|
|
Post by donatello2424 on Jun 14, 2009 3:13:17 GMT -8
It is different in Nique being bought out when he is 37 and has shitty ratings. He is 34 and still has great ratings. The Mavs buying him out is a cheap way for him to tank and get more cap space right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by cublacksheep on Jun 14, 2009 8:31:04 GMT -8
I think regardless of motive, the buy-out does what it was intended for - to relieve a club of a long contract. Now in this case it may have some unique repercussions, and there should be rules for this, but I really can't say the Mavs have done anything wrong here...
|
|
|
|
Post by mops on Jun 14, 2009 22:53:41 GMT -8
The Mavs presented me with a rule change which will go into effect after this season.
I am going to change the buy outs from 3 or more years to 3 or less years.
|
|
|
|
Post by pudgejeff on Jun 14, 2009 23:05:33 GMT -8
Wait what?...I don't get it?...We can only buy someone out if there contract is for 3 or less years?...what does that help?
|
|
|
|
Post by brophdogg88 on Jun 14, 2009 23:34:52 GMT -8
Wait what?...I don't get it?...We can only buy someone out if there contract is for 3 or less years?...what does that help? Say you sign someone to a six year large contract, and they tank after two TC's....you are only stuck with a bad contract for three years, rather than 6 but you can't just instantly get out of it. It makes it so that the buyout is not all powerful, there are still major negatives to signing a player to a huge contract, but it is not a crippling blow either. |
|
|
|
Post by pudgejeff on Jun 14, 2009 23:39:50 GMT -8
Okay...I understand that kinda...it just means you can only buy out a guy with a 2 or 3 year contract...I donno though...I liked it the way it was but I guess really all the bad contracts that were thrust onto people when this started are pretty much gone and it's your own fault for signing someone so ya it makes sense
|
|
|
|
Post by boom on Jun 14, 2009 23:42:28 GMT -8
How about if you offer someone a contract then you have to wait x amount of seasons to buy that player out.
It would force GMs to make more intelligent offers
|
|
|
|
Post by pudgejeff on Jun 15, 2009 0:25:37 GMT -8
I think that is pretty much what this is doing
|
|
|
|
Post by pudgejeff on Jun 15, 2009 0:27:15 GMT -8
Why are we waiting til after this season to put it into effect?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zyme on Jun 15, 2009 1:31:18 GMT -8
It would be unfair to do it post facto. I think that this could be done as a one shot deal (one time affair) and then have the future have the new rule put in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by cublacksheep on Jun 15, 2009 8:12:41 GMT -8
Good compromise, I like it
|
|
|
|
Post by briarduck on Jun 15, 2009 8:31:42 GMT -8
I agree I think this rule change is a overreaction to a bad contract by the MAVS GM but lets not forget he just took advantage of the rules or lack there of. I have no problem for what he did...but we need to do something no that the "lack of rule" was exposed but lets not go nuts!
A new rule change should have to be agreed by all GMs before we proceed because I for one am against a "3 years or less" rule. IMO an addition/amendment to the FA contracts rules should be, "the first 2-3 years of a FA contract should have to be honored", that way a sign and releases of a FA aren't possible...
You can also add a rule "releasing/cutting a player must be approved by the league office" and should be kept private so that this sort of thing can't happen again.
The one thing I like about this option (releasing a FA) is that what if the player you sign doesn't perform as advertised...its a good option to not get stuck with a under performing over priced player.
But in the end we should ALL have a chance to vote on it.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by donatello2424 on Jun 15, 2009 8:39:15 GMT -8
I agree I think this rule change is a overreaction to a bad contract by the MAVS GM but lets not forget he just took advantage of the rules or lack there of. I have no problem for what he did...but we need to do something no that the "lack of rule" was exposed but lets not go nuts! A new rule change should have to be agreed by all GMs before we proceed because I for one am against a "3 years or less" rule. IMO an addition/amendment to the FA contracts rules should be, "the first 2-3 years of a FA contract should have to be honored", that way a sign and releases of a FA aren't possible... You can also add a rule "releasing/cutting a player must be approved by the league office" and should be kept private so that this sort of thing can't happen again. The one thing I like about this option (releasing a FA) is that what if the player you sign doesn't perform as advertised...its a good option to not get stuck with a under performing over priced player. But in the end we should ALL have a chance to vote on it. Later releasing and buying out are two different things entirely. If you release a player, you are still responsible for that contract. If you buyout a contract then it is wiped clean. I like this idea. It prevents people from maxing someone like Jordan, then buying him out when he gets too old. We could always do the uoslr route where the contract can't be longer than 25 and has to be under certain salaries (no more than 5 a year average). |
|
|
|
Post by briarduck on Jun 15, 2009 8:45:42 GMT -8
Funny..."releasing and buying out" my bad I was being distracted by my kids in the background...of course I meant "buying a player out"...sorry!
All we need is some form of "checks and balances" with out changing or altering the rules to badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazymike2021 on Jun 25, 2009 15:16:25 GMT -8
I like it
|
|
