let's be honest, why would a team with a low winning percentage claim them since it could hurt the value of their draft pick.
If anything, why not make the waiver system similar to the wildcard system for the draft. I'm not sure what is used to determine what players are in and those are out, but just allow any team that is interested to submit a claim and assign each team a number and use something to come up with a random number and the team with the number wins the rights to that player.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmatrixg on Feb 21, 2011 1:45:14 GMT -5
In agreement with Rmanske
However, the way I looked at it first and foremost, why would a bad team add a decent player if they're not looking to get into the playoffs - it would hurt their draft pick. So right there, that demand adds a ceiling to the teams not bidding on Player A. Anything above that is going to be 60% of teams in the league, which all should be looking to make the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by ib4 on Feb 21, 2011 8:17:55 GMT -5
but when Marbury was (finally) bought out by the Knicks, he didn't look to join the #7 or #8 teams...he went right to the Celtics, the best team....(or maybe they were #2 at the time)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Feb 21, 2011 8:44:03 GMT -5
I like the idea but I dont think that many player's will get fully bought out anyway, why spend the cash to cut the year off when you can just let him expire. Or if hes a decent player and your rebuilding you will still be able to move him for a matching expiring and cash.
I do agree with Ray its more realistic if they go to the best team, those saying its making the best even better, but why shouldnt the best be rewarded.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmatrixg on Feb 21, 2011 16:52:16 GMT -5
but when Marbury was (finally) bought out by the Knicks, he didn't look to join the #7 or #8 teams...he went right to the Celtics, the best team....(or maybe they were #2 at the time) I'm not sure the NBA even has a waiver system. I was speaking more along the lines of the NFL. |
|
|
|
Post by kmatrixg on Feb 21, 2011 16:54:27 GMT -5
After giving it more thought - I guess it really doesn't matter. It's only the rest of the year, minimum contract. Most teams who are making a run will have already made the moves to get where they are at the point of the waiver claim anyway, so it really won't affect anything.
I rescind my argument
|
|
|
|
Post by ib4 on Mar 9, 2011 15:21:50 GMT -5
what about buying out 1 year players? i.e.: what if i wanted to buy out Zo and let him play for a contender?
|
|
|
|
Post by Akomplice on Mar 9, 2011 18:47:57 GMT -5
I'm OK with any rule, Waiver system seems fine to me. The buyout option that are expiring maybe make it cheaper than buying out contracts that go past one year.
For example to buy out Zo would be 500, but if he had two years it would still be 1000 a season.
|
|
|
|
Post by ib4 on Mar 9, 2011 20:26:54 GMT -5
but how would it help me? lol i could just cut him
|
|
|
|
Post by kmatrixg on Mar 9, 2011 20:40:40 GMT -5
Well that brings up the argument of why you would even spend the money to get rid of a 1 year contract in the first place. If he's expiring, you can't sign any big name players to begin with, unless you're looking to add a significant amount of cap, and in that case you'd have to be placed under the cap by the cut anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmatrixg on Mar 9, 2011 20:42:49 GMT -5
The only reason why I don't like the waiver systems of other leagues, where you ask for compensation is because it's like cheating to make a trade. I think if we adopted a "Buyout to FA" system, the team would still have to spend the money to cut him, and then we could hold a 24 hour period where the teams who would like the player enter their names, and then Ray, you could do something like pulling names out of a hat?
|
|
|
|
Post by Akomplice on Mar 9, 2011 21:51:41 GMT -5
but how would it help me? lol i could just cut him It really don't but I was just typing thoughts that came to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by ib4 on Mar 10, 2011 15:02:46 GMT -5
well what if I didn't bring this up and just cut Zo...people would yell at me: "tanker! tanker!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Akomplice on May 4, 2011 19:55:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ib4 on May 5, 2011 7:57:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by buffaloblue on May 7, 2011 19:02:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ib4 on May 8, 2011 19:24:31 GMT -5
|
|
