|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Feb 20, 2020 17:25:05 GMT
I've been thinking about this a lot, and it seems to me like rookie contracts in D5 are overpowered. Since we don't have restricted FA or contract extensions, we basically are allowing teams to have 1 extra year of a rookie-scale player that real-life teams don't get. This is giving rebuilding teams a disproportionate advantage in D5. Not to pick on Ian Noble, but here's the Celtics as an example: 2020/21 D5 salaries: Jaylen Brown $6,262,012 Jamal Murray $5,221,359 Ben Simmons $8,492,722 Total: $19,976,0932021 Real Salaries: Jaylen Brown $22,991,071 Jamal Murray $29,250,000 Ben Simmons $29,250,000 Total: $81,491,071Difference: $61,514,978 This is an insane advantage that the Celtics have this offseason. In fact, the Celtics would be hard capped and have no change to re-sign LeBron if it weren't for our rookie contract rules. Obviously this isn't something we can change immediately, but I think we should consider it for the future. IMO we should end rookie contracts after 4 years rather than guaranteeing a 5th year for free. Or perhaps make the 5th year a Player Option instead of just guaranteed salary.
|
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
Apr 14, 2024 11:04:23 GMT
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Feb 20, 2020 17:28:10 GMT
Why not just have rfa like we do regular free agents
PA's handle that as well
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Feb 20, 2020 17:53:33 GMT
I made somethimg like this years ago and i was pertainimg with Anthomy Davis comract.
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Feb 20, 2020 17:54:28 GMT
I think adding something like the ability to negotiate an extension after the completion of the third year of the rookie deal that would, if signed, supersede the 5th year of the original rookie scale contract could be a good middle ground. I imagine it could be similar to BRs and TOs where there’s a section to post which guys on rookie deals going from Year 3 to Year 4 that a GM would want to initiate extension talks.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 20, 2020 17:58:29 GMT
I think it's partly balanced by the thought that valuable rookies mean teams can rebuild faster - it's like insurance for if your team was GM'd by Tracy McGrady before you joined.
|
|
Amare Stoudemire
Sacramento Kings
Starter
Posts: 2,416
Apr 14, 2024 11:04:23 GMT
|
Post by Amare Stoudemire on Feb 20, 2020 18:08:24 GMT
I think it's partly balanced by the thought that valuable rookies mean teams can rebuild faster - it's like insurance for if your team was GM'd by Tracy McGrady before you joined. The goat Tracy mcgrady 😭😭😭😭😭😭
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on Feb 20, 2020 18:11:39 GMT
I think it's partly balanced by the thought that valuable rookies mean teams can rebuild faster - it's like insurance for if your team was GM'd by Tracy McGrady before you joined. I think it's to much valuable. That's why so many teams tank
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 20, 2020 18:41:26 GMT
Agreed. Youth, draft picks, and players on rookie contracts are overpowered and overvalued. And why wouldn't they be? You can get Luka Doncic for 5 years at a rookie salary. This heavily favors tanking, loading up on draft picks, and waiting. The current D5 strategy is:
- tank to load up on as many picks as possible - draft young players 1-3 years max - while All-Star caliber players are still on their rookie contract, poach a max free agent
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 20, 2020 19:20:17 GMT
Agreed. Youth, draft picks, and players on rookie contracts are overpowered and overvalued. And why wouldn't they be? You can get Luka Doncic for 5 years at a rookie salary. This heavily favors tanking, loading up on draft picks, and waiting. The current D5 strategy is: - tank to load up on as many picks as possible - draft young players 1-3 years max - while All-Star caliber players are still on their rookie contract, poach a max free agent Isn't this the same strategy half of the NBA uses? Decreasing the length of rookie contracts by 1 year isn't going to change that. I think the system we have now is great. Even as my team begins the transition from rebuilding to competing, I would oppose any change that helped contending teams at the expense of rebuilding teams. It's not healthy for D5 at large imo
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 20, 2020 19:40:42 GMT
Agreed. Youth, draft picks, and players on rookie contracts are overpowered and overvalued. And why wouldn't they be? You can get Luka Doncic for 5 years at a rookie salary. This heavily favors tanking, loading up on draft picks, and waiting. The current D5 strategy is: - tank to load up on as many picks as possible - draft young players 1-3 years max - while All-Star caliber players are still on their rookie contract, poach a max free agent Isn't this the same strategy half of the NBA uses? Decreasing the length of rookie contracts by 1 year isn't going to change that. I think the system we have now is great. Even as my team begins the transition from rebuilding to competing, I would oppose any change that helped contending teams at the expense of rebuilding teams. It's not healthy for D5 at large imo No, because there's additional incentives to competing. Jobs and profit are on the line. The NBA fired Sam Hinkie because of what he was doing. Additionally, RFA get their big pay day sooner, meaning teams have to make decisions earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 20, 2020 21:52:33 GMT
