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

[Depalma2002]

I also agree with doing away with future considerations

[HEZI]

Yeah I will vote against future considerations as well

[Smash3]

Top 10 franchises all time by regular season winning percentage:

1. Warriors--------224-104 .683
2. Bulls------------219-109 .668
3. Mavericks------217-111 .662
4. Trailblazers----216-112 .659

It's going to be one hell of a tight race between these four teams to lock up this achievement.

[Smash3]

Rule proposal:

See page 9

[2010]

My BaF offseason prognosis:

Spoiler:

[Smash3]

My BaF offseason prognosis:

Spoiler:

[mpharris36]

I still don’t completely understand the exempt list but PHX has no interest in keeping any rights on Dotson or Ponds.

So then you got to PM bish like he says to officially remove them from you team.

If you don't PM him they will remain on your roster.

[mpharris36]

Couple of quick things. First, the deadline for all teams to make their decisions on the contract status of their Exempt List players is tomorrow. As of now, there are 14 different teams that have players still in the first post on the front page of this thread who have not made decisions on at least one player. Basically half the league being inactive or indifferent is not a good sign. I've seen a lot of talk about the end of the league and I want to reiterate that that is not my intention. But again, if people are not invested in it, then maybe that says enough. The default for any team that does not send in a decision on EL players is to have their contracts frozen as is. If you are not sure what this means, please PM me.

Second, now is the time for teams to submit any rule changes that they would like to have the league consider putting into effect for next season. I am going to suggest we put an end to "future considerations" deals. With the turnover in the league this year, especially among long time trusted GM's, these deals present a potential unfair advantage or disadvantage for certain teams. Plus, they are incredibly hard to keep track of. I've already had to go through a ton of past PM's to get one sorted out from a team that changed GM's this year. I think it would be best moving forward to eliminate the idea of "future considerations" in all future trades. This change would not effect any trade that has already been done that had a FC in it.

I agree with a future considerations tweak to make it easier for you + reducing unfair advantages.

To be fair with the activity/EL thing, the ping from mpharris helped since I forgot about that. I don't think it's a lack of being invested. Things usually spice up around FA/draft time, I know I get more active when there's just more things going on.. I predict a very active offseason once draft/FA stuff starts.

Yeah I think there are plenty of people who are active that just forgot about the list. That is why I @ you guys because I just figured a quick reminder would help you guys out

[Depalma2002]

Rule proposal:

BAF Stretch Provision:

If a team has enough cap space the following season, they should have the one-time option of stretching a players contract for one additional season.

Say a team has a player being paid $300 and the player has a year left on their contract, a GM could stretch his contract over two years so the cap hit becomes immediately $150, and $150 the following year. Obviously the team needs to have $150 in cap space the following year, and they won't be able to use the $150 in cap space the following year because it'll go to paying the player.

Keep in mind the above doesn't extend the player's contract, but the cap hit is stretched over two years so the player is free to sign a new contract in free agency, but he'll also be paid by his former team.

This is off the top of my head so it might need to be revised, but this should make most GMs more engaged, trade activity will go up and this will revitalize a lot of teams that are essentially **** because of contracts given out in year one. I think a change like this will give us the most active and competitive BAF season yet.

While I like the proposal on its merits, I think after seeing some owners leave this offseason and new owners coming in finding themselves with almost no draft picks due to using the future considerations allowance to avoid the Stepien rule, I think we need to avoid creating a situation where an owner (even with no ill intent) goes all in this year by borrowing against next years cap and then for one reason or another leaves the league leaving the replacement GM in a very disadvantaged situation.

[Depalma2002]

I would propose a one-time rule that only applies to incoming GMs and it may only be one.

If a replacement GM came in this year and takes over a team whose previous owner traded away a first round pick as future considerations, I would propose we award that GM with a "compensatory" pick between the 1st and 2nd round. It would carry the same cap number as pick #31 but have the contract year options of a 1st round pick. This compensatory pick would be in the year that the previous pick was traded.

