|
Post by George Gervin on May 10, 2020 14:34:18 GMT
That's one of the biggest reasons I'm against a drastic reduction for us. It just further overpowers and rewards the teams that unrealistically tanked for years when rookie contracts are already OP to begin with Are our rookie contracts really more powerful than real rookie contracts though? The "5th Year" that we have is practically the equivalent of if a player were to sign their qualifying offer instead of an extension. Which is a situation most teams try to avoid with core young players. We might even have less control over our rookies here than in reality because we only get a guaranteed 5 years as opposed to 4 plus a potential 5 from the first extension. If anything, I think 2nd Round contracts should actually have an extra year. Aside from that, the only other really big difference is draft pick cap holds, which I do think we should implement. It's minor but it does hit pick value a little by slapping on the rookie contracts during OSFA as opposed to after. I agree with Danny Longley here on the impact— and I say that as arguably the biggest beneficiary of rookie contracts with Doncic and SGA. But, ultimately, they’re in Year 2. If it was the traditional style rookie deal like the NBA, they’d have two more team option years after this at rookie scale before a new extension comes in to replace what is our Year 5 here on rookie deals. So no matter how you slice it, Doncic and SGA are still on their rookie deals— whether it’s our structure or IRL structure— for at least four seasons. There’s no way to legislate out that contract value based on their play unless we’d want to go year to year, which is more akin to an NFL franchise tag than anything the NBA has.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on May 10, 2020 21:14:54 GMT
That's one of the biggest reasons I'm against a drastic reduction for us. It just further overpowers and rewards the teams that unrealistically tanked for years when rookie contracts are already OP to begin with Are our rookie contracts really more powerful than real rookie contracts though? The "5th Year" that we have is practically the equivalent of if a player were to sign their qualifying offer instead of an extension. Which is a situation most teams try to avoid with core young players. We might even have less control over our rookies here than in reality because we only get a guaranteed 5 years as opposed to 4 plus a potential 5 from the first extension. If anything, I think 2nd Round contracts should actually have an extra year. Aside from that, the only other really big difference is draft pick cap holds, which I do think we should implement. It's minor but it does hit pick value a little by slapping on the rookie contracts during OSFA as opposed to after. My biggest gripe is that it's not realistic. Not in the way it's often done here. Are cheap rookie contracts useful in the NBA as well? Sure. Absolutely. But what happens here is you tank so hard and load up on multiple picks for 2-3 years that you get lucky and have 5 years of cheap rookie contracts, then opening up your salary books to lure in a star free agent, if you want. Or eventually cash in your young cheap stars for a superstar. My point is that it's a great strategy for a video game. I do it in 2k dynasty mode. But it's not realistic. With money, jobs, revenue, media, owners, Silver to answer to, it's just not realistic. With jobs on the line, some owners push for making the playoffs. Some owners want profitability. Coaches and GMs are in a struggle to stay employed. Fan interest matters. You have to sell merchandise and tickets. So since all of that is removed here, there's no incentive to try to win. So the strategy is the 2k dynasty strategy. Cheap rookie contracts for 5 years. Load up on draft picks, put out a G-league roster on the floor, tank hard and get as many bonafide players on rookie contracts as you possibly can. Again, we strive for realism as much as possible. And it's not always going to mirror real life, and it shouldn't. But to me, the overpowering of tanking and rookie contracts breaks the league in a preventable way.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on May 10, 2020 21:22:04 GMT
And if we end up severely reducing the salary cap, all that's going to do is overpower and reward those unrealistic tanking teams even further, because they will be the only teams with cap space to bring in talent. I just have a big problem with the 2k strategy because it seems like on one hand we like to strive for realism but on the other hand we let managers gut their rosters and tank hard for 2-3 years, leading to teams with multiple young stars on their rosters with super cheap contracts.
In real life, Hinkie was fired. And the closest the Sixers got was Embiid and Simmons on the same team. All of that blatant tanking and that's all it resulted in.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on May 10, 2020 21:30:42 GMT
I agree with Tom that we need to re-think that final year on our rookie scale guys. Obviously a change like this could not be implemented retroactively, but something to think about for future rookies. I posted it somewhere else before, but having that additional year of rookie scale is a huge advantage. For instance, if our contracts were structured more realistically, Ian Noble would have to pay Simmons, Brown, and Murray this summer and would not be able to keep LeBron under the hard cap. I would have had to pay Booker and Kristaps last summer and would not have been able to trade for Kyrie or sign Warren. Jeremiah Hill would already be paying Towns a max and would have very little cap room this summer. That additional year is seriously a huge advantage that we don't think about enough. I would be 100% in support of shortening our rookie contracts by 1 year, or making the final year a player option, in order to be more similar to the real NBA.
