Build a Franchise (Season 8) Discussion Thread- Philadelphia is on the clock until 8PM

[Mecca]

Bucks vote yes to the rule.

We all want to avoid turnstile Owners & keep a committed group, right?

Why should a new GM have to pay for an old GM's sins? In dynasty fantasy leagues, these rules are quite common to avoid constant turnover.

It's a one time amnesty for one player. It doesn't hurt anyone

[Mecca]

Hey all — I wanted to make a quick case for supporting the proposed Amnesty Rule for new GMs who take over orphaned teams.

It's about giving GMs a fair shot when they step into a tough situation left behind by someone else.

⸻
What the rule actually is:

If a team has been abandoned and a new/newer GM takes over, they get one opportunity to amnesty one contract they inherited — removing it from their cap sheet, with no penalty. The clause would need to be used within 14 days of taking over.

⸻

Why I think this is good for all of us:

1. Promotes league stability.
We’ve all seen teams fall apart and get recycled because the new GM walks into a disaster with no flexibility. This gives new GMs a reason to stay and invest long-term instead of burning out.

2. Keeps the league active.
Dead teams kill momentum — this rule makes it way more attractive for someone to step up, take over, and actually engage with the league, rather than just go inactive because they’re stuck with someone else’s mess.

3. It’s fair.
This isn’t about bailing people out — it’s about not punishing someone for bad contracts they had no hand in signing. One contract, one time. That’s it.

4. It’s limited.
Strictly for future orphan teams. No one can abuse it. It just makes the league more appealing to join — and stay in.

⸻


This rule isn’t about giving new GMs a leg up. It’s about preventing league churn. If someone takes over a toxic roster with no way out, what keeps them from quitting like the last guy did? We’ve seen it before — guys join, get overwhelmed by a bad cap sheet, and leave.

The one-time amnesty is a small but meaningful way to:
• Make orphan teams more appealing to take over
• Keep new GMs engaged long-term
• Break the cycle of GMs bailing on the same franchises over and over


If the goal is to have a fun, competitive, and long-lasting league, I really think this helps move us in the right direction. Appreciate you considering it, and happy to chat if anyone’s unsure or has concerns. Just want to keep the league strong.

[HEZI]

I think the rule is fine. How many GMs that took over teams in the last year or more are still stuck with a contract they inherited? I think none. So at this moment this would really only apply to BB anyway

Br7 signed a collection of vets to 5 year deals that no one wanted to touch as well as his picks, so I haven't had a chance to have any engagement in the league, and we can all hopefully agree, that the league is better when I'm active, & it it don't pass, I'm unable to be active.

Why should one GM be locked out for 3 years of making any moves because of what an old gm did & still expect him to be active?

My bad I overlooked your situation. I mean this makes sense to me and you have a strong case. I’m always for whatever is best for the league and keeping things fair

[3toheadmelo]

I vote yes

[mpharris36]

Hey all — I wanted to make a quick case for supporting the proposed Amnesty Rule for new GMs who take over orphaned teams.

This wouldn’t apply to anyone currently running their team — it’s about giving GMs a fair shot when they step into a tough situation left behind by someone else.

⸻
What the rule actually is:

If a team has been abandoned and a new/newer GM takes over, they get one opportunity to amnesty one contract they inherited — removing it from their cap sheet, with no penalty. The clause would need to be used within 14 days of taking over.

⸻

Why I think this is good for all of us:

1. Promotes league stability.
We’ve all seen teams fall apart and get recycled because the new GM walks into a disaster with no flexibility. This gives new GMs a reason to stay and invest long-term instead of burning out.

2. Keeps the league active.
Dead teams kill momentum — this rule makes it way more attractive for someone to step up, take over, and actually engage with the league, rather than just go inactive because they’re stuck with someone else’s mess.

3. It’s fair.
This isn’t about bailing people out — it’s about not punishing someone for bad contracts they had no hand in signing. One contract, one time. That’s it.

4. It’s limited.
Strictly for future orphan teams. No one can abuse it. It just makes the league more appealing to join — and stay in.

