Build a Franchise Discussion Thread (Season 5)- Draft begins on Saturday at 6AM. Houston is now on the clock.

[Smash3]

There’s so many teams that could be competitive if they could stretch a certain player on their teams.

[mpharris36]

I stretch provision can get a little dicey because like others have said with the amount of team turnover recently if you start stretching a 2 or 3 years deal in 4 or 6 years it could really hamper a new GM taking over a team. I also don't think you its challenging to wipe the contract clean under a new GM because they most likely will still have the new player they benefited from with the extra cap space given to begin with. The idea from smash isn't a horrible in preference and if we didn't have as much roster turnover I think it would make more sense. I think that same idea goes with the future considerations which seems like we want to do away with for similar reasons.

My rule that I just proposed to Bish is since we already have a "soft cap" and we reward teams with bird rights with FA's. I think draft picks should fall under the same idea. Say a team is really good and they have a draft pick that puts them slightly over the cap I don't think that should be considered a "hold out". I believe it would benefit the league if you could go over the cap (10% like FA's). To sign your draft picks.

It doesn't force teams up against the cap to have to just trade pick or lose them if they are a good team and want to continue to replenish. Once we opened up bird rights and a "soft cap" into the league I thought this would be the next progression.

It’s a one year stretch, not multiple years like you mentioned. I also don’t understand your reasoning for voting against it, as in one sentence you mention it hampering a new GM, but in the other you mention they might get an advantage if the stretch provision doesn’t affect them?

The stretch provision will not affect new GMs, and if anything it will give them a small advantage, which I think is fair with them joining so late.

If its just a 1 year thing its not as bad but I also think its kinda a short term fix since this is the last year of all the originally contracts in the game...so almost everyone has a ton of cap space next year if we hopefully do extend past the 5 years. It is essentially free up additional cap room with the thought the current GM might not have any interest in playing next year anyway if they have a ton of dead money. I could also see people with cap room this year not liking it because it adds new players in FA.

I could see why it makes some sense but I could see how other wouldn't like it is all im saying.

[Smash3]

I stretch provision can get a little dicey because like others have said with the amount of team turnover recently if you start stretching a 2 or 3 years deal in 4 or 6 years it could really hamper a new GM taking over a team. I also don't think you its challenging to wipe the contract clean under a new GM because they most likely will still have the new player they benefited from with the extra cap space given to begin with. The idea from smash isn't a horrible in preference and if we didn't have as much roster turnover I think it would make more sense. I think that same idea goes with the future considerations which seems like we want to do away with for similar reasons.

My rule that I just proposed to Bish is since we already have a "soft cap" and we reward teams with bird rights with FA's. I think draft picks should fall under the same idea. Say a team is really good and they have a draft pick that puts them slightly over the cap I don't think that should be considered a "hold out". I believe it would benefit the league if you could go over the cap (10% like FA's). To sign your draft picks.

It doesn't force teams up against the cap to have to just trade pick or lose them if they are a good team and want to continue to replenish. Once we opened up bird rights and a "soft cap" into the league I thought this would be the next progression.

It’s a one year stretch, not multiple years like you mentioned. I also don’t understand your reasoning for voting against it, as in one sentence you mention it hampering a new GM, but in the other you mention they might get an advantage if the stretch provision doesn’t affect them?

The stretch provision will not affect new GMs, and if anything it will give them a small advantage, which I think is fair with them joining so late.

If its just a 1 year thing its not as bad but I also think its kinda a short term fix since this is the last year of all the originally contracts in the game...so almost everyone has a ton of cap space next year if we hopefully do extend past the 5 years. It is essentially free up additional cap room with the thought the current GM might not have any interest in playing next year anyway if they have a ton of dead money. I could also see people with cap room this year not liking it because it adds new players in FA.

I could see why it makes some sense but I could see how other wouldn't like it is all im saying.

It is a short term fix but sets us up for a bigger play which is the continuation of the league. If we leave it as is and teams are waiting for the reset before they become active (get rid of year 1 contracts)- there might not be a year 6.

It’s a simple equation of: stretch provision + trades/FA = more competitive league and a more competitive league is an active league.

[br7knicks]

I just wanna say that br7knicks level of activity thus far is exactly what the doctor ordered for BAF. Let’s gooooo!

#Season6believer

school year is over, so i need something to kill time.

plus, i miss you guys!

[mpharris36]

I just wanna say that br7knicks level of activity thus far is exactly what the doctor ordered for BAF. Let’s gooooo!

#Season6believer

school year is over, so i need something to kill time.

plus, i miss you guys!

[Strick]

The stretch proposal is something I could probably get behind as long as there is some contingency in place where new GM’s aren’t getting their cap slashed for the next year unknowingly and for someone to potentially go all out the year before. If we could have some protections of some sort I think I could get behind it.

I’m cool with doing away with future considerations. As for future considerations already tied to a transaction in the past would they be lost (as per the risk of a trade with future considerations) just trying to brace myself for some worsened trade hauls

[mpharris36]

The stretch proposal is something I could probably get behind as long as there is some contingency in place where new GM’s aren’t getting their cap slashed for the next year unknowingly and for someone to potentially go all out the year before. If we could have some protections of some sort I think I could get behind it.

I’m cool with doing away with future considerations. As for future considerations already tied to a transaction in the past would they be lost (as per the risk of a trade with future considerations) just trying to brace myself for some worsened trade hauls

I would hope the current future considerations would be honored. I don't have any personally but I would hope the other teams would get there deals fully done.

But I would think it would be on any future trades to eliminate future considerations.

[DerrickNoah]

I would be all for the stretch provision

[bishnykfan]

Final 90 minutes for the five teams remaining with EL decisions to make.

Spoiler:

EXEMPT LIST

Deonte Burton- Chicago
Marcin Gortat- Washington
Lucas Noguiera- Washington
Jaylen Hands- Washington
Allen Crabbe- Washington
Simisola Shittu- Lakers
Shamorie Ponds- Phoenix
Devon Dotson- Phoenix
Andre Roberson- Memphis

[mpharris36]

I would be all for the stretch provision

PM bish if you don't want those guys on your team

you and-1 my post but it seems bish is waiting on your to message him.

[mpharris36]

Final 90 minutes for the five teams remaining with EL decisions to make.

Spoiler:

EXEMPT LIST

Deonte Burton- Chicago
Marcin Gortat- Washington
Lucas Noguiera- Washington
Jaylen Hands- Washington
Allen Crabbe- Washington
Simisola Shittu- Lakers
Shamorie Ponds- Phoenix
Devon Dotson- Phoenix
Andre Roberson- Memphis

you And-1 my post yesterday but didn't pm bish?

[DaGawd]

Final 90 minutes for the five teams remaining with EL decisions to make.

Spoiler:

EXEMPT LIST

Deonte Burton- Chicago
Marcin Gortat- Washington
Lucas Noguiera- Washington
Jaylen Hands- Washington
Allen Crabbe- Washington
Simisola Shittu- Lakers
Shamorie Ponds- Phoenix
Devon Dotson- Phoenix
Andre Roberson- Memphis

you And-1 my post yesterday but didn't pm bish?

[mpharris36]

Final 90 minutes for the five teams remaining with EL decisions to make.

Spoiler:

EXEMPT LIST

Deonte Burton- Chicago
Marcin Gortat- Washington
Lucas Noguiera- Washington
Jaylen Hands- Washington
Allen Crabbe- Washington
Simisola Shittu- Lakers
Shamorie Ponds- Phoenix
Devon Dotson- Phoenix
Andre Roberson- Memphis

you And-1 my post yesterday but didn't pm bish?

[Smash3]

BAF Stretch Provision:

Teams should have the one-time option of stretching a player’s contract for one: additional season, provided they have the cap space the following season.

Disclaimer: If a GM leaves his team the successor will not be on the hook for the stretched contract, but will enjoy the small benefit of his predecessor’s choice.

Example:

Team A:

Wants to stretch player X’s contract which is $300/1yr, the team will exercise their one-time stretch option and the teams cap hit for the player will immediately become $150 for the 2021-22 season and $150 for the 2022-23 season. Note that this doesn’t extend the player’s contract but gives the team a lower cap hit, and they can use the freed up $150 on FA signings or give them the cap space they need to complete trades to make them more competitive.

I believe this will revitalize the majority of teams that are hampered by contracts given out in year one, and we will probably have the most competitive season we’ve seen yet in BAF, and a more competitive league will lead to more engagement.

VOTES:

YES- (4) Portland, Orlando, Phoenix, Minnesota, Detroit
NO- (5) Charlotte, Los Angeles Clippers, Dallas, Cleveland, Houston

[bishnykfan]

BAF Stretch Provision:

Teams should have the one-time option of stretching a player’s contract for one: additional season, provided they have the cap space the following season.

Disclaimer: If a GM leaves his team the successor will not be on the hook for the stretched contract, but will enjoy the small benefit of his predecessor’s choice.

Example:

Team A:

Wants to stretch player X’s contract which is $300/1yr, the team will exercise their one-time stretch option and the teams cap hit for the player will immediately become $150 for the 2021-22 season and $150 for the 2022-23 season. Note that this doesn’t extend the player’s contract but gives the team a lower cap hit, and they can use the freed up $150 on FA signings or give them the cap space they need to complete trades to make them more competitive.

I believe this will revitalize the majority of teams that are hampered by contracts given out in year one, and we will probably have the most competitive season we’ve seen yet in BAF, and a more competitive league will lead to more engagement.

VOTES:

YES- (4) Portland, Orlando, Phoenix, Minnesota
NO- (1) Charlotte

My thoughts on this since this is the first I've seen the proposal.

Because contracts are stable year to year, all teams will have cap space the following season if they can cut a contract in half during a season/offseason so that part goes without saying. I'm not sure why this provision is necessary when teams have the right to get out of contracts using buyouts already? Creating cap space to fix mistakes seems like it goes against the idea of the game which has always been about roster and cap management IMO.

I could potentially see it for first time GM's as a quicker way to rebuild their team but why should a longtime GM get a get out of jail free card on a contract they either signed or acquired via trade? It could also potentially provide a serious competitive balance issue in the future should a team use it one year and then have their GM leave the following year where the new GM then gets the benefits of the newly signed player and then also potentially a lot of additional cap space to supplement a roster which has already benefitted from the stretch the previous year.

Just my quick reaction to this. I'm interested to hear other peoples thoughts.

[bringbackhoffa]

I completely agree with Bish comments, manage your cap and you should not have any problems buying out players under the current system.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[3toheadmelo]

I vote no. I didn’t have this option with DSJ and Josh Jackson so I don’t think that’s fair. Plus if I can still make a championship team with those contracts then so can you

[HEZI]

What it looks like he is suggesting is a contract restructure. It isn't a buyout it's a contract restructure where the player would just be owed less per year but for more years but still remain on the roster throughout the initial agreed to term. So if you have a player on a 2 year deal, he's still on your roster for those 2 years but instead of owing him the original salary for those years, you are restructuring his deal for money owed by the team for less annual but for longer term.

I get the idea and could probably go either way on it. Right now I'm 50/50

It could provide benefit to teams short term and come back to cost them long term depending on how you look at it. It would definitely throw a wrench into the game and depending on where your team is that could be good or bad LOL

[Capn'O]

I vote no against the stretch.

[bishnykfan]

What it looks like he is suggesting is a contract restructure. It isn't a buyout it's a contract restructure where the player would just be owed less per year but for more years but still remain on the roster throughout the initial agreed to term. So if you have a player on a 2 year deal, he's still on your roster for those 2 years but instead of owing him the original salary for those years, you are restructuring his deal for money owed by the team for less annual but for longer term.

I get the idea and could probably go either way on it. Right now I'm 50/50

It could provide benefit to teams short term and come back to cost them long term depending on how you look at it. It would definitely throw a wrench into the game and depending on where your team is that could be good or bad LOL

I agree with this. It’s an interesting idea but I see potential negatives in the competitive balance if a team gets the benefits of using it one season, leave the game and then the new GM gets the added benefit of not paying the price the following season potentially opening up a ton of cap space to add to what that franchise has already done with the initial cap space. Maybe I’m just a little shell shocked from the turnover we experienced this past season.