I am fine with the current length because decreasing it will further empowered the PA system that I am not a big fan of and I do believe, it is a much bigger problem.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 20, 2020 21:54:38 GMT
I am fine with the current length because decreasing it will further empowered the PA system that I am not a big fan of and I do believe, it is a much bigger problem. Why can't we just shorten it by one year and allow RFA? Teams can retain their players with RFA but the players are paid appropriately
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Feb 20, 2020 22:14:10 GMT
I am fine with the current length because decreasing it will further empowered the PA system that I am not a big fan of and I do believe, it is a much bigger problem. Why can't we just shorten it by one year and allow RFA? Teams can retain their players with RFA but the players are paid appropriately I think one downside to RFA is the introduction of potential “poison pill” contract structures (think IRL Tyler Johnson deal with the Heat), where one team could make it stupidly punitive for a team to match to keep their own player. That would have to be prohibited to me, but RFA could help alleviate some of the contract stuff on the backend for some rookies.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 20, 2020 22:17:41 GMT
I am fine with the current length because decreasing it will further empowered the PA system that I am not a big fan of and I do believe, it is a much bigger problem. Why can't we just shorten it by one year and allow RFA? Teams can retain their players with RFA but the players are paid appropriately Ian and several others do not want RFA. That was already discussed in the past. You can check the archives.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 20, 2020 22:19:47 GMT
Why can't we just shorten it by one year and allow RFA? Teams can retain their players with RFA but the players are paid appropriately I think one downside to RFA is the introduction of potential “poison pill” contract structures (think IRL Tyler Johnson deal with the Heat), where one team could make it stupidly punitive for a team to match to keep their own player. That would have to be prohibited to me, but RFA could help alleviate some of the contract stuff on the backend for some rookies. I don't see how this is any different from our current system. A player as an UFA coming off his rookie deal would still have to consider options across the board. To retain players, you still have to outbid competitors. What's to stop a team from doing this today with our current structure?
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Feb 20, 2020 22:29:51 GMT
I think one downside to RFA is the introduction of potential “poison pill” contract structures (think IRL Tyler Johnson deal with the Heat), where one team could make it stupidly punitive for a team to match to keep their own player. That would have to be prohibited to me, but RFA could help alleviate some of the contract stuff on the backend for some rookies. I don't see how this is any different from our current system. A player as an UFA coming off his rookie deal would still have to consider options across the board. To retain players, you still have to outbid competitors. What's to stop a team from doing this today with our current structure? When I think poison pill here, I mean “if Player X resigns, this is the structure, but if he signs elsewhere, here is the structure.” It’s way more common in the NFL where you see teams make an offer and, if the current team matches, it makes the deal 100% guaranteed or something to that effect (happened with Steve Hutchinson to the Vikings a decade ago as the most famous example). So if we played that scenario out here, it’d be the equivalent of a team saying “I’ve offered Doncic a four max offer sheet; however, if San Antonio matches, the deal structure would be half max first two years, 1.5x the max the last two years.” Those kinds of deals are more about screwing up a team’s cap sheet than they are fair offers to a player. Agreed it should be on all considerations for player FA moves, but matching shouldn’t mean a new contract structure would then be imposed on the incumbent team that is different than what is proposed.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 20, 2020 22:33:49 GMT
I don't see how this is any different from our current system. A player as an UFA coming off his rookie deal would still have to consider options across the board. To retain players, you still have to outbid competitors. What's to stop a team from doing this today with our current structure? When I think poison pill here, I mean “if Player X resigns, this is the structure, but if he signs elsewhere, here is the structure.” It’s way more common in the NFL where you see teams make an offer and, if the current team matches, it makes the deal 100% guaranteed or something to that effect (happened with Steve Hutchinson to the Vikings a decade ago as the most famous example). So if we played that scenario out here, it’d be the equivalent of a team saying “I’ve offered Doncic a four max offer sheet; however, if San Antonio matches, the deal structure would be half max first two years, 1.5x the max the last two years.” Those kinds of deals are more about screwing up a team’s cap sheet than they are fair offers to a player. Agreed it should be on all considerations for player FA moves, but matching shouldn’t mean a new contract structure would then be imposed on the incumbent team that is different than what is proposed. I've never heard of a matching offer meaning anything other than literally matching the offer verbatim. If a team chooses to match the offer from another team then it's identical to the offer received and the team gets to retain their player.
