|
Post by eric on Sept 27, 2019 17:42:58 GMT
came up in shout just now
IRL a team can claim only part of a contract that's been waived and the waivor will get only that part taken off their books
it also makes more sense that an overpaid but worthwhile player (let's call him Tay Klompson) shouldn't end up on a min because no one wants to take his overpay contract on
here is the proposal for future waiver wire transactions:
Any team besides the original team can submit a claim to take on all or part of the contract, so long as they have hard cap space to do so and are capable of signing a free agent. The team with the most total money offered at the end of the wire will get the player. If tied, the team with the lowest winning % at the end of the wire will get the player. If still tied, previous seasons will be considered until the tie is broken.
If the player is successfully signed by another team, the original team receives that much less cut salary. If not, they are treated as any other free agent. A player that clears waivers has no Bird years.
.
PRO more realism more flexibility less mad dash to sign a player
CON fear of change latent racism
i'm leaning pretty heavily towards doing this so speak up soon if you don't want it
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Sept 27, 2019 17:44:36 GMT
Assuming only hard cap space is necessary?
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Sept 27, 2019 17:45:34 GMT
Also we should just implement it right now for Klay.
|
|
|
Post by wee2dee on Sept 27, 2019 18:00:52 GMT
can you divide the total money anyway you see fit or does it have to be equal shares per year thru the length of his contact?
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Sept 27, 2019 18:01:40 GMT
Would we just bid a percentage of the contract? And then get that amount for all years?
|
|
|
Post by wee2dee on Sept 27, 2019 18:46:23 GMT
Also we should just implement it right now for Klay. +1
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Sept 27, 2019 18:52:56 GMT
Is this for just cuts or Amnesty/Buyouts too? Cuz for the latter 2 this makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Sept 27, 2019 18:56:49 GMT
Is this for just cuts or Amnesty/Buyouts too? Cuz for the latter 2 this makes no sense. This is strictly being discussed for buyouts right now. What doesn't make sense about it?
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Sept 27, 2019 19:03:55 GMT
Ok i guess for buyouts it makes sense, as the unclaimed salary is left over as Cut Salary under the current season. For an amnesty though it'd be spread out because the amnestying team doesn't have to have the HC available to place in their cut salary
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Sept 27, 2019 19:06:11 GMT
This opens room for collusion for cut players though as 1 GM could assure another that they'd be picking up part of the contract.
So should be buy outs only imo
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Sept 27, 2019 19:24:52 GMT
How often is it that players that get cut and not bought out are a hot commodity?
Especially now with a wheel where there is no incentive whatsoever to actively get worse?
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Sept 27, 2019 19:32:09 GMT
There's incentives to clear cap tho. Buyouts accomplish that. Cuts could too if we apply this rule
|
|
|
Post by eric on Sept 27, 2019 20:05:47 GMT
Would we just bid a percentage of the contract? And then get that amount for all years? can you divide the total money anyway you see fit or does it have to be equal shares per year thru the length of his contact? my plan was any fa-legal contract, and top total amount wins, and that amount is taken off of the cut money (if any) Ok i guess for buyouts it makes sense, as the unclaimed salary is left over as Cut Salary under the current season. For an amnesty though it'd be spread out because the amnestying team doesn't have to have the HC available to place in their cut salary amnesty would be the same except since there's $0 cut money so it would be $0 regardless of claims. i like not allowing it for ordinary cuts though
|
|