⸻


This rule isn’t about giving new GMs a leg up. It’s about preventing league churn. If someone takes over a toxic roster with no way out, what keeps them from quitting like the last guy did? We’ve seen it before — guys join, get overwhelmed by a bad cap sheet, and leave.

The one-time amnesty is a small but meaningful way to:
• Make orphan teams more appealing to take over
• Keep new GMs engaged long-term
• Break the cycle of GMs bailing on the same franchises over and over


If the goal is to have a fun, competitive, and long-lasting league, I really think this helps move us in the right direction. Appreciate you considering it, and happy to chat if anyone’s unsure or has concerns. Just want to keep the league strong.

The wording of the grandfathered is what was tripping me up. If we can get clarity from Bish that its only for new GM's just taking over this year or years in the future I would be all in.

You know I appreciate and respect you Mecca but TC,DaGawd , or MDB have taken over bad rosters but because they have been more active in trades they don't have inherited contracts to apply for the clause. I think clarifying that it can only be used in a GM's first offseason right away in the league. Like BB taking over the celtics this year I would be 100% for the rule.

[Mecca]

Hey all — I wanted to make a quick case for supporting the proposed Amnesty Rule for new GMs who take over orphaned teams.

This wouldn’t apply to anyone currently running their team — it’s about giving GMs a fair shot when they step into a tough situation left behind by someone else.

⸻
What the rule actually is:

If a team has been abandoned and a new/newer GM takes over, they get one opportunity to amnesty one contract they inherited — removing it from their cap sheet, with no penalty. The clause would need to be used within 14 days of taking over.

⸻

Why I think this is good for all of us:

1. Promotes league stability.
We’ve all seen teams fall apart and get recycled because the new GM walks into a disaster with no flexibility. This gives new GMs a reason to stay and invest long-term instead of burning out.

2. Keeps the league active.
Dead teams kill momentum — this rule makes it way more attractive for someone to step up, take over, and actually engage with the league, rather than just go inactive because they’re stuck with someone else’s mess.

3. It’s fair.
This isn’t about bailing people out — it’s about not punishing someone for bad contracts they had no hand in signing. One contract, one time. That’s it.

4. It’s limited.
Strictly for future orphan teams. No one can abuse it. It just makes the league more appealing to join — and stay in.

⸻


This rule isn’t about giving new GMs a leg up. It’s about preventing league churn. If someone takes over a toxic roster with no way out, what keeps them from quitting like the last guy did? We’ve seen it before — guys join, get overwhelmed by a bad cap sheet, and leave.

The one-time amnesty is a small but meaningful way to:
• Make orphan teams more appealing to take over
• Keep new GMs engaged long-term
• Break the cycle of GMs bailing on the same franchises over and over


If the goal is to have a fun, competitive, and long-lasting league, I really think this helps move us in the right direction. Appreciate you considering it, and happy to chat if anyone’s unsure or has concerns. Just want to keep the league strong.

The wording of the grandfathered is what was tripping me up. If we can get clarity from Bish that its only for new GM's just taking over this year or years in the future I would be all in.

You know I appreciate and respect you Mecca but TC,DaGawd , or MDB have taken over bad rosters but because they have been more active in trades they don't have inherited contracts to apply for the clause. I think clarifying that it can only be used in a GM's first offseason right away in the league. Like BB taking over the celtics this year I would be 100% for the rule.

Appreciate the thoughtful reply and your openness throughout this. I want to make one last case for why I think this rule should apply now — not just moving forward.

You mentioned being fine with the rule if it applies only to a GM’s first offseason — and that’s exactly where I’m at. Even though I’ve technically been in the league for two seasons, I haven’t had a single real offseason to operate with flexibility. I inherited a cap-strapped team with long-term deals and limited draft capital, and for two years I’ve had to sit on that and wait it out. I didn’t make major trades, didn’t reshape the team — I’ve been holding the bag the whole time.

This upcoming offseason is the first time I actually get to make moves and start fresh. So if the goal of this rule is to help new GMs take over abandoned teams and give them a fair shot to build — then this situation fits that exact purpose.

