Hardcap Penalties

[Oregon Ownage]

Current Rule

After going over the hard cap, you will have 48 hours to get under. Failure to do so will result a loss of a first round pick (Commish's choice which pick). Another 48 hours will be given, after that, GM will be fired.

Proposed Rule
If a GM goes over the hardcap on Days 1-3, the player that put the team over the hardcap will be released back in the FA pool.

This is where I want feedback

With the player being sent back to FA, should the team that went over the hardcap be eligible to bid on the player again? If you are over by more than $100k, I would say no you cant bid on the player again but if under $100k, then yes b/c that small amount could be a miscalculation.

If a GM goes over the hardcap on Days 4-5, the player/s that put the team over the hardcap will be released back in the FA pool. Those players are unable to be signed by the team for 10 days (end of sim 1). This would normally happen if bidding on multiple min players and all of them end up signing with a team.

The above scenario is more likely to happen and easy to fix

Also trades that put a team over would not be accepted (unless im blind and dont see it)

This would remove the 48 hour window as the team who goes over would immediately be put back under by one the rules above.

[offtheheezy]

I'd say they should either all be allowed to bid on the player again or all not be allowed to bid on the player again, otherwise the cutoff seems a little bit arbitrary. Don't have a strong opinion though

[UOducksTK1]

What if a team signs 3 guys in FA, and 1 of them would push him over the hard cap. How do we determine which player to put back into FA?

Additionally, teams may have used up their cap space by then, so even if the player gets put back in FA, teams now won't have a shot at him where they would have before.

I think going over hard cap, specifically during FA should result in a lost of a first round pick. We need to make it so teams have tons of incentive NOT to ever go over the hard cap.

Going over during regular season with trades and such, is way more minor to me.

[offtheheezy]

What if a team signs 3 guys in FA, and 1 of them would push him over the hard cap. How do we determine which player to put back into FA?

Additionally, teams may have used up their cap space by then, so even if the player gets put back in FA, teams now won't have a shot at him where they would have before.

I think going over hard cap, specifically during FA should result in a lost of a first round pick. We need to make it so teams have tons of incentive NOT to ever go over the hard cap.

Going over during regular season with trades and such, is way more minor to me.

I believe FBB gives the order in which the deals were signed, or we could just use that order. It could be the player that went over and all players thereafter too. Even if they alone wouldn’t have gone over.

I think the loss of a FRP is a bit harsh if done unintentionally. I think losing the player back the pool and not being allowed to bid of them again is harsh enough of an incentive to not try and do it.

[UOducksTK1]

What if a team signs 3 guys in FA, and 1 of them would push him over the hard cap. How do we determine which player to put back into FA?

Additionally, teams may have used up their cap space by then, so even if the player gets put back in FA, teams now won't have a shot at him where they would have before.

I think going over hard cap, specifically during FA should result in a lost of a first round pick. We need to make it so teams have tons of incentive NOT to ever go over the hard cap.

Going over during regular season with trades and such, is way more minor to me.

I believe FBB gives the order in which the deals were signed, or we could just use that order. It could be the player that went over and all players thereafter too. Even if they alone wouldn’t have gone over.

I think the loss of a FRP is a bit harsh if done unintentionally. I think losing the player back the pool and not being allowed to bid of them again is harsh enough of an incentive to not try and do it.

True, but we have no idea how the algorithm operates. I would rather we eliminate the possibility of someone going over hard cap in FA, but making the punishment harsh.

Otherwise, moving their player to FA actually can hurt others more than the GM that went over the hard cap.

[offtheheezy]

What if a team signs 3 guys in FA, and 1 of them would push him over the hard cap. How do we determine which player to put back into FA?

Additionally, teams may have used up their cap space by then, so even if the player gets put back in FA, teams now won't have a shot at him where they would have before.

I think going over hard cap, specifically during FA should result in a lost of a first round pick. We need to make it so teams have tons of incentive NOT to ever go over the hard cap.

Going over during regular season with trades and such, is way more minor to me.

I believe FBB gives the order in which the deals were signed, or we could just use that order. It could be the player that went over and all players thereafter too. Even if they alone wouldn’t have gone over.

I think the loss of a FRP is a bit harsh if done unintentionally. I think losing the player back the pool and not being allowed to bid of them again is harsh enough of an incentive to not try and do it.

True, but we have no idea how the algorithm operates. I would rather we eliminate the possibility of someone going over hard cap in FA, but making the punishment harsh.

Otherwise, moving their player to FA actually can hurt others more than the GM that went over the hard cap.

I was just saying like let's say someone was 20M below hardcap. Player A signs for 15M, Player B signs for 6M, Players C, D, E sign for 1M. (in that order from FBB output) The team would lose players B, C, D, E and not be allowed to try and re-sign them. I'd even be in favor of saying they have to wait till post-FA if they go over hard cap in Days 1-3 to sign anyone. Days 4/5 seems to be a bit more ok.

The problem of them going back into the pool after everyone uses their hard cap exists regardless of what the punishment is, because they shouldn't be allowed to keep the player regardless I'm assuming.

In favor of harsh penalties too though! But for instance, for the Nets case with Pierce, losing a FRP seems excessive for like 50k of miscalculation.

[vincent1469]

I think we should do a zero tolerance policy with the hard cap and prevent teams going over from bidding on that player again (until after Sim 1) after being released.

[UOducksTK1]

What if a team signs 3 guys in FA, and 1 of them would push him over the hard cap. How do we determine which player to put back into FA?

Additionally, teams may have used up their cap space by then, so even if the player gets put back in FA, teams now won't have a shot at him where they would have before.

I think going over hard cap, specifically during FA should result in a lost of a first round pick. We need to make it so teams have tons of incentive NOT to ever go over the hard cap.