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on May 10, 2020 21:35:21 GMT
I agree with Tom that we need to re-think that final year on our rookie scale guys. Obviously a change like this could not be implemented retroactively, but something to think about for future rookies. I posted it somewhere else before, but having that additional year of rookie scale is a huge advantage. For instance, if our contracts were structured more realistically, Ian Noble would have to pay Simmons, Brown, and Murray this summer and would not be able to keep LeBron under the hard cap. I would have had to pay Booker and Kristaps last summer and would not have been able to trade for Kyrie or sign Warren. Jeremiah Hill would already be paying Towns a max and would have very little cap room this summer. That additional year is seriously a huge advantage that we don't think about enough. I would be 100% in support of shortening our rookie contracts by 1 year, or making the final year a player option, in order to be more similar to the real NBA. I disagree on a structure where it’d be 2+2+1 with regular, team, and then a player option for rookies. I think if it’s ultimately changed, just excise the 5th year completely, and then the structure matches exactly the League: 2+2, with the last two years as team options. I also think if such changes happen, it should be a go-forward based on the draft immediately after any such rule change, as opposed to retroactive to a certain year (e.g. 2017 or 2018 draft).
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on May 10, 2020 23:36:23 GMT
I agree with Josh. 4 year rookie contract. And honestly, I'm still a fan of supplemental draft picks for making the playoffs for 6-8 seeds. Picks 61-66 of the draft:
- Seeds 6-8 - Reverse order of record - Non-tradeable
It's not much...but would you rather be pick 14 or pick 15 and pick 61?
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on May 11, 2020 12:39:56 GMT
I agree with Josh. 4 year rookie contract. And honestly, I'm still a fan of supplemental draft picks for making the playoffs for 6-8 seeds. Picks 61-66 of the draft: - Seeds 6-8 - Reverse order of record - Non-tradeable It's not much...but would you rather be pick 14 or pick 15 and pick 61? I think the west this year is a good example of why that would be a terrible idea.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on May 11, 2020 18:45:08 GMT
How so?
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on May 11, 2020 18:47:59 GMT
What's the difference this year between seed 4 and 8? Its marginal. Why reward some and not others? Not to mention I dont think mediocrity is something that should be reward like that.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on May 11, 2020 20:59:59 GMT
What's the difference this year between seed 4 and 8? Its marginal. Why reward some and not others? Not to mention I dont think mediocrity is something that should be reward like that. The point is to reward teams for not tanking to increase competition. To strive for the 6-8 seeds instead of try and get into the lottery. Maybe Phoenix or Miami would have opted to try and win some games late in the year and sneak into the playoffs instead of push hard for the lottery. The idea is to incentivize teams to push for the playoffs instead of push for the lottery. Because right now, there's no incentive. Again, we have no owners, no fans, no media to answer to. Our jobs aren't on the line. So it's easy to employ the 2k strategy. My idea is to reward that mediocrity because it might motivate those 9-10 seeds to sneak into the playoffs for an extra 2nd round pick, instead of tank for the lottery. In real life, making the playoffs, even as the 7-8 seed, has a lot of impact. Revenue, relevancy, exposure. They never win their series and often get swept. But they push hard to get into the playoffs. You say you don't want to reward mediocrity, but our league currently heavily rewards straight up failure and losing.
|
|
Tim Duncan
Former Jazz GM
Sophomore
Posts: 482
Mar 9, 2022 22:04:51 GMT
|
Post by Tim Duncan on May 12, 2020 3:15:54 GMT
What's the difference this year between seed 4 and 8? Its marginal. Why reward some and not others? Not to mention I dont think mediocrity is something that should be reward like that. The point is to reward teams for not tanking to increase competition. To strive for the 6-8 seeds instead of try and get into the lottery. Maybe Phoenix or Miami would have opted to try and win some games late in the year and sneak into the playoffs instead of push hard for the lottery. The idea is to incentivize teams to push for the playoffs instead of push for the lottery. Because right now, there's no incentive. Again, we have no owners, no fans, no media to answer to. Our jobs aren't on the line. So it's easy to employ the 2k strategy. My idea is to reward that mediocrity because it might motivate those 9-10 seeds to sneak into the playoffs for an extra 2nd round pick, instead of tank for the lottery. In real life, making the playoffs, even as the 7-8 seed, has a lot of impact. Revenue, relevancy, exposure. They never win their series and often get swept. But they push hard to get into the playoffs. You say you don't want to reward mediocrity, but our league currently heavily rewards straight up failure and losing. Honestly i don't think so a team would prefer a non lottery pick and a pick in the 60s over a lottery pick since the lottery pick could always end up higher than pick 14th especially with the new lottery odds
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on May 19, 2020 5:46:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on May 19, 2020 13:26:21 GMT
If I was a Rockets fan or the League, I’d be looking for a new owner. The complaining starts around the 1 min mark, but this guy doesn’t sound like he’s in a great financial position...
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jun 23, 2020 22:19:31 GMT
When it comes to Paul George staying or going, at least we understand his mindset now: Luckily CHA won a championship because they shipped Lebron
|
|