|
Post by James Kay on Nov 2, 2017 17:54:28 GMT
The NBA CBA has what's called the non-bird rights exception.
In real life, teams that are over the cap can re-sign players without bird rights to salaries that are 120% of their previous salary. This provides continuity for teams that are over the cap and make trades for veteran players.
Why we should consider this rule:
1. Reflects the real life NBA - this is a simulation league after all
2. Easy to implement - it's not an undue burden to verify that a player ended the season on a team. We already check who has BRs, so this is simple.
3. Further incentivizes trading - Similar to how we included tradeable BRs on rookie contracts, this rule would increase the trade value of aging veterans with less than 3 years left on their contract.
D5 examples:
This upcoming off-season, Al Jefferson becomes an unrestricted free agent, and the Nuggets are over the cap. Under the current rules, the Nuggets will be completely unable to retain Al Jefferson. If this rule was implemented, the Nuggets could retain Al Jefferson for 120% of his previous salary - $22,700,000 x 1.20 = $27,240,000. They will not likely do this.
This upcoming off-season, Brandan Wright becomes an unrestricted free agent, and the Raptors are over the cap. With this new rule, they would be able to offer him 120% of his current salary, which is $2,331,000. Therefore, they could offer $2,797,200. This is not a huge offer, and it is possible they will get out-bid. However, it at least gives the Raptors the potential to keep their depth if they are willing to pay.
Robin Lopez - the Bulls don't have BRs. With this new rule, they would be able to offer $7,800,000. Again, they might be outbid, but at least they have the option to pay something.
The Clippers would be able to offer Batum $20,949,372.
The Lakers would be able to offer Scola $3,000,000.
The beauty of this rule is that it doesn't really make things unfair for over-the-cap teams because if a player deserves more than 120% of their previous salary, they'll just be out-bid in the free agency process (see: Batum, Lopez, Wright). However, it provides an avenue for over-the-cap teams to "over-spend" to retain their aging talent to give continuity to their teams (see: Scola).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Nov 2, 2017 19:28:16 GMT
I really like this idea especially as the Hard Cap tightens.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Nov 2, 2017 19:45:52 GMT
I'm not sure about this one. It seems like it only benefits high-salary teams. If you trade Westbrook earning $42m in the last year of his contract, he essentially is traded with BRs despite only having 1 year left,because someone can offer him a starting salary of $50m with this 120% rule.
It doesn't impact rookie scale guys, but perhaps it has a big impact on anyone who is on his second contract, and definitely anyone coming off a max. I vote no.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Nov 2, 2017 19:50:57 GMT
I think this is a terrible idea, it only lets the rich get/stay richer and ensures less movement of players through Free Agency. We already somewhat curtailed FA with the bird rights on rookie contracts extention, I think this would be a big mistake to enact.