I understand wanting to be fair to guys like DaGawd or TC — but they inherited tough teams and chose to make big trades and roster moves. They had agency. I didn’t. They also had assets and future capital at their disposal,I didn't. This is the worst situation over past 2 years in BAF history. I waited, and now that the path is clearing, I’m being told I just missed the cutoff.

So I’m not asking for an exception for me — I’m asking to interpret the rule in line with its spirit: it’s meant to promote fairness, balance, and long-term GM engagement. Delaying it only penalizes the people who actually stuck it out and didn’t quit when the roster was a mess.

If there’s any way to reconsider the vote based on that, I’d really appreciate it. Either way, I’m here because I care about the league and want to keep it strong — this rule helps us do that.

[Context]

I vote no
I moved the worst contracts in this league and I did it with tireless work the first year I took over the team. the nba has a 2nd apron as of last year at 188 million. Our salary cap is at the equivilant of 118 million. Many GM's voted against raising the cap. Wouldn't even compromise. Why? because if that cap gets raised it would favor GM's who put in work and the truth is there are some GM's who dont want to deal with that. Contracts can be moved-
you just have to accept whatever their market value is. Not to mention, how many gm's had to deal with bad contracts and suck it up and accept more bad contracts. Ahhh and I forgot to mention, Br7 is NOT the only GM to give out "bad contracts". In my first year I was one of the few GMs that bought out several bad contracts and guess what happened- GM's went and issued more bad contracts and traded them to new gm's...

[Mecca]

I vote no
I moved the worst contracts in this league and I did it with tireless work the first year I took over the team. the nba has a 2nd apron as of last year at 188 million. Our salary cap is at the equivilant of 118 million. Many GM's voted against raising the cap. Wouldn't even compromise. Why? because if that cap gets raised it would favor GM's who put in work and the truth is there are some GM's who dont want to deal with that. Contracts can be moved-
you just have to accept whatever their market value is. Not to mention, how many gm's had to deal with bad contracts and suck it up and accept more bad contracts. Ahhh and I forgot to mention, Br7 is NOT the only GM to give out "bad contracts". In my first year I was one of the few GMs that bought out several bad contracts and guess what happened- GM's went and issued more bad contracts and traded them to new gm's...

Totally hear you — and I know you’ve been one of the most active and strategic GMs in the league. You've worked the system, cleared bad deals, and moved contracts when others thought it couldn’t be done — I fully respect that.

But I think that’s exactly why this rule makes sense.

Yes, bad contracts can be moved — if you're present, active, and skilled. But when a GM quits, and that team gets passed to someone new with no assets and multiple multi-year mistakes, you're essentially asking them to do 12 months of cleanup just to get to where most teams already are. That’s where parity breaks.

And you're right — this league didn’t vote to raise the cap, even though the real NBA did, which made contracts in our sim artificially worse. That’s a league decision that further punishes GMs inheriting those deals. We can't change the past, but we can implement a fair clause that keeps new GMs engaged and active instead of letting orphan teams become revolving doors.

You mentioned being one of the few GMs who actually bought out bad contracts and tried to fix things. But what happened next? GMs turned around and re-issued bad contracts and dumped them on new GMs. That cycle is exactly what this rule aims to stop.

This isn’t about giving people a free pass — it’s a one-time reset button to prevent burnout and turnover. You had to grind — I respect that. But a lot of GMs in your position would’ve quit. You’re the exception, not the rule.

This clause keeps things competitive and keeps GMs around. We’ve lost great league members because they got handed rosters they had no shot of reshaping. This is one way to fix that, responsibly and without loopholes.

I hope you’ll reconsider — this rule doesn’t erase the value of your grind. It protects the league from the consequences when others don’t grind.

[Mecca]

The proposed rule is basically the sim league equivalent of breaking the myth of "bootstrapping." In politics and economics, the idea of bootstrapping says: “Everyone should just work hard and fix their own situation” — even if they start from a wildly unequal place.