[Smash3]

Rule proposal:

BAF Stretch Provision:

If a team has enough cap space the following season, they should have the one-time option of stretching a players contract for one additional season.

Say a team has a player being paid $300 and the player has a year left on their contract, a GM could stretch his contract over two years so the cap hit becomes immediately $150, and $150 the following year. Obviously the team needs to have $150 in cap space the following year, and they won't be able to use the $150 in cap space the following year because it'll go to paying the player.

Keep in mind the above doesn't extend the player's contract, but the cap hit is stretched over two years so the player is free to sign a new contract in free agency, but he'll also be paid by his former team.

This is off the top of my head so it might need to be revised, but this should make most GMs more engaged, trade activity will go up and this will revitalize a lot of teams that are essentially **** because of contracts given out in year one. I think a change like this will give us the most active and competitive BAF season yet.

While I like the proposal on its merits, I think after seeing some owners leave this offseason and new owners coming in finding themselves with almost no draft picks due to using the future considerations allowance to avoid the Stepien rule, I think we need to avoid creating a situation where an owner (even with no ill intent) goes all in this year by borrowing against next years cap and then for one reason or another leaves the league leaving the replacement GM in a very disadvantaged situation.

Good point, I see this as a one time event (one player) to revitalize the league, and we can make it so this event/choice is not applicable to the next GM.

*If a GM leaves his team, and has used the stretch provision, the new GM will not be on the hook for next year’s salary.

Most importantly the stretch provision can only be used for one player for a single additional season, so it won’t have far reaching consequences, but short term it’ll jump start the league again.

[Depalma2002]

Rule proposal:

BAF Stretch Provision:

If a team has enough cap space the following season, they should have the one-time option of stretching a players contract for one additional season.

Say a team has a player being paid $300 and the player has a year left on their contract, a GM could stretch his contract over two years so the cap hit becomes immediately $150, and $150 the following year. Obviously the team needs to have $150 in cap space the following year, and they won't be able to use the $150 in cap space the following year because it'll go to paying the player.

Keep in mind the above doesn't extend the player's contract, but the cap hit is stretched over two years so the player is free to sign a new contract in free agency, but he'll also be paid by his former team.

This is off the top of my head so it might need to be revised, but this should make most GMs more engaged, trade activity will go up and this will revitalize a lot of teams that are essentially **** because of contracts given out in year one. I think a change like this will give us the most active and competitive BAF season yet.

While I like the proposal on its merits, I think after seeing some owners leave this offseason and new owners coming in finding themselves with almost no draft picks due to using the future considerations allowance to avoid the Stepien rule, I think we need to avoid creating a situation where an owner (even with no ill intent) goes all in this year by borrowing against next years cap and then for one reason or another leaves the league leaving the replacement GM in a very disadvantaged situation.

Good point, I see this as a one time event (one player) to revitalize the league, and we can make it so this event/choice is not applicable to the next GM.

*If a GM leaves his team, and has used the stretch provision, the new GM will not be on the hook for next year’s salary.

Most importantly the stretch provision can only be used for one player for a single additional season, so it won’t have far reaching consequences, but short term it’ll jump start the league again.

Yeah, if a future GM can't be left holding the bag, I think I'd be in favor.

[Manhattan Project]

Fine with doing away with future considerations as long as the picks convey. I know I have a few but I'm sure teams out there have more than me.

[bringbackhoffa]

Yep in agreement with doing away with future considerations

[bringbackhoffa]

Would not be in favor of the stretch provision, like the buyout mechanism already in place.

[br7knicks]

Fine with doing away with future considerations as long as the picks convey. I know I have a few but I'm sure teams out there have more than me.

yeah, i think that was part of it; FC deals already made will be grandfathered in, but no more moving forward.

[NewEra]

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

#Season6believer

[mpharris36]

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

#Season6believer

yeah would love to see more from angryfatboy...should we start posting food in here???

[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.

[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 put new GMs at a disadvantage, and if anything it will give them a small advantage, which I think is fair with them joining so late.