CSL - CBA Discussion

I'd put 2nd rounders as UFA, don't matter their contract. They would not be able to be extended in-season, because they don't have 3 Bird Years. And teams that give their 2nd rounders a 3-year deal would be able to go over the CAP to re-sign them at FA because they would have 3 Bird years with those players.

It's simple. This way, there would be much more FA competition, with 2nd round talents like Parsons or Bullock going into FA as UFAs but their team would still be able to retain them because of Bird-Rights.

RFA is only for 1st rounders.
And about in-season extensions, I'd allow only 1 per team each season, which would lead to 30 less players at FA, if every team manages to extend it's own player. I've played in sim leagues with that system of 1 extension / season and it worked beautifully, because not everyone was able to extend their best players, and it lead to big FA competition. I think extensions have been handled nicely so far by SCDP, with players signing only for real big money. Anyway, I'd create a rule that a EVERY PLAYER could not be extended for less than 10M on his first year and they could only be extended if his first year was MORE than his last year of his previous contract. Just to make sure there are no small extensions, taking players away from FA for a discount price.

Absolutely agree RFA should only be for first rounders, though in GAH there's no RFA status for 1st rounders (1st round rookies are signed to three year deals), and no extensions, which makes free agency actually matter and create some heated, thrilling races. Just to give another perspective.

The one extension per team with a 10 million minimum clause is an interesting idea.

Also, I've just found something very very intriguing to me:

CSL CBA wrote:A free agent's maximum salary in the first year of a new contract is never less than 105% of his salary in the last year of his previous contract. For example, a ten-year veteran free agent who most recently earned $20 million has a maximum salary of at least $21 million, even if that is above the league-wide maximum. A free agent does not need to remain with the same team in order to receive 105% of his previous salary, although the team that signs him is subject to the same salary cap restrictions as with any other free agent.

Lets look at LeBron James case here:
Assume LeBron picks up his option for next year and is not extended in-season, meaning he's going to test FA.

Pacers have Bird Rights on LeBron, 12 years to be more precise, so they can go over the CAP to re-sign him.
Let's say the Pacers are over the CAP because of LBJ's CAP Hold. Let's say that they won't renounce everyone, and with every CAP Hold available, they are at 75M salaries, which means they are 15M over the CAP (don't matter the value, just that they are over the CAP).

Rule says a player can be signed up to 105% of his last year (22,112,500 in LeBron's case). That's 23,218,125. So every team with more than that value available in CAP space can offer him this value on his 1st year, at 4.5% max raises, on a 4 year deal.

The question is: can the Pacers offer him that too? Because CBA also says in "SALARY EXCEPTIONS" that a team over the CAP can only offer a player whom they currently have Bird Rights the league Maximum, which means $19,136,250 in LeBron's case, with 7.5% max raises and 5 year max duration.

So, as far as I understand, if the Pacers are over the CAP when re-signing LeBron, the other teams in the league with CAP space can offer James 4M more than Indiana on his first year? Or is Indy allowed to offer 23M+ also even if they are over the CAP?

Thanks to HiGrade to bring this up at the other topic. It is really pissing me off, because it's non-sense that a team who owns players Bird Rights can offer him LESS MONEY than the other teams.

IF Indy can offer him the same 23M+ as the other teams, please correct CBA in that SALARY EXCEPTIONS part.. Where there is Max. Salary, you have Maximum Scale. It should be: " Maximum Scale or 105% of previous salary, whichever is greater". At least I think so

Ah, just a little thing.. Before any one say I'm suggesting rules that benefits some specific teams or would completely F*** any team (like Jake's Minny with Parsons), please pay attention to my team.

Even though I'm suggesting 2nd rounders to become UFA and not be eligible to mid-season extensions, which would not benefit Minnesota regarding Parson's situation, keep in mind that there are very few 2nd rounders worthy of nice money extensions.. And, well, one of them (Reggie Bullock) is playing on my team. It would be much better to me if Bullock was a RFA and I could extend him in the middle of the next season, but I really don't like that rule.
I'm actually going against my team but I think this would be much better to the sim if 2nd rounders are UFA.
And I have no money to sign Parsons as FA, I'd only dump every one except George and Howard for a chance at LeBron. But I like Parsons a lot (and Jake knows that LOL)

Jestor (PHX) wrote:I hate the RFA rule for 2nd rounders. Bird rights, fine.  RFA status, though?  That's just a way to even further restrict player movement in free agency and further cheapens cap space.

The concept that the one or two players drafted in the 2nd round worthy of legitimate contracts after their rookie contracts dramatically affecting free agency with RFA status is silly.

