Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

I know that Buyouts are not something that have been in this league. Being that this is my first sim league I may not be looking at buyouts from all the necessary angles so if y'all feel differently than I do just reply and let me know what y'all think. I feel that if we incorporate buyouts and allow them, even if it's only like one player every two seasons or so, would allow for more competition in the league. New GM's who inherit rosters with players they don't want would be given an opportunity to rid themselves of those players and start over earlier. I would assume that the salary owed would count toward current year cap room which wouldn't just allow anyone to cut anyone. I'm not even entirely sure if the operating system of the game can perform a function such as this, I just thought I'd bring it up and see what everyone else thinks about it

I love that Idea....if it can work

I am not against buyouts but I am also not for them.

I would prefer a stretch provision as that would be easier than a buyout (from my side of things). A buyout is also not straight forward. Since there is no negotiating, each deal would have to be the same for the buyout (player making $5 mil over 3 years would have to have the same buyout criteria of a player making $45 mil over 3 years). Thats where I feel it is tough to decide on what the "penalty" is.

In real life when a new GM takes over, they inherit the old GM's mess (if that's the case) and have to work to remake their roster. It shouldnt be different for our league when a new GM joins, he is stuck with what he inherited.

Now stretching is another story as depending on the criteria (Example: once every 10 years), would be easy to control and implement while still having a "penalty" associated with using it.

I miss the CBA days where you could frontload a contract. I always thought that was fun.

Oregon Ownage wrote:I am not against buyouts but I am also not for them.

I would prefer a stretch provision as that would be easier than a buyout (from my side of things). A buyout is also not straight forward. Since there is no negotiating, each deal would have to be the same for the buyout (player making $5 mil over 3 years would have to have the same buyout criteria of a player making $45 mil over 3 years). Thats where I feel it is tough to decide on what the "penalty" is.

In real life when a new GM takes over, they inherit the old GM's mess (if that's the case) and have to work to remake their roster. It shouldnt be different for our league when a new GM joins, he is stuck with what he inherited.

Now stretching is another story as depending on the criteria (Example: once every 10 years), would be easy to control and implement while still having a "penalty" associated with using it.

How does a stretch provision work exactly? And I definitely see your point on the real life situation as well. Especially since I'm always clamoring as to how I like this to be as close to real life as possible. I don't think anyone recently has inherited anything that bad anyways, I just think it might be a decent option that could create more competition in the league.

I'm not against it if we can as a group come up with a valid way of doing it.

I've always been for things to keep the GM's active and giving us as a group a little more flexibility on contracts could do that. I think someone in the past suggested something similar but I could be wrong.

dennocj wrote:How does a stretch provision work exactly?

Per wikipedia

When a team waives a player, it can spread the remaining guaranteed salary (and its accompanying cap hit) over twice the remaining length of the contract, plus one year.

I can show examples when I am in the software tonight but here is a quick example:

Kyrie Irving will have one more year on his deal and will make 21 mil next season. If I stretch him, my cap hit for the next 3 seasons would be 7 mil.

Year 1 - 7 mil
Year 2 - 7 mil
Year 3 - 7 mil

Total of 21 mil stretched over three years (1x2+1=3)

The earliest you could stretch a player in our system would be 3 years remaining b/c we cant go past 7 years with contracts.

You also can not reacquire the player once he has been stretched for x period of time (TBD)

The time to stretch a player would also have TBD (during draft, during playoffs, etc.)

Thanks for starting this thread Larry Bird! Mark Cuban brings up an excellent alternative with the “stretch” scenario. Very interesting and it truly would make more teams competitive

I like the idea I say by day 60 half way through the season.

also what about the Allen Houston rule is that something we have done or considered

stylesofpunk wrote:also what about the Allen Houston rule is that something we have done or considered

We do not have a luxury tax so this couldn't apply

This is what a stretched players contract would look like



You get the savings during the years on the current deal but have to then carry it forward which sucks and is your penalty.

Oregon Ownage wrote:This is what a stretched players contract would look like

You get the savings during the years on the current deal but have to then carry it forward which sucks and is your penalty.

Isn't the point that you lose (waive) the player as well? So wouldn't that contract just be moved to the cut salaries?

Also, I believe the first year's salary remains the same if done during the regular season, which would be nice to include. So it shows as your example if they want cap space immediately for FA or something in the offseason, or if your salary is fine for that season, you can wait until the regular season and do a 12, and then 4.5 for the other 6 for future savings.

The Bean Regime wrote:

Oregon Ownage wrote:This is what a stretched players contract would look like

You get the savings during the years on the current deal but have to then carry it forward which sucks and is your penalty.

Isn't the point that you lose (waive) the player as well? So wouldn't that contract just be moved to the cut salaries?

Also, I believe the first year's salary remains the same if done during the regular season, which would be nice to include. So it shows as your example if they want cap space immediately for FA or something in the offseason, or if your salary is fine for that season, you can wait until the regular season and do a 12, and then 4.5 for the other 6 for future savings.

Yes, you would lose the player but I cant screen grab the cut salaries screen (this was a work around).

The second question is what we would debate if we agree to this. Many moving parts

Oregon Ownage wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

Oregon Ownage wrote:This is what a stretched players contract would look like

You get the savings during the years on the current deal but have to then carry it forward which sucks and is your penalty.

Isn't the point that you lose (waive) the player as well? So wouldn't that contract just be moved to the cut salaries?

Also, I believe the first year's salary remains the same if done during the regular season, which would be nice to include. So it shows as your example if they want cap space immediately for FA or something in the offseason, or if your salary is fine for that season, you can wait until the regular season and do a 12, and then 4.5 for the other 6 for future savings.

Yes, you would lose the player but I cant screen grab the cut salaries screen (this was a work around).

The second question is what we would debate if we agree to this. Many moving parts

And of course deciding how to work out the players situation. The player being stretched could be quite good.

Many parts indeed.

Man this is messy.

If the whole reason this is being brought up is for the sake of new GMs dealing with someone else's mess, I think that it should resemble real life: at times, you run into good situations, and at others, bad ones.

That said, if the league thinks we ought to implement something to encourage competition and to help them out, perhaps something small.