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Feb 20, 2020 22:43:24 GMT
When I think poison pill here, I mean “if Player X resigns, this is the structure, but if he signs elsewhere, here is the structure.” It’s way more common in the NFL where you see teams make an offer and, if the current team matches, it makes the deal 100% guaranteed or something to that effect (happened with Steve Hutchinson to the Vikings a decade ago as the most famous example). So if we played that scenario out here, it’d be the equivalent of a team saying “I’ve offered Doncic a four max offer sheet; however, if San Antonio matches, the deal structure would be half max first two years, 1.5x the max the last two years.” Those kinds of deals are more about screwing up a team’s cap sheet than they are fair offers to a player. Agreed it should be on all considerations for player FA moves, but matching shouldn’t mean a new contract structure would then be imposed on the incumbent team that is different than what is proposed. I've never heard of a matching offer meaning anything other than literally matching the offer verbatim. If a team chooses to match the offer from another team then it's identical to the offer received and the team gets to retain their player. When the IRL Nets offered Tyler Johnson for 4 yrs/$50 MM, they structured it so if the Heat matched, as opposed to equal $12.5 MM salary, his first two years would be under $6 MM, followed by his last two years slightly above $18 MM to coincide with other cap commitments and ensure they’d have either luxury tax or hard cap implications. The Heat still matched it, but ended up trading Johnson to Phoenix before that third year kicked in. The Nets also did this with Otto Porter too and the Wizards matched that and kept him. The Nets did both deals to make it a pain in the ass for their current teams to keep them OR to force strategy decisions on other players on those rosters down the road.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 20, 2020 22:46:08 GMT
I've never heard of a matching offer meaning anything other than literally matching the offer verbatim. If a team chooses to match the offer from another team then it's identical to the offer received and the team gets to retain their player. When the IRL Nets offered Tyler Johnson for 4 yrs/$50 MM, they structured it so if the Heat matched, as opposed to equal $12.5 MM salary, his first two years would be under $6 MM, followed by his last two years slightly above $18 MM to coincide with other cap commitments and ensure they’d have either luxury tax or hard cap implications. The Heat still matched it, but ended up trading Johnson to Phoenix before that third year kicked in. The Nets also did this with Otto Porter too and the Wizards matched that and kept him. The Nets did both deals to make it a pain in the ass for their current teams to keep them OR to force strategy decisions on other players on those rosters down the road. Oh okay, so they did match verbatim, but the contracts were structured in a clever way. I kind of like it. Adds a layer of strategy to it. And I mean, you have a choice not to match offers and let that team be stuck with the player 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Feb 20, 2020 22:53:36 GMT
Oh okay, so they did match verbatim, but the contracts were structured in a clever way. I kind of like it. Adds a layer of strategy to it. And I mean, you have a choice not to match offers and let that team be stuck with the player 🤷🏻♂️ Yeah semantically the main details were the same to your point (years and money) just how it’s distributed if a team matched was done by the Nets to fuck over the incumbent team lol. Ehhh I think it could get vindictive if that kind of thing is introduced— but to your point it could be one where a team is left stuck holding the bag on a guy they didn’t really want, just an offer they wanted to mess with another team’s cap sheet.
|
|