Penalty Level 2

[Sun Scorched]

Has never not been the loss of the next available first round pick. It has been in the CBA since day 1. Further, the Penalty levels were actively updated for this season and the corresponding penalty explanations were one click away. This is made worse by the fact that at least two of the three offenders have been aware of this since Day 1 and have been chronic offenders. This is nothing new.

For teams that have stuck to the cap and rules to avoid penalties, this is an unqualified slap in the face.

The "No one told me at the beginning of the season about a rule that has existed since day 1" argument simply does not hold.

This needs to be either explained or reconsidered.

Hearts & Stars,

SS

[Dennis]

No, I was the admin that got rid of the penalty two because of lowering the cap. Since I said the rule isnt used, no admin ever said it's used again.
Hence it's absolutely right what Jon said.

[Sun Scorched]

No, I was the admin that got rid of the penalty two because of lowering the cap. Since I said the rule isnt used, no admin ever said it's used again.
Hence it's absolutely right what Jon said.

What does that even mean?

The hard cap got lowered to $90m, and every team had a year to get under it.

Penalty Level 2 was never removed? At the start of this week, there was a thread showing what the Penalty level two amount was (referenced in my Wiretap) and a CBA showing what the penalty was.

But if you really want to get technical, losing your $5.4m MLE when your over the Penalty 2 mark, which is $86m, is hysterically stupid because you can't go over the hard cap anyways and using your $5.4m MLE would put you at - that's right - $91.4m.

It's a lame attempt to make it feel like there is a penalty at all.

So honestly, if jacking your salary up to $90m simply means that you can't use an MLE you already can use..... then I don't know what to say.....

[Dennis]

For example last season:

MLE not available afer contract decisions
Oklahoma City Thunder
Washington Wizards

MLE and LLE not available afer contract decisions
Chicago Bulls
Los Angeles Clippers

MLE not available due to luxury cap breaches last season
Boston Celtics
Chicago Bulls


MLE and LLE not available due to luxury cap breaches last season + loss of a second rounder
Denver Nuggets
Houston Rockets

MLE and LLE not available due to luxury cap breaches last season + loss of a first rounder
None

MLE + LLE available OR capspace
Atlanta Hawks
Brooklyn Nets
Charlotte Hornets
Cleveland Cavaliers
Dallas Mavericks
Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Lakers
Milwaukee Bucks
New York Knicks
Orlando Magic
Philadelphia 76ers
Phoenix Suns
Sacramento Kings
Utah Jazz

(none because rule wasnt used)

[Dennis]

No, I was the admin that got rid of the penalty two because of lowering the cap. Since I said the rule isnt used, no admin ever said it's used again.
Hence it's absolutely right what Jon said.

What does that even mean?

The hard cap got lowered to $90m, and ever team had a year to get under it.

Penalty Level 2 was never removed? At the start of this week, there was a thread showing what the Penalty level two amount was (referenced in my Wiretap) and a CBA showing what the penalty was.

But if you really want to get technical, losing your $5.4m MLE when your over the Penalty 2 mark, which is $86m, is hysterically stupid because you can't go over the hard cap anyways and using your $5.4m MLE would put you at - that's right - $91.4m.

It's a lame attempt to make it feel like there is a penalty at all.

So honestly, if jacking your salary up to $90m simply means that you can't use an MLE you already can use..... then I don't know what to say.....

I think all admins said several times that the CBA is out of date. I mean you dont have to like the rules, no one liked the increased cap either, yet everybody accepted it. You cant please everyone.

And I accept the penalty decision either way and Im not involved in the decision as an admin anymore and Im none of the teams impacted by the penalties.

[Sun Scorched]

Let me talk slowly then:

The only penalty that matters for teams over $86m is the loss of their LLE, which is like a $2.5m exception that they can only use every other year.

I mean, the loss of a late 2nd round pick is almost a joke enough for a team like CHI or HOU, but it's definitely more of a penalty than losing an exception every other year.

And if that's not painfully obvious, I can't help you friend.

[Dennis]

I dont see a problem. 90m is already a pretty low hard cap. Actually that's lower than the penalty 2 level when the capspace got increased.

I get the maths you put together, but just because those financials make no sense, it doesnt mean no penalty 2 is stupid. If you look at the whole picture it makes a lot sense as a super low hard cap got introduced.

[Dennis]

PS: But yeah, maybe penalty two should start at like 83-84 million, so that all that makes sense.

[lakeshowak7]

Agree with Jace.

[Sun Scorched]

Dennis - I always love our tea parties - haha

Simply: this dramatically changes a dynamic that has existed since day 1. People have built rosters and made decisions specifically around these numbers which were just arbitrarily changed, retro-actively.

If someone can explain - effectively - that they feel the loss of an LLE every two years is accurate penalization, I'm all fricken ears.

[OneNole]

Let me talk slowly then:

The only penalty that matters for teams over $86m is the loss of their LLE, which is like a $2.5m exception that they can only use every other year.

I mean, the loss of a late 2nd round pick is almost a joke enough for a team like CHI or HOU, but it's definitely more of a penalty than losing an exception every other year.

