|
|
Post by BRB on Aug 7, 2012 17:57:54 GMT -5
I don't understand the whole "losing a pick" thing.
5000 posts is 25 RC's and not something we would have a yearly basis anyways. Not apposed to adding some cut salary but losing a pick is just bizarre to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by styro on Aug 7, 2012 17:58:53 GMT -5
losing a pick should be part of the amnesty. The price should be hefty. Most of us have a shit load of posts to spare cause of post pads and what not. Simply a post deduction is nothing to many.
|
|
|
|
Post by Biggie on Aug 7, 2012 17:59:14 GMT -5
reason i think some salary should stay is because this will lead to teams giving players bad contracts if they have room and the posts. you should still have some penalty for giving the contract or trading for it.
idk
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Aug 8, 2012 0:56:25 GMT -5
If we ever restart I want to incorporate cash. Cash for posts for articles for winning, etc.Something tangible that covers everything. Then RCs and ACs would cost cash. Contract editing would also cost cash.  I was thinking this! Its a great idea, just havent sat down and down it. |
|
|
|
Post by Play on Aug 8, 2012 10:43:31 GMT -5
reason i think some salary should stay is because this will lead to teams giving players bad contracts if they have room and the posts. you should still have some penalty for giving the contract or trading for it. idk 5000 post and a lost of a first round pick is more than enough |
|
|
|
Post by greeme on Aug 8, 2012 10:44:55 GMT -5
reason i think some salary should stay is because this will lead to teams giving players bad contracts if they have room and the posts. you should still have some penalty for giving the contract or trading for it. idk 5000 post and a lost of a first round pick is more than enough Lost? |
|
|
|
Post by greeme on Aug 8, 2012 10:45:31 GMT -5
I'm with biggie
You offer the contract, you pay the price
|
|
|
|
Post by Play on Aug 8, 2012 10:47:56 GMT -5
the amnesty should be 5000 posts, forfeit a pick within 3 seasons, and there should be a penalty left on the cut salary so the whole contract isn't removed. to add to the cut salary, maybe leave 10-20% of the contract on cut salaries... you'd still be getting rid of 80-90% of the contract. no thats stupid...its called amnesty for a reason |
|
|
|
Post by Play on Aug 8, 2012 10:48:23 GMT -5
I'm with biggie You offer the contract, you pay the price nope... |
|
|
|
Post by Play on Aug 8, 2012 10:48:42 GMT -5
I'm with biggie You offer the contract, you pay the price Says the guy that gave Jack Sikma that stupid ass contract. |
|
|
|
Post by greeme on Aug 8, 2012 10:50:18 GMT -5
to add to the cut salary, maybe leave 10-20% of the contract on cut salaries... you'd still be getting rid of 80-90% of the contract. no thats stupid...its called amnesty for a reason So if we call it partial amnesty it would be ok? |
|
|
|
Post by greeme on Aug 8, 2012 10:51:32 GMT -5
I'm with biggie You offer the contract, you pay the price Says the guy that gave Jack Sikma that stupid ass contract. And I'm not whining Of course sikma is going to have a sick tc |
|
|
|
Post by greeme on Aug 11, 2012 12:23:04 GMT -5
gradual reduction of injuries - no cost
you can reduce as many games as you want but his ratings are reduced by a % equaling the # of games.
example - you cut off 10 games and his ratings go down across the board by 10% for those 10 games. it approximates guys coming back early but not being at full strength
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Aug 12, 2012 12:52:22 GMT -5
Any consensus here? Seems like it got sidetracked a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Play on Aug 12, 2012 16:43:01 GMT -5
Any consensus here? Seems like it got sidetracked a bit. I think we should put the amnesty idea to a vote. |
|
