Rules Proposal: Rookie Contracts

[George Gervin]

I've wanted to post this thread up for debate, as I think it's worth exploring as the League matures and we introduce more elements of realism. This has also been a topic of a lot of debate in the D5 Discord Server as well. Rookie scale contracts -- speaking as a GM who is a huge beneficiary of their value with several of my players -- have taken on a pretty big significance for the League's dynamics. They are arguably the single greatest asset outside of a 90+ rated player for GMs, and the value produced relative to the contract scale has an outsize impact on not only the perceived value of draft picks, but also the pearl clutching on rookie scale players. 

Now, these suggestions below won't address every instance. For example, there are players who -- simply put -- transcend their contract status within their first four years and produce insane value regardless. Players like Luka, Tatum, Simmons, Brown, Trae, Ayton, Zion, Bam and Morant are good recent examples that no matter how you slice it, they will be underpaid on their rookie scale deals at some point and GMs need to accept that, barring a radical change, those situations will happen. So with that out of the way, I'm not going to suggest scaling back the duration of 1st round rookie contracts to a degree that we distort realism. My suggestions below are items that I think need to be discussed in tandem, because frankly I don't think we should do one of these without the other two going in hand. These recommendations, to simply put it, would be as follows:

Note: All of these I suggest we implement with the 2022 D5 Draft, and not for 2021, so that GMs have enough advance notice.

1. Amend the 1st round rookie contract length to mirror the CBA's structure. This would be a change that gives GMs at least a one draft headstart on such a change, and doesn't impact this 2021 group which I feel isn't entirely fair to implement mid-season. The new contract structure for 1st round picks would be a 2+2, with the last two years Team Options. This is exactly how the NBA has set it up, and functionally the only change for D5 would be elimination of the 5th year. The two suggestions below help make up for the 5th year elimination on rookie scale deals, and help incumbent GMs with their players.
2. Introduce Restricted Free Agency for rookie scale players (1st and 2nd round) that would take place prior to D5's Unrestricted Free Agency period. This would be a completely new concept for D5, but it'd be one that is more realistic and in line with the NBA, particularly when combined with the other two changes here. GMs would see a benefit two-fold: 1) Competing GMs can make an offers for the younger pool of players, who tend to garner most of the interest beyond star players, in a separate period before UFA (excluding young guys coming off their second contract); and 2) incumbent GMs who hold player's rights coming off rookie deals can better assess the market rate, and decide whether or not they want to retain or relinquish that player. Now, I'm sure some GMs would want, should this rule be implemented, a process whereby they could Sign and Trade a guy in lieu of losing them outright, but I think that would be too difficult to implement concurrent with these changes. 
3. Introduce an Early Extension Period for rookie scale players that would commence after their third season is completed and prior to the start of their fourth season. This change goes in hand with #2, whereby GMs who do not want to run the risk of a punitive Restricted Offer Sheet being put forward can choose to extend their rookie scale guys. Mechanically, I envision this working similar to the NBA's structure, where there is a cutoff prior to the start of the player's fourth season for an extension agreement. Players who are deserving of an extension therefore get locked up early -- and more importantly count towards the cap for that offseason following their fourth year immediately as opposed to wait and see -- and avoid situations where GMs circle like vultures on certain rookie scale guys. We could structure this as a separate period after UFA, where PAs are designated and they assess the contract offer for a rookie scale guy. I don't think there needs to be a Player Committee for every one, even though in theory there should be much fewer, but rather those PAs designated by position present to the other four PAs the offer and they then vote on "Yes" or "No" for extension. 

There are other things that would have to be ironed out should GMs want to implement such a change -- for example, would poison pill contract structures be allowed in RFA, or is it purely based on the raw contract terms with no other strings attached -- but I think these changes would help balance some items that GMs without a bevy of picks have pointed out previously as unbalanced, while also preserving the rights of GMs who do build through the draft to get in front of competing teams in FA for their core young players. This should also help with trade values of young guys in Years 1-3 of their contracts, as a GM acquiring them could make an extension on the heels of that third year without getting into an RFA battle. 

These changes I'm proposing on contracts and RFA shouldn't be read as a pre-emption of other rules, such as Bird Rights, that govern FA. Would love to hear other GMs thoughts on this, as I know it's a complex topic. 

