How are you going to have soething as realistic as a Lux Tax/Hard Cap, and then have the most bogus thing in the world in a "waive/cut back?" I say that shit gets done away with, if you cant make up for salaries, and can't pull off a 3 way deal to make it work, then you can't do it, simple as that.

I think you make a good point....maybe we should keep waivers which is real? And take waivebacks out?

That sounds good to me. I mean, yea we aren't going to emulate EVERYthing in the NBA, but waive/cut backs seem dumb to me.

Cutbacks will stay as the team cutting still pays the contract which I thikn is fair cuz waiving dodges salaries but cutting you have to have an expiring and the otherperson pays the salary.....and all leagues have cutbacks anyways

Cutbacks will stay as the team cutting still pays the contract which I thikn is fair cuz waiving dodges salaries but cutting you have to have an expiring and the otherperson pays the salary.....and all leagues have cutbacks anyways

And most leagues have waivebacks too. I say keep both.

Good moves.

Dont know what leagues you guys are in, alot of mines dont have any "backs"

Also, this should not apply to trades pending (like mine). Otherwise, that's bullshit.

I've been in 30 in 3 months. Don't forget that.

You know what has been done in some leagues I've been in, and it's worked, is to put a limit on the number of trades in which you personally can waive back a player to your team. 4 is the usual number. What do you say about that?

idk are we allowed to do 3 way trades idk if fbb has that.

i agree

no waivebacks guys.....of course hawks trade will be allowed to use the waiveback as it is pending but few leagues have waive backs....there is no reason for the,=m looking at it

i dont know but it sounds a lot more realistic when its not a trade clause thing lol, i wouldnt see a problem if after the trade all done and done you can waive back

i mean its the same it just sounds more normal i probably didnt make my point so clearly though.

thats true

Traves, this works better than getting rid of waivebacks, I guarantee you.

Well waivebacks are fine, IMO. Cuz if there's a trade, and you're giving up something but the salaries don't match, you just toss another player in. Then the other team waives em, and you pick em up.

And since anyone can claim that player off waivers, I don't see the problem.

yea but its just another way to get around deal thats dont work

It would cut down activity on the boards if we got rid of them completely.

Well yeah, I mean, if I really wanted, say, Okafor, but nothing matched salary wise, I just toss someone in, and he waives em back. I mean, you're right, it's just to make deals work, and whats wrong with that?

what r u talkign about

u have to do it legitly not easily

Well, see, negotiations would stop at the start, right? Without waivebacks, contracts would be tough. Some people might leave because of it. I've seen it before. They figure they're stuck with the bad contracts because of no waivebacks, and they are screwed. It's worked really well with waivebacks so far, so why get rid of a good thing?

thats the challenge

LSU be quieet he's talking about what we do in our own league. I'd say 0 cutbacks, 3 waive backs per season as a limit. Maybe 2.

3 works fine.

Well we have to keep waivers, for sure, but waivebacks in trades, I really care about. Don't ditch em ;)

3 is too much

2 or 1 is fine

I THINK IF WE KEEP WAIVERS IT WILL BE OF THE SAME TYPE NOW.....WE HAVE A HARD CAP SO GUYS WON'T CONSTANTLY TAKE BAD CONTRACTS ANYWAYS

agreed, not :1st: