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

[HEZI]

According to sources it appears that Spicy P is planning to not be back in Portland due to insufficient funds. GM Smash is trying to get a rule change that would allow him to open up possibility to bring him back but he's struggling to get enough votes to pass the new rule.

More on the story to come as things develop. Stay tuned!

[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

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.

Losing all the vets definitely sucks but I think the game is safe for the long term. Just need to find new blood that's willing to jump in and take part. Even some of the vets might be looking to return once some things in life start to settle down.

[bringbackhoffa]

According to sources it appears that Spicy P is planning to not be back in Portland due to insufficient funds. GM Smash is trying to get a rule change that would allow him to open up possibility to bring him back but he's struggling to get enough votes to pass the new rule.

More on the story to come as things develop. Stay tuned!

Thats a spicy nugget right there..

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[Context]

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

Detroit says YES!

[Manhattan Project]

According to sources it appears that Spicy P is planning to not be back in Portland due to insufficient funds. GM Smash is trying to get a rule change that would allow him to open up possibility to bring him back but he's struggling to get enough votes to pass the new rule.

More on the story to come as things develop. Stay tuned!

[Manhattan Project]

With that being said the Jazz have no intention of keeping the sixth pick as it doesn't fit our timeline, so it's still up for grabs. Have a few decent offers and talks going on, but I don't want to hear the I didn't know it was on the block cries.

[mpharris36]

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

I gotta agree with Melo here. Bish made some great points as well.

For 4 years people have been paying a premium price to shed contracts. I think would change the entire dynamic of the game.

I think it also hurts those rebuilding teams that can offer salary relief but get compensation for a bad contract if a good team can just shed the money.

[Deeeez Knicks]

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

I gotta agree with Melo here. Bish made some great points as well.

For 4 years people have been paying a premium price to shed contracts. I think would change the entire dynamic of the game.

I think it also hurts those rebuilding teams that can offer salary relief but get compensation for a bad contract if a good team can just shed the money.

Yea, I think I would vote no too

[br7knicks]

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.

this is kinda where i am, but i'm more lik 70 no, 30 yes.

i'd rather not do it, but i'm okay with it taking place.


i see it as yes, because the "stretch provision" is a part of the real NBA. so why couldn't it be a part of our game? but i can also see it as one more pain in the ass for you, bish.

again, i'm okay with it, either way. i definitely have a guy(s) i would stretch in a heartbeat, but i'm okay with what i inherited.

[Deeeez Knicks]

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

So you keep the player? That is a definite no if the player stays on the roster

[br7knicks]

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

So you keep the player? That is a definite no if the player stays on the roster

ahhh, that's true. i didn't even think of that. i believe in the real NBA, the stretch provision means you're cutting the player, but spreading their salary across a few years.

[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
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.

It's an idea to shake things up that will benefit mostly middle of the pack/borderline playoff teams or teams that are young but also hampered by a large contract. I do agree teams should always focus on roster and cap management, but like we have seen in real life with the NBA even billion dollar franchises can get it wrong (amnesty, which was a one-time per team bailout) so I think we can extend some grace to our collection of GMs too .

I don't see it creating a huge competitive imbalance if a GM were to leave his team we are talking a relatively small amount $50-200 the new GM might benefit from – and if a new GM is coming in it wouldn't be the worst thing if he/she gets a small competitive advantage.

At the end of the day it's an idea that will generate a lot of engagement, and I think that's good for the league long-term.

[Smash3]

According to sources it appears that Spicy P is planning to not be back in Portland due to insufficient funds. GM Smash is trying to get a rule change that would allow him to open up possibility to bring him back but he's struggling to get enough votes to pass the new rule.

More on the story to come as things develop. Stay tuned!

Just for the record, most of my players have already been traded so Siakam will be returning to the City of Roses unless we get a S&T offer we can't turn down.

[br7knicks]

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.

It's an idea to shake things up that will benefit mostly middle of the pack/borderline playoff teams or teams that are young but also hampered by a large contract. I do agree teams should always focus on roster and cap management, but like we have seen in real life with the NBA even billion dollar franchises can get it wrong (amnesty, which was a one-time per team bailout) so I think we can extend some grace to our collection of GMs too .

