AZ/PHI Hoops Again

i'm down

cuz even if a guy gets 1mil paid on his deal, it means you gotta keep him-- but that's the price for taking the $$$

I thought we took care of this issue about a year ago with a previous deal. Where someone paid like $10m per year to get rid of someone, and then we put the end to that type of deals. 

I agree with everyone else. Wade at $7.5m at worst is about fair value for him at that salary. At best, he could end up being a highly coveted person for the price if he returns to being top 20, which is likely.

we covered it in that if its 25%, a guy loses RFA

we havent touched this quite yet

but good that we did so we know how to proceed with future deals

Integrity wrote:we covered it in that if its 25%, a guy loses RFA

we havent touched this quite yet

but good that we did so we know how to proceed with future deals

You are right. That is what I was thinking about.

I like the max 50% of salary idea and think that's a good initiative. 

I really however don't like not being able to trade someone just because he's salarys paid. Most of the time the salary being paid whilst improving an asset is done to even up the deal, so if they deal is even enough why restrict the owner that made the good deal? He already can't chop anymore salary off which is fine so I don't see why you restrict an owner moving his players if he can construct a legal deal. The 10% I don't like either for the same reason, what if a owner has 8 players all on the final year of deals, he can't pay a portion of all their salaries to move rentals and rebuild? 

The 50% salary paid is all you need to fix this problem, the rest is overkill and restrictive, whilst adding more rules  you need to in my opinion.

If you want to sweeten up the deal, send money but making the player a better asset so he can be shipped off later will no longer be accepted.

If you have someone pay on a player to make him a better asset, then you will have to keep him. 

If you want to trade him, then have the other team send money in the deal without paying on the players contract. It makes sense really.

Will make it more restrictive. I was talking to JI about gortat a while ago with salary paid. If I have salary paid but can't trade him in another deal then there's no way I talk about that. Not because I am only doing it to trade gortat at the time, but because in future deals I any need to put him in to get a deal across the line, plus when someone is overpaid a lot if they are just underpaid "a bit" after money paid on a contract its not like they turn into a super asset. 

The paying money thing isn't the same, that gives you cash next year but the other years of the contract remain just as high. 

Obviously consensus wins and in cool with taut but I don't like trades being restricted for what I see as not a great reason. 50% paid fixes the main issue here.

I hear ya but at the same time, players being traded 5 times a year is getting out of control. 

If you want flexibilty to trade Gortat, then have JI send you money.  That way, you can include him in future deals if you send money.  You or no one else needs to be paying on future years we aren't playing in yet unless you plan to keep him until the following year.  No one is counting salary for future years.  Only 2013 matters.

Personally I don't think the can't be traded provision needs to really be there. I think just a 50% maximum is fine. If we really really want to put it in there then perhaps make it you can't trade until the next pay period so that the owner is at least liable for part of the contract i.e. acquired during the off season or first pay period then can't be traded until week 12 or if acquired during the second pay period then can't be traded until the following off season.

Why don't you think it needs to be included?

Say
1) JI trades for a certain amount for Dwayne Wade at 15 mil
2) JI receives Dwayne Wade for 10 mil (his 50% max paid)
3) 2 days later JI trades Wade for more than he gave because Dwayne Wade at 10 mil is worth more than Dwayne Wade at 15 mil

That's what we are trying to prevent.  How does a 50% max paid counteract that?

Well that's what I mean, make them stay on the team for at least one pay period so the receiving owner has to be liable for something at least. I get what Sydney is saying by not wanting to by too restricted so I'm just tossing up middle ground.

I dig the one pay period thing

Good common ground thing.

One pay period?  Hmm...okay

Player must be on the books for one pay period?

meaning if you trade for him in the offseason, the player is unable to be traded until the 2nd pay period and if the player is acquired during the 2nd pay period, the player must stay on your roster until offseason?

DmanofGod1 wrote:One pay period?  Hmm...okay

Player must be on the books for one pay period?

meaning if you trade for him in the offseason, the player is unable to be traded until the 2nd pay period and if the player is acquired during the 2nd pay period, the player must stay on your roster until offseason?

 

call it 'the dwade provision'

That's a good compromise.

Re-worked deal:

AZ gets:

D Wade MIA PG/SG 10 *PHI pays 5mil

PHI gets:

15
22
23
2015 2

more money for me?   I accept!

Approve

This allows JI to trade Wade at trade deadline if he desires

I'll talk to Sam and if he is okay with it, I'll make a rule vote on the following unless there are any more objections

Salary Paid on Players
1) A players salary each year can never be less than 50% of that year's original salary when first signed.
2) If a team acquires a player where the other respective trading team paid any amount on that player, that player may not be traded again until the following pay period.  This means that the player must stay on his new team for one pay period.  
3) The most any given team can pay each year on contracts for players traded to other teams is 10.5 mil, 10 % of that year's cap.

perfect