Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

The Bean Regime wrote:

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.

But you would lose the player, so whether he’s good or not is irrelevant.

dennocj wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

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.

But you would lose the player, so whether he’s good or not is irrelevant.

it's not about the team stretching, it's about the other teams. If someone stretched a starter quality player due to the bad contract and probably age, it would need to be determined how that player signs with a new team. The regular season is particularly tricky, but the offseason isn't quite so clear cut either. Player goes into FA is the obvious move for offseason, but simply dropping him in for the next sim isn't entirely fair, as GMs that spent their cap might have preferred the chance at the stretched player instead (this situation being if the player was stretched in the middle of FA).

The Bean Regime wrote:

dennocj wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

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.

But you would lose the player, so whether he’s good or not is irrelevant.

it's not about the team stretching, it's about the other teams. If someone stretched a starter quality player due to the bad contract and probably age, it would need to be determined how that player signs with a new team. The regular season is particularly tricky, but the offseason isn't quite so clear cut either. Player goes into FA is the obvious move for offseason, but simply dropping him in for the next sim isn't entirely fair, as GMs that spent their cap might have preferred the chance at the stretched player instead (this situation being if the player was stretched in the middle of FA).

I see what you’re saying now. My fault, I was thinking in terms of a vaccuum where he’d only be stretched and then be available during offseason FA

Anyone else with an opinion regarding buyouts/stretches?

I’m cool with a stretch provision as long as you can only do it once every X years and as long as it’s done during the draft so they go into the FA Pool.

Using the Kuzma example, what happens if Kuzma retires after a couple seasons. Would the cap penalty stay in place or would that go away also?

bellsduck wrote:Using the Kuzma example, what happens if Kuzma retires after a couple seasons. Would the cap penalty stay in place or would that go away also?

It stays in place. Would act just like a cut player would against the cap

I could go either way.

TDotDarkwing wrote:I could go either way.

Same. Ideally it’d be exclusive to new gms.

BucksGM wrote:

TDotDarkwing wrote:I could go either way.

Same. Ideally it’d be exclusive to new gms.

Why though?

If we were to have it, I think it would be for everyone. Why would new GM’s operate under different rules?

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

looks at the bottom of the screen shot.....

if the stretch provision were a thing, no GM should ever use it. We don't care about finances, and putting that much dead cap on your team is crippling