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

[Im Coming Home]

The biggest issue for me is that it affects active newer GMs who didn't just sit on their bad contracts and actively tried to move them whichever way they could and now you're saying that the amnesty clause could not be used on those contracts they maybe you were saddled with when they moved an even worse contract.

What it boils down to for me is that it affects the game way too much and I think if a rule makes you consider "Wow I would have took things in a COMPLETELY different direction had I known this rule was coming" then it shouldn't be a rule that is passed.

[Mecca]

The biggest issue for me is that it affects active newer GMs who didn't just sit on their bad contracts and actively tried to move them whichever way they could and now you're saying that the amnesty clause could not be used on those contracts they maybe you were saddled with when they moved an even worse contract.

What it boils down to for me is that it affects the game way too much and I think if a rule makes you consider "Wow I would have took things in a COMPLETELY different direction had I known this rule was coming" then it shouldn't be a rule that is passed.

This what people say when they aren't in favor of the govt helping college loans.

As long as an issue gets corrected, it's better for future of league.

Other teams have had some type of assets or capital to get out of bad contracts.

I've had Jonas, DLo, Smart on 4 year deals and no picks last year. Do you realize how I had zero opportunity to get out of that?

[Im Coming Home]

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.

Bro that is not the same. I'm as lefty as they come, this is a game, not real life.

Just because you were inactive and unable or unwilling to move your bad contracts you want a get out of jail free card, if you were such a good GM as you always hyped yourself up to be you would have easily been out of those bad contracts by now.

If it only applies to new GMs going forward including BB then fine, but going back to you is too far and too game effecting. I would have done things a sht ton different had I known that this rule was coming, instead I made moves within the confines of the game, I shouldn't be penalized for being active and moving off certain bad contracts I had taken over from,

I think this is a self serving rule you're trying to pass and it's pretty transparent based off this reaction you're giving to others being against it.

[Fat]

Rule Overview:
When a new general manager (GM) takes over an abandoned team, they will be granted a one-time Amnesty Clause to remove one player’s contract from their team’s books with no cap penalty or long-term financial impact. This amnesty is only applicable to contracts that were inherited — not any players acquired after taking over. Newer GM's can be grandfathered into the rule and amnesty old players, but in the future if a new GM is to join, they will have 14 days to use amnesty clause.

——————————-

Where yall seeing anything about previous GM’s ? The only new GM we have is Busta Bucket. Everyone else has previously had their teams and isn’t new.

I think the rule should be slightly tweaked. I feel if the contract is in its final year of expiring it shouldn’t be able to be amnesty but if it has 2 or more years remaining it should be eligible.

Voting No for now

[Im Coming Home]

Rule Overview:
When a new general manager (GM) takes over an abandoned team, they will be granted a one-time Amnesty Clause to remove one player’s contract from their team’s books with no cap penalty or long-term financial impact. This amnesty is only applicable to contracts that were inherited — not any players acquired after taking over. Newer GM's can be grandfathered into the rule and amnesty old players, but in the future if a new GM is to join, they will have 14 days to use amnesty clause.

——————————-

Where yall seeing anything about previous GM’s ? The only new GM we have is Busta Bucket. Everyone else has previously had their teams and isn’t new.

I think the rule should be slightly tweaked. I feel if the contract is in its final year of expiring it shouldn’t be able to be amnesty but if it has 2 or more years remaining it should be eligible.

Voting No for now

Mecca is obviously the one who proposed the rule and he is stating he would be included in said rule.

[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.

Bro that is not the same. I'm as lefty as they come, this is a game, not real life.

Just because you were inactive and unable or unwilling to move your bad contracts you want a get out of jail free card, if you were such a good GM as you always hyped yourself up to be you would have easily been out of those bad contracts by now.

If it only applies to new GMs going forward including BB then fine, but going back to you is too far and too get effecting. I would have done things a sht ton different had I known that this rule was coming, instead I made moves within the confines of the game, I shouldn't be penalized for being active and moving off certain bad contracts I had taken over from,

I think this is a self serving rule you're trying to pass and it's pretty transparent based off this reaction you're giving to others being against it.

I don't think you are understanding

I had DLo, Marcus Smart & Jonas and no picks. No one was touching those players. You had assets to be active with, I didn't have a single young player on my roster or picks

[Mecca]

I don't think y'all understand how bad the Bucks situation was, the only thing I could've done is sit for 2 years

[Mecca]

"I had to suffer so you should too" is the wrong prism of thought

[Im Coming Home]

I think my idea/direction of the rule could work better if we really tried to figure out the correct amount.

Instead of complete amensty, maybe the ability to remove years or remove money from a contract would work better and not be as powerful. Maybe be able to remove 2 years or remove $100 off a contract but Im just spitballing numbers, maybe someone has a better year or number amount.

I'm not totally against the rule to be clear I get the idea, to give new GMs a chance for a cleaner slate especially if the last GM just absolutely throws the game and then leaves.. but it's gotta be figured out more precisely and less blanket vague statements

[Mecca]

I think my idea/direction of the rule could work better if we really tried to figure out the correct amount.

Instead of complete amensty, maybe the ability to remove years or remove money from a contract would work better and not be as powerful. Maybe be able to remove 2 years or remove $100 off a contract but Im just spitballing numbers, maybe someone has a better year or number amount.

I'm not totally against the rule to be clear I get the idea, to give new GMs a chance for a cleaner slate especially if the last GM just absolutely throws the game and then leaves.. but it's gotta be figured out more precisely and less blanket vague statements

Even being able to remove one year and I'd be fine for the record

[Fat]

Rule Overview:
When a new general manager (GM) takes over an abandoned team, they will be granted a one-time Amnesty Clause to remove one player’s contract from their team’s books with no cap penalty or long-term financial impact. This amnesty is only applicable to contracts that were inherited — not any players acquired after taking over. Newer GM's can be grandfathered into the rule and amnesty old players, but in the future if a new GM is to join, they will have 14 days to use amnesty clause.