I understand why you're proposing this James, makes sense for your team, but I think this will be detrimental to the league as a whole
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Nov 2, 2017 20:06:49 GMT
I'm not sure about this one. It seems like it only benefits high-salary teams. If you trade Westbrook earning $42m in the last year of his contract, he essentially is traded with BRs despite only having 1 year left,because someone can offer him a starting salary of $50m with this 120% rule. It doesn't impact rookie scale guys, but perhaps it has a big impact on anyone who is on his second contract, and definitely anyone coming off a max. I vote no. This is a really good point. Did not consider how this would circumvent the non-tradability of BRs. That being said, yeah it does really only benefit high-salary teams, I just think it's a benefit that should exist because of the other reasons I described. I think a rule that allows these higher salaried teams to keep their bench vets like Rich Jefferson, Scola, David West, etc - is worthwhile. Just not sure how to structure it so it doesn't lead to loopholes like that.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Nov 3, 2017 0:15:06 GMT
I'm not sure about this one. It seems like it only benefits high-salary teams. If you trade Westbrook earning $42m in the last year of his contract, he essentially is traded with BRs despite only having 1 year left,because someone can offer him a starting salary of $50m with this 120% rule. It doesn't impact rookie scale guys, but perhaps it has a big impact on anyone who is on his second contract, and definitely anyone coming off a max. I vote no. This is a really good point. Did not consider how this would circumvent the non-tradability of BRs. That being said, yeah it does really only benefit high-salary teams, I just think it's a benefit that should exist because of the other reasons I described. I think a rule that allows these higher salaried teams to keep their bench vets like Rich Jefferson, Scola, David West, etc - is worthwhile. Just not sure how to structure it so it doesn't lead to loopholes like that. I don't know the exact answer, but could we set some sort of number, based on a % of the cap, where this no longer becomes eligible? So, players who are making 10% or less of the total cap, can use this rule. If they're over 10% of the current cap, you can't use this rule. That's just sort of a random percentage, but some way to keep it reasonable for teams over the cap to keep their bench, possibly.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Z on Nov 3, 2017 0:43:22 GMT
I don't mean to be overly pedantic but we should state specifically if we are talking about the soft cap or hard cap in regards to proposed exceptions. I assume your talking about the soft cap, but with the example of Jefferson and the Nuggets, signing him to a 27 million dollar contract actually takes the Nuggets above the projected hard cap for next year ( projected 101 million x 175% = 176.8 million hard cap next year, Nuggets would hit 177 million in owed salary with the use of this particular exception). Of course that scenario is not realistic, but the distinction is important, as I'd be willing to consider soft cap exceptions (not that i have a vote or anything), but will shoot down anything that try's to weaken the hard cap.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Nov 3, 2017 3:28:50 GMT
I think this is a terrible idea, it only lets the rich get/stay richer and ensures less movement of players through Free Agency. We already somewhat curtailed FA with the bird rights on rookie contracts extention, I think this would be a big mistake to enact. I understand why you're proposing this James, makes sense for your team, but I think this will be detrimental to the league as a whole Here's the thing, I think it's because Denver has just been able to abuse the lack of cap for so long that it seems this way to be honest. But once the hard cap tightens it will help teams that are just barely over the cap keep guys. I do kind of see your point, I do think that we could make it based on percentage over the cap kind of things. So middling teams like mine, or yours (well was, sorry about that) who are about to be over the cap by a little bit will be able to maintain progression a bit but not so much that it allows someone that's pushing the limits of the hard cap to be able to basically keep every player they want.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Nov 3, 2017 10:39:09 GMT
I would consider this idea only if bench guys will actually have more effect on the team other than in the court and their potential.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Nov 4, 2017 21:11:47 GMT
A few points to get started:
Question: This change would only apply to non-rookie-contract players?
1). In reality a 120% Rule would not apply to superstar players. There is still a max contract amount that would stop a 120% rule from applying to superstars who are already maxed-out or near it.
2). It's always been a slight problem that D5 teams over the soft cap will trade for longer-term contracts instead of re-signing their own players.
3). I need to look at this in relation to its affect on Bird Rights, if there is any at all.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Nov 4, 2017 21:40:57 GMT
re: Bird Rights and 120% Rule
BRs are there to encourage teams to hang onto their players, which aids the roleplaying nature of D5 because otherwise, I think it's fair to say, we'd have huge and unrealistic levels of trading.
120% Rule gives that 20% re-signing bonus which encourages the trading of players that don't have BRs.
It might be that keeping things the way they are, with BRs only and no in-between, is the best method of keeping things realistic in terms of player turnover - YES trading is good for league activity BUT realism and the personal investment of GMs is more important, and that comes with realism, AND league activity is not necessarily measured by the volume of completed trades but the process of planning and negotiating trades between GMs, even if that occurs in private PMs.
A good indicator of realism is when I see Nikola Jokic as a Grizzlies player, not a Nuggets player (lol), and that comes with reduced player movement.
|
|