What bish is proposing acknowledges the same reality seen in broader systems:
⏤ Not everyone starts with the same resources, tools, or opportunities.
⏤ Some teams are born from dysfunction — awful contracts, no picks, zero flexibility.
⏤ Without some structural support, it’s not about “grinding” — it’s about being stuck in a system that was rigged before you got there.

The rule isn’t about giving people a handout. It’s a small, one-time safety net that says:

“If you inherit a mess, we’ll give you one fair chance to reshape the foundation — after that, it’s on you.”

It’s the same principle used in progressive tax systems, social safety nets, or loan forgiveness:
It's not rewarding laziness — you're preventing systemic stagnation.
It's couraging long-term participation by making the starting point more survivable.

rather than saying:

“Well, I figured it out, so you should too.”

Because the truth is: some people “figured it out” by inheriting decent bones or having early opportunities others didn’t. Others were handed a sinking ship and told to swim.

This rule evens the water level — that’s all.

[DOT]

I vote yes to the rule if I'm reading the interpretation correct that it would apply to just the first offseason for a new GM

I would amend it to they have until the season starts, though. Especially since it takes some time to be able to pm, and some more time to feel out the rest of the teams, plus the draft changes things, I think that would be fair.

[mpharris36]

I vote yes to the rule if I'm reading the interpretation correct that it would apply to just the first offseason for a new GM

I would amend it to they have until the season starts, though. Especially since it takes some time to be able to pm, and some more time to feel out the rest of the teams, plus the draft changes things, I think that would be fair.

If we get clarity from Bish that this is also his interpretation of the rule then I am open to changing my vote. The original proposal is a bit vague with "newer" and "grandfathered" terminology. It doesn't specific first time GM's from 3-4 year in GM's (because they are technically "newer")

If it was a 1st time GM in his first offseason I would give them until say the season starts to move 1 inherited contract off the books. So they couldn't trade for a bad deal and amnesty it. But I think they can be allowed to amnesty a bad contract they inherited from the previous GM that left there team.

[DOT]

I vote yes to the rule if I'm reading the interpretation correct that it would apply to just the first offseason for a new GM

I would amend it to they have until the season starts, though. Especially since it takes some time to be able to pm, and some more time to feel out the rest of the teams, plus the draft changes things, I think that would be fair.

If we get clarity from Bish that this is also his interpretation of the rule then I am open to changing my vote. The original proposal is a bit vague with "newer" and "grandfathered" terminology. It doesn't specific first time GM's from 3-4 year in GM's (because they are technically "newer")

If it was a 1st time GM in his first offseason I would give them until say the season starts to move 1 inherited contract off the books. So they couldn't trade for a bad deal and amnesty it. But I think they can be allowed to amnesty a bad contract they inherited from the previous GM that left there team.

I believe the intention of the language is to include people like BustaBucket who are new GMs this year but took over the team before the rule change

And yes, I think it should be clear that the amnesty only applies to players on the team when taking over, not to bad contracts you trade for.

[mpharris36]

I vote yes to the rule if I'm reading the interpretation correct that it would apply to just the first offseason for a new GM

I would amend it to they have until the season starts, though. Especially since it takes some time to be able to pm, and some more time to feel out the rest of the teams, plus the draft changes things, I think that would be fair.

If we get clarity from Bish that this is also his interpretation of the rule then I am open to changing my vote. The original proposal is a bit vague with "newer" and "grandfathered" terminology. It doesn't specific first time GM's from 3-4 year in GM's (because they are technically "newer")

If it was a 1st time GM in his first offseason I would give them until say the season starts to move 1 inherited contract off the books. So they couldn't trade for a bad deal and amnesty it. But I think they can be allowed to amnesty a bad contract they inherited from the previous GM that left there team.

I believe the intention of the language is to include people like BustaBucket who are new GMs this year but took over the team before the rule change

And yes, I think it should be clear that the amnesty only applies to players on the team when taking over, not to bad contracts you trade for.

That is not how I specifically read it. That is why I would need clarity. If its just qualifying for BB plus any new GM in first year i would be aligned.

Would MDB who took over 2 years ago be able to amnesty Luke Kennard since he's still on the roster from when Buzzard took over?