And if that's not painfully obvious, I can't help you friend.

While i dont disagree with a lot of what youre saying, i believe the penalties apply to your prior season salary totals. So for example if you were at 87m and had a 15m expiring that you renounce which puts you at 72m you would still not he entitled to use your mle.

[Dennis]

Let me talk slowly then:

The only penalty that matters for teams over $86m is the loss of their LLE, which is like a $2.5m exception that they can only use every other year.

I mean, the loss of a late 2nd round pick is almost a joke enough for a team like CHI or HOU, but it's definitely more of a penalty than losing an exception every other year.

And if that's not painfully obvious, I can't help you friend.

While i dont disagree with a lot of what youre saying, i believe the penalties apply to your prior season salary totals. So for example if you were at 87m and had a 15m expiring that you renounce which puts you at 72m you would still not he entitled to use your mle.

Yeah that's true.

[Dennis]

Dennis - I always love our tea parties - haha

Simply: this dramatically changes a dynamic that has existed since day 1. People have built rosters and made decisions specifically around these numbers which were just arbitrarily changed, retro-actively.

If someone can explain - effectively - that they feel the loss of an LLE every two years is accurate penalization, I'm all fricken ears.

Just asking myself why you speak up now, given we didnt have a penalty two for already two seasons.
I mean, yeah, it's the first time it got written down (didnt read the CBA yet, but I assume that's what happened?), but it was used already for a long time now. Not sure why everything is bad now, just because it got written down finally.

[Marcos_Beck]

It was mentioned back there when HC got reduced that nobody would lose first rounders for penalties (except for when you hit the HC).
GMs like you said had one year to get under the HARD CAP and avoid losing first rounders.

Also there absolutely zero interest in forfeiting first rounders because it would take too much interest from draft. We have 15-20 GMs who scout usually per period. If we forfeit 3-5 1st round picks guys who had their picks forfeited will have no reason to scout and try to find the steals late at the draft.
One of the main reasons that people back off from scouting duties is because sometimes there's not enough feedback from GMs (participation) for sometime that's very time consuming and quite honestly that's pretty bad for whoever is handling scouting's motivation.

This was discussed internally and the benefits of forfeiting 1st rounders are not enough for us to head that direction (specially if you consider the fact that me, for example, have never been able to draft a rotation player with my late firsts, so they are not that powerful). It's not the end of the world not to forfeit them and quite honestly it's way more harm to punish high spenders with MLE loss. Which by the way is completely different than what you pointed, as teams lose their 5.4M MLE at 76.9M (instead being allowed to spend the 3.2M MLE) and lose it completely at 81.3M.

[Marcos_Beck]

Btw forget about our first CBA. Stop mentioning it. I could point out millions of other things we were running different than first CBA (because it was mentioned and agreed here in the forums). So no we're not going to run half rules via forum decision (different from CBA) and half exactly like CBA.

[Sun Scorched]

Let me talk slowly then:

The only penalty that matters for teams over $86m is the loss of their LLE, which is like a $2.5m exception that they can only use every other year.

I mean, the loss of a late 2nd round pick is almost a joke enough for a team like CHI or HOU, but it's definitely more of a penalty than losing an exception every other year.

And if that's not painfully obvious, I can't help you friend.

While i dont disagree with a lot of what youre saying, i believe the penalties apply to your prior season salary totals. So for example if you were at 87m and had a 15m expiring that you renounce which puts you at 72m you would still not he entitled to use your mle.

Yeah that's true.

Theoretically true. But practically not impactful in anyway that would matter. Neither CHI or HOU, by way of example, would have been affected. They either re-sign their own FA through bird rights, or trade expirings away before they have a chance to lose that cap.

[Sun Scorched]

Marcos - firstly and most importantly - thank you for everything you do. You're a mainstay of this league and there's no question about it.

But the only discernible disadvantage that I can see CHI experiencing, given the rules you favor and the fact that your team has been up against the hard cap for as long as I can remember, is the loss of a 2020 2nd round pick.

Which we can all agree is meaningless.

[bt]

Just to clarify, there is really no penalty to spending now unlike in the NBA which has severe penalties?

All this time I was thinking about how to try and keep my finances down for this FA period yet it doesn't matter now as there is no real penalty. Don't agree but cool, let spenders spend.

[Marcos_Beck]

Just to clarify, there is really no penalty to spending now unlike in the NBA which has severe penalties?

All this time I was thinking about how to try and keep my finances down for this FA period yet it doesn't matter now as there is no real penalty. Don't agree but cool, let spenders spend.

Successful NBA franchises and big markets make incredibly more money than small markets or teams that misses the playoffs. Talking about missing postseason, teams lose like 25M for not making it.. there's that whole financial aspect there which is not considered as well. So it depends on how you wanna look at that matter.

[bt]

Not sure what that has to do with the issue or if it's even accurate. Miami dumped Miller during their successful run to avoid tax, successful franchises do it. That's why there is a repeater tax.

I now don't really care here (financially). I can increase all my guys, sit at just under the hard cap and not have to worry at all. Probably wouldn't have traded Parsons had we known this earlier though.