——————————-

Where yall seeing anything about previous GM’s ? The only new GM we have is Busta Bucket. Everyone else has previously had their teams and isn’t new.

I think the rule should be slightly tweaked. I feel if the contract is in its final year of expiring it shouldn’t be able to be amnesty but if it has 2 or more years remaining it should be eligible.

Voting No for now

Mecca is obviously the one who proposed the rule and he is stating he would be included in said rule.

Oh okay

[Im Coming Home]

I don't think y'all understand how bad the Bucks situation was, the only thing I could've done is sit for 2 years

You're down right admitting this was a self serving rule you came up with. If you think it's such a great rule then say it should only apply to BB and GMs going forward and not yourself.

If "I had to suffer so you should too" is the wrong prism to look at this with, then you should be more than happy and willing to have to apply to future GMs and not yourself right?

[Context]

"I had to suffer so you should too" is the wrong prism of thought

I didnt "suffer" I went to work!

[Context]

I think my idea/direction of the rule could work better if we really tried to figure out the correct amount.

Instead of complete amensty, maybe the ability to remove years or remove money from a contract would work better and not be as powerful. Maybe be able to remove 2 years or remove $100 off a contract but Im just spitballing numbers, maybe someone has a better year or number amount.

I'm not totally against the rule to be clear I get the idea, to give new GMs a chance for a cleaner slate especially if the last GM just absolutely throws the game and then leaves.. but it's gotta be figured out more precisely and less blanket vague statements

Even being able to remove one year and I'd be fine for the record

when did you come back again? Which season?

[Mecca]

Let's just look at this objectively--

Previous owner signed plethora of veterans to overpaid 5 year deals, traded all his picks, and then left his team.

In fantasy football dynasty leagues, when this happens, the new owner/GM usually gets rewarded for taking an abandoned team by giving priority draft capital.

Other situations have had all their capital or young players/stars to use as chips. I had.. zero trade chips.

If the goal of the league is to create active GM's, you need to give them an opportunity to make moves. One GM shouldn't pay for the old GM's sins for 5 years. It's one player, one time.

And I'm even ok with swapping the rule just to scrape off one year of their contract, instead of a full amnesty.

[Mecca]

"I had to suffer so you should too" is the wrong prism of thought

I didnt "suffer" I went to work!

What work could I have gone to with this roster? There was no asset or capital on my roster, 5 years into the sim.

[DOT]

I think my idea/direction of the rule could work better if we really tried to figure out the correct amount.

Instead of complete amensty, maybe the ability to remove years or remove money from a contract would work better and not be as powerful. Maybe be able to remove 2 years or remove $100 off a contract but Im just spitballing numbers, maybe someone has a better year or number amount.

I'm not totally against the rule to be clear I get the idea, to give new GMs a chance for a cleaner slate especially if the last GM just absolutely throws the game and then leaves.. but it's gotta be figured out more precisely and less blanket vague statements

Even being able to remove one year and I'd be fine for the record

Make it so you can take 1 year off, but the player has to be cut?

So people couldn't cheese the system by taking a year off a contract, then using it as cap filler in a trade later or something, or taking a year off a 3 year deal then waiving to have a large 1 year cap hit

So you could theoretically amnesty a guy on a 4 year deal, but you then still have to carry that cap hit for 3 years without being able to do anything with him, and he still becomes a free agent.

[Mecca]

I don't think y'all understand how bad the Bucks situation was, the only thing I could've done is sit for 2 years

You're down right admitting this was a self serving rule you came up with. If you think it's such a great rule then say it should only apply to BB and GMs going forward and not yourself.

If "I had to suffer so you should too" is the wrong prism to look at this with, then you should be more than happy and willing to have to apply to future GMs and not yourself right?

No, because under this school of thought, I am a new GM still, as I haven't had a single opportunity to do anything. Don't you see that? I haven't had a single asset or capital, and still can't make any moves this off-season. Other GM's have had capital or young players/stars to get creative with.

This isn't just for me, this is for the future of BAF, so an Owner can't ruin a franchise, then dip, and screw the next person over, and then he doesn't want to stay long term either. The same franchises will be revolving doors.

The ask can be to remove just one year off one players contract that he didn't sign.

[Fat]

My vote stands as no if (any player contract) can be amnesty.

But would vote yes if the rule was changed to require the player being amnesty to have more than a year left on their contract.

[Mecca]

I think my idea/direction of the rule could work better if we really tried to figure out the correct amount.

Instead of complete amensty, maybe the ability to remove years or remove money from a contract would work better and not be as powerful. Maybe be able to remove 2 years or remove $100 off a contract but Im just spitballing numbers, maybe someone has a better year or number amount.

I'm not totally against the rule to be clear I get the idea, to give new GMs a chance for a cleaner slate especially if the last GM just absolutely throws the game and then leaves.. but it's gotta be figured out more precisely and less blanket vague statements

Even being able to remove one year and I'd be fine for the record

Make it so you can take 1 year off, but the player has to be cut?

So people couldn't cheese the system by taking a year off a contract, then using it as cap filler in a trade later or something, or taking a year off a 3 year deal then waiving to have a large 1 year cap hit

So you could theoretically amnesty a guy on a 4 year deal, but you then still have to carry that cap hit for 3 years without being able to do anything with him, and he still becomes a free agent.

I'd be very cool with this.