Would Mecca who took over 2 years ago be able to amnesty Marcus Smart since he's still on his roster from Br7?

If thats the case then other new GM's that either paid draft capital or cap space by buying players out like TC or DaGawd or anyone else that is newer because of there activity to move off pieces would get penalized. That is my concern on the wording.

[Mecca]

If we get clarity from Bish that this is also his interpretation of the rule then I am open to changing my vote. The original proposal is a bit vague with "newer" and "grandfathered" terminology. It doesn't specific first time GM's from 3-4 year in GM's (because they are technically "newer")

If it was a 1st time GM in his first offseason I would give them until say the season starts to move 1 inherited contract off the books. So they couldn't trade for a bad deal and amnesty it. But I think they can be allowed to amnesty a bad contract they inherited from the previous GM that left there team.

I believe the intention of the language is to include people like BustaBucket who are new GMs this year but took over the team before the rule change

And yes, I think it should be clear that the amnesty only applies to players on the team when taking over, not to bad contracts you trade for.

That is not how I specifically read it. That is why I would need clarity. If its just qualifying for BB plus any new GM in first year i would be aligned.

Would MDB who took over 2 years ago be able to amnesty Luke Kennard since he's still on the roster from when Buzzard took over?

Would Mecca who took over 2 years ago be able to amnesty Marcus Smart since he's still on his roster from Br7?

If thats the case then other new GM's that either paid draft capital or cap space by buying players out like TC or DaGawd or anyone else that is newer because of there activity to move off pieces would get penalized. That is my concern on the wording.

Appreciate the follow-up — and this is exactly the clarity I want to give, so let’s get specific:

Yes — I believe I should qualify, and so should MDB, if the inherited contract (Smart for me, Kennard for him) is still on the roster and they haven’t had a clean offseason to actually reshape their team.

No — a GM who’s actively made trades, signed players, or reshaped the direction of their team would not be eligible, even if one inherited deal remains. This isn’t about how long ago you joined — it’s about whether you’ve had a true shot to rebuild.

Here’s the key:
This rule isn’t about rewarding inactivity — it’s about not punishing loyalty. I didn’t sit on bad contracts because I was passive. I sat on them because there was no market, and I didn’t have the assets to attach like others did.

TC and DaGawd made their own decisions to move off bad deals. They used draft capital or ate new contracts — and I fully respect that. But that was their choice, and they got to redirect their teams.

What you’re calling “penalizing” active GMs is really just saying: if you already had your shot to fix things your way, this clause doesn’t apply to you anymore.

That’s fair.

The amnesty isn’t for everyone with a bad deal still lingering — it’s for GMs who never had a fair opportunity to clear the deck. That includes new GMs and a small group like me or MDB who inherited messes and haven’t made trades to shift the direction.

If we define it that way — and I’m more than open to that exact language — we solve this now instead of kicking the can another year.

Appreciate you asking the right questions and pushing for clarity. Let’s just make sure we don’t overlook the people who’ve been holding down toxic teams with no way out.

[Im Coming Home]

Rockets vote No for the rule change.

Maybe if there was a amount limit or something or maybe just the ability to remove 2 years of the length or something like that, or the ability to remove $100 from contracts that way if you amnesty anyone under $100 they become free agents, etc

Imagine if you had Brandon Ingram at the huge contract(but with the previous length it was)he's on and you could just amnesty him that would seem unfair to the health of the league/game.

Also kinda silly but I also understand why they can't be contracts you traded for, but that seems a bit unfair, a lot of GMs spent draft capital, or money or whatever else to get out of bad contracts to fix the team they inherited already so now it seems unfair to them. Because a lot of the newer GMs would and could have done things a LOT differently if they had they knew this rule was going to be proposed. Can't tell those same GMs "eh tough luck you were active in trying to move your bad contracts after taking over so get f'd"

Idk just seems like a self serving rule for those lucky enough to not have traded away their bad contracts they inherited.

[3toheadmelo]

Wait I thought the rule only applies to brand new GMs like busta going forward. If so, then yes. If it still applies to older GMs then no for me.

