|
Post by Nikolas Terrell on Aug 17, 2011 21:50:07 GMT -5
nah... I can't rock with that yearly increase clause.. that needs to be changed asap
|
|
|
Post by Garrett Richards on Aug 17, 2011 21:50:08 GMT -5
that's fine and dandy, but most of us don't have guys in their first years of their max deals
|
|
|
Post by Garrett Richards on Aug 17, 2011 21:50:15 GMT -5
nah... I can't rock with that yearly increase clause.. that needs to be changed asap
|
|
|
Post by Garrett Richards on Aug 17, 2011 21:50:55 GMT -5
is this some sort of sick joke
|
|
|
Post by Garrett Richards on Aug 17, 2011 21:52:41 GMT -5
this whole hard cap voting process and rule implementation phase has been a fail. This was never presented and the votes are supposedly what got this ratified. wtf is this.
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Aug 17, 2011 21:53:36 GMT -5
its a HARD cap, you can tell how much salary you will have next season very easily, I dont fucking get you pansies...Im giving you 5,000,000 to work with, on the caveat that you use NO more than that...you can have five guys in the last year of a resigning rookie Max, and still have enough room to use your MLE and fill out your roster
|
|
|
Post by Nikolas Terrell on Aug 17, 2011 21:54:25 GMT -5
Personally I could care less about the extra 5 on the hard cap.. I never complained about that anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Aug 17, 2011 21:55:05 GMT -5
rather than the current semi hard Hard cap, a new truly Hard Cap, at like $85,000,000, which trades where you went over would be disallowed, and both teams would be penalized something like 200 posts, and if you were over after a season, you would lose your best player.
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Aug 17, 2011 21:55:28 GMT -5
Personally I could care less about the extra 5 on the hard cap.. I never complained about that anyway. the trade market has been shit though, this gives more flexibility
|
|
|
Post by Nikolas Terrell on Aug 17, 2011 21:55:31 GMT -5
Losing a player just ike that is just dumb. There's no way GMs will stick around if they ever got hit with that clause
I don't see a problem in simply giving time for someone to get under.
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Aug 17, 2011 21:55:44 GMT -5
you voted on the exact rules I posted smfh
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Aug 17, 2011 21:56:30 GMT -5
Losing a player just ike that is just dumb. There's no way GMs will stick around if they ever got hit with that clause I don't see a problem in simply giving time for someone to get under. it really wouldnt be a hard cap if you didnt receive a penalty, a Harsh penalty, for going over
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Aug 17, 2011 21:57:01 GMT -5
Tmac lost 3 picks, and Quincy for nothing thanks to the current Hard cap penalty
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on Aug 17, 2011 21:57:25 GMT -5
Kru lost Patterson and three picks, Marty lost three picks and got CY'd
|
|
|
Post by Garrett Richards on Aug 17, 2011 21:57:57 GMT -5
cause he was over for 48 hours.
|
|