Truth is, if you're the team that actually scouts well and finds the one player in the second round worthy of playing time, you should have every chance and advantage to retain that player.

Jestor (PHX) wrote:The big problem is that a rule like this is going to horrifically imbalance team building to the draft and trades, and make free agency essentially an afterthought.  There will be zero avenue to build a team through free agency, and as a result almost no incentive to create cap space, because fuck it, all the top players are going to extend in-season anyway, and any decent young players are going to be RFAs.

Trust that in-season free agency will not impact off-season free agency. The players signed follow very specific criteria. Free agency will be a lot of fun this offseason.

Marcos_Beck (OKC) wrote:Also, I've just found something very very intriguing to me:

CSL CBA wrote:A free agent's maximum salary in the first year of a new contract is never less than 105% of his salary in the last year of his previous contract. For example, a ten-year veteran free agent who most recently earned $20 million has a maximum salary of at least $21 million, even if that is above the league-wide maximum. A free agent does not need to remain with the same team in order to receive 105% of his previous salary, although the team that signs him is subject to the same salary cap restrictions as with any other free agent.

Lets look at LeBron James case here:
Assume LeBron picks up his option for next year and is not extended in-season, meaning he's going to test FA.

Pacers have Bird Rights on LeBron, 12 years to be more precise, so they can go over the CAP to re-sign him.
Let's say the Pacers are over the CAP because of LBJ's CAP Hold. Let's say that they won't renounce everyone, and with every CAP Hold available, they are at 75M salaries, which means they are 15M over the CAP (don't matter the value, just that they are over the CAP).

Rule says a player can be signed up to 105% of his last year (22,112,500 in LeBron's case). That's 23,218,125. So every team with more than that value available in CAP space can offer him this value on his 1st year, at 4.5% max raises, on a 4 year deal.

The question is: can the Pacers offer him that too? Because CBA also says in "SALARY EXCEPTIONS" that a team over the CAP can only offer a player whom they currently have Bird Rights the league Maximum, which means $19,136,250 in LeBron's case, with 7.5% max raises and 5 year max duration.

So, as far as I understand, if the Pacers are over the CAP when re-signing LeBron, the other teams in the league with CAP space can offer James 4M more than Indiana on his first year? Or is Indy allowed to offer 23M+ also even if they are over the CAP?

Thanks to HiGrade to bring this up at the other topic. It is really pissing me off, because it's non-sense that a team who owns players Bird Rights can offer him LESS MONEY than the other teams.

IF Indy can offer him the same 23M+ as the other teams, please correct CBA in that SALARY EXCEPTIONS part.. Where there is Max. Salary, you have Maximum Scale. It should be: " Maximum Scale or 105% of previous salary, whichever is greater". At least I think so

You quoted your answer: "A free agent's maximum salary in the first year of a new contract is never less than 105% of his salary in the last year of his previous contract."

Logic follows here.

So before you let anything "piss you off" next time, how about you and I have a conversation via PM about your concerns and see if we can't get to an answer that satisfies you that way.

Sun Scorched (CHA) wrote:

Jestor (PHX) wrote:I hate the RFA rule for 2nd rounders. Bird rights, fine.  RFA status, though?  That's just a way to even further restrict player movement in free agency and further cheapens cap space.

The concept that the one or two players drafted in the 2nd round worthy of legitimate contracts after their rookie contracts dramatically affecting free agency with RFA status is silly.

Truth is, if you're the team that actually scouts well and finds the one player in the second round worthy of playing time, you should have every chance and advantage to retain that player.

Disagree. These 1 or 2 players can make a lot of difference at Free Agency. They are young players who were not drafted at 1st round. They had the chance to be picked in 1st round and be RFA after 4 years, but they didn't. If someone hits a home run with a 2nd rounder, they would have the player for very little money for 3 full seasons (look at Reggie Bullock's contract, almost no hit in my CAP space). That's enough advantage. He should be a UFA at the end of his first contract.

Sun Scorched (CHA) wrote:

Marcos_Beck (OKC) wrote:Also, I've just found something very very intriguing to me:

CSL CBA wrote:A free agent's maximum salary in the first year of a new contract is never less than 105% of his salary in the last year of his previous contract. For example, a ten-year veteran free agent who most recently earned $20 million has a maximum salary of at least $21 million, even if that is above the league-wide maximum. A free agent does not need to remain with the same team in order to receive 105% of his previous salary, although the team that signs him is subject to the same salary cap restrictions as with any other free agent.

Lets look at LeBron James case here:
Assume LeBron picks up his option for next year and is not extended in-season, meaning he's going to test FA.