[Context]

Rockets vote No for the rule change.

Maybe if there was a amount limit or something or maybe just the ability to remove 2 years of the length or something like that, or the ability to remove $100 from contracts that way if you amnesty anyone under $100 they become free agents, etc

Imagine if you had Brandon Ingram at the huge contract(but with the previous length it was)he's on and you could just amnesty him that would seem unfair to the health of the league/game.

Also kinda silly but I also understand why they can't be contracts you traded for, but that seems a bit unfair, a lot of GMs spent draft capital, or money or whatever else to get out of bad contracts to fix the team they inherited already so now it seems unfair to them. Because a lot of the newer GMs would and could have done things a LOT differently if they had they knew this rule was going to be proposed. Can't tell those same GMs "eh tough luck you were active in trying to move your bad contracts after taking over so get f'd"

Idk just seems like a self serving rule for those lucky enough to not have traded away their bad contracts they inherited.

pefectly said...

what I never understood was - you would be ok with a rule like this as a gm but NOT ok with making the salary cap of a game that is based off of the "NBA"- similar to the nba salary cap...

[Mecca]

I'm out

[DOT]

I believe the intention of the language is to include people like BustaBucket who are new GMs this year but took over the team before the rule change

And yes, I think it should be clear that the amnesty only applies to players on the team when taking over, not to bad contracts you trade for.

That is not how I specifically read it. That is why I would need clarity. If its just qualifying for BB plus any new GM in first year i would be aligned.

Would MDB who took over 2 years ago be able to amnesty Luke Kennard since he's still on the roster from when Buzzard took over?

Would Mecca who took over 2 years ago be able to amnesty Marcus Smart since he's still on his roster from Br7?

If thats the case then other new GM's that either paid draft capital or cap space by buying players out like TC or DaGawd or anyone else that is newer because of there activity to move off pieces would get penalized. That is my concern on the wording.

Appreciate the follow-up — and this is exactly the clarity I want to give, so let’s get specific:

Yes — I believe I should qualify, and so should MDB, if the inherited contract (Smart for me, Kennard for him) is still on the roster and they haven’t had a clean offseason to actually reshape their team.

No — a GM who’s actively made trades, signed players, or reshaped the direction of their team would not be eligible, even if one inherited deal remains. This isn’t about how long ago you joined — it’s about whether you’ve had a true shot to rebuild.

Here’s the key:
This rule isn’t about rewarding inactivity — it’s about not punishing loyalty. I didn’t sit on bad contracts because I was passive. I sat on them because there was no market, and I didn’t have the assets to attach like others did.

TC and DaGawd made their own decisions to move off bad deals. They used draft capital or ate new contracts — and I fully respect that. But that was their choice, and they got to redirect their teams.

What you’re calling “penalizing” active GMs is really just saying: if you already had your shot to fix things your way, this clause doesn’t apply to you anymore.

That’s fair.

The amnesty isn’t for everyone with a bad deal still lingering — it’s for GMs who never had a fair opportunity to clear the deck. That includes new GMs and a small group like me or MDB who inherited messes and haven’t made trades to shift the direction.

If we define it that way — and I’m more than open to that exact language — we solve this now instead of kicking the can another year.

Appreciate you asking the right questions and pushing for clarity. Let’s just make sure we don’t overlook the people who’ve been holding down toxic teams with no way out.

That is a bit more than I thought it would be, but it doesn't really change my opinion when I look at y'all's teams

I get if people oppose it in principle, but the only guys MDB has who would qualify are all on 1-year deals, meaning he only gets 1 more year of cap space, and I assume you'd use it on Smart, cause he's the only guy making more than $25 on your team with more than 1 year left on his deal, then you can just wait a year and have no big contracts at all

To me, that's not enough to change my vote, I think it'd be good for the league overall.

[Mecca]

People who vote no the same people who don't want the government to cover student loans because they had to pay them. It's the same exact thing

You want me to go back to being inactive, find, but the league is worse and more boring without giving me a punchers chance.