|
|
Post by Odin on Jun 27, 2021 6:33:44 GMT -5
Spending unused soft cap. In the past we have been allowed to do this, no clue why it ever went away. Let's bring it back. These deals would follow the same rules as any one year contract does. No birds on players you failed to resign during FA.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Jun 27, 2021 7:03:25 GMT -5
I don't understand what is being asked here
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Jun 27, 2021 7:28:43 GMT -5
I don't understand what is being asked here i want to sign a random fa to a one year deal that isnt a min/lle/mle |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2021 7:57:59 GMT -5
I pushed for this change in 4.0 because it boggled my mind we couldn't sign multi-year or non min deals with soft cap except during the FA period. I think it went into effect in 5.0 and was rarely used.
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Jun 27, 2021 8:16:49 GMT -5
I don't understand what is being asked here i want to sign a random fa to a one year deal that isnt a min/lle/mle A one year deal should be fine, multi year not so much. Where do the rules say you can't sign them using your soft cap? |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 27, 2021 8:29:44 GMT -5
i don't believe it was ever a 5.0 rule, i did a quick check just now and didn't see anything
also, in the past if a team signed a player that was on their team last year and made it through fa we've always let them keep birds because that's how the irl rule is. it almost never comes up but it's not clear to me why we would change that here
what functionality does this rule add?
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Jun 27, 2021 8:46:34 GMT -5
i don't believe it was ever a 5.0 rule, i did a quick check just now and didn't see anything also, in the past if a team signed a player that was on their team last year and made it through fa we've always let them keep birds because that's how the irl rule is. it almost never comes up but it's not clear to me why we would change that here what functionality does this rule add? i could sign insert fa here for a higher amount thus making it easier to retain him. i would have done that with a few of the fa i signed during the season. also i thought we got rid of the retained birds also x2, i definitely allowed it during one of my times as commish but i dont rwmember when. |
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Jun 27, 2021 8:49:44 GMT -5
or it could have been that i addes lle/mle to in season with the intent of adsing this after seeing how that went but never got around to it before eric took over.
|
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Jun 27, 2021 12:00:51 GMT -5
Allowing someone to use their soft cap for FA signings would make trading matching salary easier. People could also get creative with three team trades to involve teams like the Spurs who have significant soft cap space (this may be a pro or con if we use Ian’s last attempt at a three-team trade as evidence).
Based on the OP, it seems like the 60-day rule would be in effect for contracts over $8,000,000?
|
|
Soup
New Member
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 401
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by Soup on Jun 27, 2021 13:02:12 GMT -5
If your purpose is to retain the player the year after you pick him up we have extensions available.
I’m not sure why a team with soft cap would need to sign players to match salaries for trades, that doesn’t seem to make sense.
Good point on the opening up multi-team trades though.
That being said if a person wants to spend their soft cap on a free agent I have no problem with that as long as it’s one year and follows all of our other contract rules.
I would add in something like if this route is taken you can’t use your mle/lle though.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 27, 2021 15:00:53 GMT -5
yeah i'm with soup i don't see the matching salaries angle. you just take them into cap space anyway
re: the retaining issue, is that a positive outcome though? we've generally made it much easier to keep players signed during FA than signed after, and that seems like a good thing to me
to tim's point yes, "A player signed to a new team on a deal starting at $8m+ cannot be traded until day 60." doesn't specify during free agency so that would apply
|
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Jun 27, 2021 15:08:33 GMT -5
Yeah, the matching salaries was a hungover brain fart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Jun 27, 2021 15:31:29 GMT -5
re: the retaining issue, is that a positive outcome though? we've generally made it much easier to keep players signed during FA than signed after, and that seems like a good thing to me as you know ive always hated that approach. i dont see the point in limiting our ability to retain players irrelevant enough to make it through fa. |
|