Pacers have Bird Rights on LeBron, 12 years to be more precise, so they can go over the CAP to re-sign him.
Let's say the Pacers are over the CAP because of LBJ's CAP Hold. Let's say that they won't renounce everyone, and with every CAP Hold available, they are at 75M salaries, which means they are 15M over the CAP (don't matter the value, just that they are over the CAP).

Rule says a player can be signed up to 105% of his last year (22,112,500 in LeBron's case). That's 23,218,125. So every team with more than that value available in CAP space can offer him this value on his 1st year, at 4.5% max raises, on a 4 year deal.

The question is: can the Pacers offer him that too? Because CBA also says in "SALARY EXCEPTIONS" that a team over the CAP can only offer a player whom they currently have Bird Rights the league Maximum, which means $19,136,250 in LeBron's case, with 7.5% max raises and 5 year max duration.

So, as far as I understand, if the Pacers are over the CAP when re-signing LeBron, the other teams in the league with CAP space can offer James 4M more than Indiana on his first year? Or is Indy allowed to offer 23M+ also even if they are over the CAP?

Thanks to HiGrade to bring this up at the other topic. It is really pissing me off, because it's non-sense that a team who owns players Bird Rights can offer him LESS MONEY than the other teams.

IF Indy can offer him the same 23M+ as the other teams, please correct CBA in that SALARY EXCEPTIONS part.. Where there is Max. Salary, you have Maximum Scale. It should be: " Maximum Scale or 105% of previous salary, whichever is greater". At least I think so

You quoted your answer: "A free agent's maximum salary in the first year of a new contract is never less than 105% of his salary in the last year of his previous contract."

Logic follows here.

So before you let anything "piss you off" next time, how about you and I have a conversation via PM about your concerns and see if we can't get to an answer that satisfies you that way.

So why does that "Salary CAP Exceptions" table says the max contract allowed for players with 3+ Bird Years is the max scale? As far as I know max scale means values on "Maximum Salary Guidelines" table.
And, well, I'm trying to contribute to the league, not criticize anything. I'm trying to understand CBA and trying to correct any issues, so one day we'll have a CBA with no contradictory things.
But if you took it personal, no problem, not even going to say anything.

Not taking anything personal, just seems like some of your commentary is unecessary. Don't know why anything like this would "piss you off".

The CBA seems quite clear to me, but if others have any issue with it I'm happy to tweak.

Sun Scorched (CHA) wrote:Not taking anything personal, just seems like some of your commentary is unecessary.  Don't know why anything like this would "piss you off".

The CBA seems quite clear to me, but if others have any issue with it I'm happy to tweak.

Well as I'm still learning English expressions, I was trying to express that I was confused about it. I don't know if "piss me off" is supposed to mean confusion, but as far as I know (and I know very little) it is. Sorry if it isn't, really apologize. I was trying to say just that I was confused about it, that I was trying to understand and could not, and I was becoming very confused about it.

After reading again what you wrote, seems that "piss me off" is something which means angry or something like that. I'm not angry and will never be, it's a sim league, supposed to bring fun. I'm just giving "my 2 cents" (like you guys usually say), trying to help with opinions and also trying to make it clearer.

Sorry again SS.

Whatever the majority wants. If the Majority wants 60 first round picks Im fine with it .

Marcos_Beck (OKC) wrote:

Sun Scorched (CHA) wrote:Not taking anything personal, just seems like some of your commentary is unecessary.  Don't know why anything like this would "piss you off".

The CBA seems quite clear to me, but if others have any issue with it I'm happy to tweak.

Well as I'm still learning English expressions, I was trying to express that I was confused about it. I don't know if "piss me off" is supposed to mean confusion, but as far as I know (and I know very little) it is. Sorry if it isn't, really apologize. I was trying to say just that I was confused about it, that I was trying to understand and could not, and I was becoming very confused about it.

After reading again what you wrote, seems that "piss me off" is something which means angry or something like that. I'm not angry and will never be, it's a sim league, supposed to bring fun. I'm just giving "my 2 cents" (like you guys usually say), trying to help with opinions and also trying to make it clearer.

Sorry again SS.

To further clarified, when something pisses me off, it makes you angry - in some cases angry to the point of blind rage, though it depends on the context and inflection the phrase pissed off is being used in as to what level of anger is being expressed.

Sun Scorched (CHA) wrote:

Jestor (PHX) wrote:I hate the RFA rule for 2nd rounders. Bird rights, fine.  RFA status, though?  That's just a way to even further restrict player movement in free agency and further cheapens cap space.

The concept that the one or two players drafted in the 2nd round worthy of legitimate contracts after their rookie contracts dramatically affecting free agency with RFA status is silly.