I don't see it creating a huge competitive imbalance if a GM were to leave his team we are talking a relatively small amount $50-200 the new GM might benefit from – and if a new GM is coming in it wouldn't be the worst thing if he/she gets a small competitive advantage.

At the end of the day it's an idea that will generate a lot of engagement, and I think that's good for the league long-term.

i think it would throw something else into play that would make it more interesting, that is true. and as someone else pointed out, it would make GMs think about the following season as well, as that salary would still be on there.


but i do think you need to clarify (maybe i missed it). if the stretch provision is used on a player, are they then cut, or do you keep them?

[HEZI]

According to sources it appears that Spicy P is planning to not be back in Portland due to insufficient funds. GM Smash is trying to get a rule change that would allow him to open up possibility to bring him back but he's struggling to get enough votes to pass the new rule.

More on the story to come as things develop. Stay tuned!

Just for the record, most of my players have already been traded so Siakam will be returning to the City of Roses unless we get a S&T offer we can't turn down.

It wouldn't be an offseason if they weren't

But you know I still had to because it was funny

[mpharris36]

With that being said the Jazz have no intention of keeping the sixth pick as it doesn't fit our timeline, so it's still up for grabs. Have a few decent offers and talks going on, but I don't want to hear the I didn't know it was on the block cries.

hi sam presti!

[Phish Tank]

i'm torn. Stretch provision is good, and it should be incorporated with BAF 2.0 as part of a general plan of restructuring the idea of a salary cap (i'm thinking of ways to reimagine the way salaries are calculated in the future and finding a way to make 2nd round picks somewhat valuable rather than just cap holds).

I probably won't make any use of it though in this iteration, so I'm voting no.

[Smash3]

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.

It's an idea to shake things up that will benefit mostly middle of the pack/borderline playoff teams or teams that are young but also hampered by a large contract. I do agree teams should always focus on roster and cap management, but like we have seen in real life with the NBA even billion dollar franchises can get it wrong (amnesty, which was a one-time per team bailout) so I think we can extend some grace to our collection of GMs too .

I don't see it creating a huge competitive imbalance if a GM were to leave his team we are talking a relatively small amount $50-200 the new GM might benefit from – and if a new GM is coming in it wouldn't be the worst thing if he/she gets a small competitive advantage.

At the end of the day it's an idea that will generate a lot of engagement, and I think that's good for the league long-term.

i think it would throw something else into play that would make it more interesting, that is true. and as someone else pointed out, it would make GMs think about the following season as well, as that salary would still be on there.


but i do think you need to clarify (maybe i missed it). if the stretch provision is used on a player, are they then cut, or do you keep them?

The team would keep the player, because if the team doesn't get to keep the player it would only benefit the rich, the rich would get richer because the best teams usually have the highest FA rating (meaning they can sign free agents for cheaper).

Yup, there's a tradeoff, teams will get more competitive right away, but they have to keep in mind the salary will still be on there the next season and teams will have to consider if it's worth it. I think for the majority of teams except maybe the top 5-8 teams it makes a lot of sense for them to use the stretch provision.

[bringbackhoffa]

If the team gets to keep the player after using the stretch provision that makes no sense, stretch provision are used to buy out players in real life not make it easier to attain other players and keep said stretch player. That be like be acquiring giannis and kawhi in BAF and then using the stretch on one of them so I can obtain a 3rd star in free agency to build an immediate big 3. Used giannis and kawhi as examples as they would eat up 99 percent of your cap, using the stretch would push jt closer to 75 percent

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[mpharris36]

If the team gets to keep the player after using the stretch provision that makes no sense, stretch provision are used to buy out players in real life not make it easier to attain other players and keep said stretch player. That be like be acquiring giannis and kawhi in BAF and then using the stretch on one of them so I can obtain a 3rd star in free agency to build an immediate big 3. Used giannis and kawhi as examples as they would eat up 99 percent of your cap, using the stretch would push jt closer to 75 percent

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

You could maybe sell me on a stretch provision down the line if we had less GM turnover recently. We have pretty much replaced 33% of the league in the last year or so.

But you couldn't sell me on a stretch provision that allows the team stretching a player contract to keep that player as well. That isn't a stretch provision. You would basically be deferring a player current contract to free up cap room.

The NBA stretch provision is a waive and stretch which would be the only thing that makes sense to me if we had less GM turnover as Bish stated.