Going over during regular season with trades and such, is way more minor to me.

I believe FBB gives the order in which the deals were signed, or we could just use that order. It could be the player that went over and all players thereafter too. Even if they alone wouldn’t have gone over.

I think the loss of a FRP is a bit harsh if done unintentionally. I think losing the player back the pool and not being allowed to bid of them again is harsh enough of an incentive to not try and do it.

True, but we have no idea how the algorithm operates. I would rather we eliminate the possibility of someone going over hard cap in FA, but making the punishment harsh.

Otherwise, moving their player to FA actually can hurt others more than the GM that went over the hard cap.

I was just saying like let's say someone was 20M below hardcap. Player A signs for 15M, Player B signs for 6M, Players C, D, E sign for 1M. (in that order from FBB output) The team would lose players B, C, D, E and not be allowed to try and re-sign them. I'd even be in favor of saying they have to wait till post-FA if they go over hard cap in Days 1-3 to sign anyone. Days 4/5 seems to be a bit more ok.

The problem of them going back into the pool after everyone uses their hard cap exists regardless of what the punishment is, because they shouldn't be allowed to keep the player regardless I'm assuming.

In favor of harsh penalties too though! But for instance, for the Nets case with Pierce, losing a FRP seems excessive for like 50k of miscalculation.

That would be lame though if they maxed MJ for the 15M, and went over with one of the other players, then couldn't bid on MJ again. I'm all for harsh punishments, but that would be ridiculous.

Heck I'd rather see post-season ban. I don't like seeing someone lose a player though.

[offtheheezy]

That would be lame though if they maxed MJ for the 15M, and went over with one of the other players, then couldn't bid on MJ again. I'm all for harsh punishments, but that would be ridiculous.

Heck I'd rather see post-season ban. I don't like seeing someone lose a player though.

I don't want to be the guy that assumes bad intent here, but if we allow the team to keep the player at the cost of a first round pick, that doesn't seem like much.

If for instance I had the ability to get MJ I'd gladly give up my FRP if I happened to go over the hard cap.

If I had bird rights, I'd overbid the heck out of my players if I got to bid on them again because as you mentioned other teams would waste their cap space in Day 1 and I'd have a better chance to re-sign my player now that everyone's cap space was used up.

We do want to assume good intent here, but the point is that even if it was unintentional you end up giving a team a pretty large advantage. Taking the Nets just for example, (since they are the only example we have right now, not trying to bag on them), it would have been much harder to move Cofield before Day 1 since everyone was gunning for the top players and wanting to maximize cap space. Obviously after the teans strike out you can easily move a small $2M expiring contract for a 2nd rounder or even for free.

Additionally, the large contracts and the better players tend to sign first. But again, if you don't want that type of thing to happen to you, then you submit bids that won't take you over the hard cap.

[offtheheezy]

I also want to add, I think we can generally trust everyone in the league to try their best to not do these type of things and we've had pretty much no cases, but I generally think if we are going to set a rule it should be pretty ironclad and handle all of the small edge cases.

Not trying to be accusatory or nitpicky (or maybe I am trying to be nitpicky, but you get the point)

[Foxyg1396]

I also want to add, I think we can generally trust everyone in the league to try their best to not do these type of things and we've had pretty much no cases, but I generally think if we are going to set a rule it should be pretty ironclad and handle all of the small edge cases.

Not trying to be accusatory or nitpicky (or maybe I am trying to be nitpicky, but you get the point)

The Nets Gm is an accountant…. He should be good with numbers, which leads me to believe there was some intention. I think we need to open up the Nets witch hunt again. Especially since they have cheated their way into one of the longest win streaks in history.

[dd10snoop28]

I, Jeff Sessions, recuse myself from all discussion that pertain to rule-setting for hardcap penalties.

[lukeyrid13]

I also want to add, I think we can generally trust everyone in the league to try their best to not do these type of things and we've had pretty much no cases, but I generally think if we are going to set a rule it should be pretty ironclad and handle all of the small edge cases.

Not trying to be accusatory or nitpicky (or maybe I am trying to be nitpicky, but you get the point)

The Nets Gm is an accountant…. He should be good with numbers, which leads me to believe there was some intention. I think we need to open up the Nets witch hunt again. Especially since they have cheated their way into one of the longest win streaks in history.

Agreed

We should rescind titles and victories from cheaters

[lukeyrid13]

I think losing the next available 1st rounder is fair punishment.

For example, I wanted to offer Freeman Williams 10 million over 1 year. If he and my LLE offer had both accepted I also would have gone over. I knew I could easily make a trade to get under with the current rules. I'd have to change strategy otherwise. Only the Magic and 1-2 other teams could have signed Freeman at that point if he was back up for grabs so it would suck for the 15-20 teams that probably did/would offer him the MLE at minimum

In that scenario and the Nets, missing the playoffs seems extreme, but the current rule is too lax

[FlDuckFan]

I think losing the next available 1st rounder is fair punishment.

For example, I wanted to offer Freeman Williams 10 million over 1 year. If he and my LLE offer had both accepted I also would have gone over. I knew I could easily make a trade to get under with the current rules. I'd have to change strategy otherwise. Only the Magic and 1-2 other teams could have signed Freeman at that point if he was back up for grabs so it would suck for the 15-20 teams that probably did/would offer him the MLE at minimum

In that scenario and the Nets, missing the playoffs seems extreme, but the current rule is too lax

I think putting a player back in the pool could be a positive for the league.. It would get teams with cap space more active in the sign and trade business increasing competitiveness in the league either by having assets move around more frequently or having that player stay signed with the middling/tanking team and making them better.

I also have a question what if we sent a our free agent bids in with a tier list?