Truth is, if you're the team that actually scouts well and finds the one player in the second round worthy of playing time, you should have every chance and advantage to retain that player.

It isn't silly. FA classes are weaker in general in sim leagues that have extensions, so every quality player counts. And similar to what Marco said, the team is already getting the player at cut-rate prices far below market below for three years (essentially min-sal), and now you want to add team control for the next 4-5 years on top of it, essentially buying out all the player's prime years for those 2nd round steals?

It's like Dennis I think it is said... by making 2nd rounders RFAers, you're basically creating 60 first round draft picks.

Jestor (PHX) wrote:

Marcos_Beck (OKC) wrote:

Sun Scorched (CHA) wrote:Not taking anything personal, just seems like some of your commentary is unecessary.  Don't know why anything like this would "piss you off".

The CBA seems quite clear to me, but if others have any issue with it I'm happy to tweak.

Well as I'm still learning English expressions, I was trying to express that I was confused about it. I don't know if "piss me off" is supposed to mean confusion, but as far as I know (and I know very little) it is. Sorry if it isn't, really apologize. I was trying to say just that I was confused about it, that I was trying to understand and could not, and I was becoming very confused about it.

After reading again what you wrote, seems that "piss me off" is something which means angry or something like that. I'm not angry and will never be, it's a sim league, supposed to bring fun. I'm just giving "my 2 cents" (like you guys usually say), trying to help with opinions and also trying to make it clearer.

Sorry again SS.

To further clarified, when something pisses me off, it makes you angry - in some cases angry to the point of blind rage, though it depends on the context and inflection the phrase pissed off is being used in as to what level of anger is being expressed.

Oh well, thanks a lot. That was not what I meant when I said that.
Think I should stay away from expressions until I learn their real meanings LOL
Apologize for creating that bad atmosphere. I really did not meant to do it.

Despite if I like the Parsons decision or not..
Just wanted to Note I like how you are Handling Things SS. Always calm, neutral, you are doing a great Job as commish.

About Chandler.. So Minnesota has to Match Bostons max offer for Parsons. If they are willing too its okay for me if he stays in a crowded Minnesota .

Sun Scorched (CHA) wrote:CSL Collective Bargaining Agreement – Ruling #3

As a result of the recent extensions being signed by various unrestricted and restricted free agents, we felt it necessary to establish a new rule governing the trading of players involved in extended contracts.  Please feel free to ask questions in the CBA Discussion Thread.

Ruling #3: Players who have been extended in-season are trade restricted until their new contracts take effect the following season.

This is going to be enforced for several reasons. The most important of which is that is follows more closely to logic and how the actual NBA works. Free agents don't sign extensions with teams only to be traded away once their value has been increased as a result of the extension. Additionally, players are very specifically extending with their current team given the direction of the franchise, the quality of the roster and other factors. Finally, extending a player is functionally the same thing as signing them to a new contract. Players have trade restrictions when signed to new contracts and, thus, will have trade restrictions when signed to extensions.

Not sure I agree or disagree with this ruling, it's not often but teams have signed players to extensions (KG) and Melo (KG traded during draft, Melo traded in season) BUT both players were not happy with their former team situation so that explains the reasoning for it and the sim engine to my knowledge shows when players are happy or displeased with their current team situation along with the money vs winning player personality aspect but it'd be a slippery slope for a PA to determine if a player would want to stay or leave a certain situation before being extended.

I really like the rule. It makes extensions actually mean something rather than just a way for GMs to protect their investments and keep them on your roster until they can be traded for a package of your liking.

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:Not sure I agree or disagree with this ruling, it's not often but teams have signed players to extensions (KG) and Melo (KG traded during draft, Melo traded in season) BUT both players were not happy with their former team situation so that explains the reasoning for it and the sim engine to my knowledge shows when players are happy or displeased with their current team situation along with the money vs winning player personality aspect but it'd be a slippery slope for a PA to determine if a player would want to stay or leave a certain situation before being extended.

Not quite sure what you mean by this. This was kind of the point of PAs. Team environment, direction, fit, playing time, greed, negotiations, etc. are all an important part of a players decision to sign or not sign.

Sun Scorched (CHA) wrote:

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:Not sure I agree or disagree with this ruling, it's not often but teams have signed players to extensions (KG) and Melo (KG traded during draft, Melo traded in season) BUT both players were not happy with their former team situation so that explains the reasoning for it and the sim engine to my knowledge shows when players are happy or displeased with their current team situation along with the money vs winning player personality aspect but it'd be a slippery slope for a PA to determine if a player would want to stay or leave a certain situation before being extended.

Not quite sure what you mean by this.  This was kind of the point of PAs.  Team environment, direction, fit, playing time, greed, negotiations, etc. are all an important part of a players decision to sign or not sign.  

LeBron and Kevin Love for example are extension eligible AND can opt out, same situation as KG and Melo in the aforementioned and while the engine will determine if both players will opt in or out, could they really be happy in their current situations? The only way to find out of course is after final PO seedings are determined and PO success and in the examples both Melo and KG were signed to extensions then traded which apparently will not be an option in the CSL. So the point is why go through with an extension as a player if they aren't quite happy (which the engine tracks) even though they'll get max money but still be in an unhappy situation vs getting a max offer from a team that may prove to be a happier situation.

The Wolves are underachieving, is Chandler happy about that? His PT is slightly down as are his shots (both by 2 each) and the Wolves aren't currently in the PO's while he went to the PO's in NY. The Wolves can turn it around and Chandler is young so PO's may not be a big factor to him, I don't know cause I don't have the game.

As far as trade eligibility, has an extended player already been signed then traded during the same season in the CSL, and if so maybe this rule should go into affect next season instead of a "from now on" type of rule, either way I'm not opposed to any decision as it really doesn't have any bearing on my franchise.

That's more of what I was getting at and didn't completely state it.

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:

Sun Scorched (CHA) wrote:

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:Not sure I agree or disagree with this ruling, it's not often but teams have signed players to extensions (KG) and Melo (KG traded during draft, Melo traded in season) BUT both players were not happy with their former team situation so that explains the reasoning for it and the sim engine to my knowledge shows when players are happy or displeased with their current team situation along with the money vs winning player personality aspect but it'd be a slippery slope for a PA to determine if a player would want to stay or leave a certain situation before being extended.

Not quite sure what you mean by this.  This was kind of the point of PAs.  Team environment, direction, fit, playing time, greed, negotiations, etc. are all an important part of a players decision to sign or not sign.  

LeBron and Kevin Love for example are extension eligible AND can opt out, same situation as KG and Melo in the aforementioned and while the engine will determine if both players will opt in or out, could they really be happy in their current situations? The only way to find out of course is after final PO seedings are determined and PO success and in the examples both Melo and KG were signed to extensions then traded which apparently will not be an option in the CSL. So the point is why go through with an extension as a player if they aren't quite happy (which the engine tracks) even though they'll get max money but still be in an unhappy situation vs getting a max offer from a team that may prove to be a happier situation.

The Wolves are underachieving, is Chandler happy about that? His PT is slightly down as are his shots (both by 2 each) and the Wolves aren't currently in the PO's while he went to the PO's in NY. The Wolves can turn it around and Chandler is young so PO's may not be a big factor to him, I don't know cause I don't have the game.

As far as trade eligibility, has an extended player already been signed then traded during the same season in the CSL, and if so maybe this rule should go into affect next season instead of a "from now on" type of rule, either way I'm not opposed to any decision as it really doesn't have any bearing on my franchise.

That's more of what I was getting at and didn't completely state it.

Under OUR CBA LeBron or Love are not extension elegible. They both have 2 years of contract, and while Player Options are unguaranteed, they still count as a year of contract. Yeah if both pick up their options then they can be extended but not right now.

As far as I know there's no way to trade an in-season extended player. But you can trade for someone who has not received an extension yet and the extend him. There's no such rule which says you can't reach players agency saying like "I have a deal for Melo (hypothetically) but I will only advance if he's ready to commit long term to my team on a max deal extension".

About Parsons situation.. Look, Celtics openly said they were going to offer Chandler a max deal. Wolves had two choices, let him go or match. They elected to match, as you can see with them handling him a max deal extension. Parsons had no way to leave. Or do you think he'd pick up his (ridiculosly low) qualifying offer and leaving a max deal on the table this FA just to take a risk of being UFA next summer and not knowing 100% sure he would get that max offer again? For a guy that played 4 years under 1M salary, a max deal is a blessing. He's not going to risk a single cent here..

I actually like this rule TBH. Otherwise, like Jake said, it's a means of protecting trade assets for the most part.

Still strongly believe we need to get rid of the asinine all drafted players given full rookie contracts, whether 1st or 2nd round, are RFAs. It cripples cap space teams.

The link asks me for a user name and password to access the link. Is anyone else having this issue?

emplep7 (DET) wrote:The link asks me for a user name and password to access the link.  Is anyone else having this issue?

I'm guessing nobody else is having this issue. I really just want to look up free agent salaries that can be offered for players with X years of experience if anyone has that info.

Nope, no Problems, everything fine for me