[George Gervin]

For the TLDR crowd:

1. Shorten 1st round rookie contract lengths from 5 to 4 years
2. Add Restricted Free Agency to D5 for 1st and 2nd round rookie scale players
3. Add an Early Extension process for rookies after their third season (for 1st rounders) and second season (for 2nd rounders) that would take place after RFA/UFA and before the next D5 season

[Brian Scalabrine]

I like the ideas in here except for the contract extensions. I think extensions are a bad idea and rfa is good enough

[Andrei Kirilenko]

Agree with Scal, I like bullets #1 and #2

[George Gervin]

Mar 17, 2021 18:17:58 GMT Brian Scalabrine said:

I like the ideas in here except for the contract extensions. I think extensions are a bad idea and rfa is good enough

My thought on the extensions is to prevent situations where, in RFA, GMs make potshot offers to players to screw a team over as opposed to a good faith offer. Extensions at least get good to great rookie scale guys paid earlier— and on longer term deals— vs it becoming petty battles

[Steve Nash]

Would all current rookie scale contracts that are 5 years get changed as well? Or just the incoming draft class?

[George Gervin]

Mar 17, 2021 18:36:29 GMT Steve Nash said:

Would all current rookie scale contracts that are 5 years get changed as well? Or just the incoming draft class?

In my opinion it shouldn’t be a retroactive change, as that isn’t the right way to do it. My thoughts are the 2022 D5 draft class would be the first one with the 4 year deals, and the 2019 onward draft classes would be RFA eligible.

[Steve Nash]

If we're going for realism, I wouldn't be opposed to having all rookie scale contracts follow their actual NBA structure of 4 years when/if we implement this. That's essentially the whole motivation for this rule change. As well, either way we do this, we'll have an off-season with 2 classes in RFA. Just a matter of when.

But I know there's a lot of GMs with ++valuable rookie scale contracts that would be opposed to this haha

[Tom Izzo]

Rookie contracts have long been too over powered. 5 years is such a long time. Yes, it's only one year longer than real life but that one extra year is crucial.

I also sign this petition

[Ian Noble]

George Gervin I've not forgotten about this thread, just want to focus on Tom Izzo's thread first and get it right before going forward.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

So, we have another one here benefitting the tankers. Is this Dynasty5ive or Tankers5ive?

[Walt Frazier]

Mar 31, 2021 5:54:10 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

So, we have another one here benefitting the tankers. Is this Dynasty5ive or Tankers5ive?

WRONG

[George Gervin]

Mar 31, 2021 5:54:10 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

So, we have another one here benefitting the tankers. Is this Dynasty5ive or Tankers5ive?

If you actually read the proposal and came to this conclusion, then you completely misunderstood it. I’d be more inclined to believe you didn’t actually read this and are spraying your anger wildly in all directions because you think everything in this League must be a conspiracy against you since you didn’t get LeBron.

[Tom Izzo]

Yeah this reduces the value of rookie contracts. This helps balance value of players, not favor "tankers"

Tanking should always be a viable rebuilding option. We should never eliminate that. But we should have rules in place that help favor other methods like trading for veteran players, resigning veteran players, etc. The only way out of the basement shouldn't be to tank and wait 3-5 years.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Mar 31, 2021 11:44:23 GMT George Gervin said:

Mar 31, 2021 5:54:10 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

So, we have another one here benefitting the tankers. Is this Dynasty5ive or Tankers5ive?

If you actually read the proposal and came to this conclusion, then you completely misunderstood it. I’d be more inclined to believe you didn’t actually read this and are spraying your anger wildly in all directions because you think everything in this League must be a conspiracy against you since you didn’t get LeBron.

Pushing the extension or free agency of the rookies into an earlier year, makes them easier to re-sign for teams that pretty well under the cap. It also means that teams who are contending who drafted good players and who are currently at the mercy of the hard cap, will need to relinquish them earlier. 

RFA is only advantageous to those with good amount of hard cap space. Not for those who do not have it. 

[George Gervin]

Mar 31, 2021 22:08:43 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Mar 31, 2021 11:44:23 GMT George Gervin said:

If you actually read the proposal and came to this conclusion, then you completely misunderstood it. I’d be more inclined to believe you didn’t actually read this and are spraying your anger wildly in all directions because you think everything in this League must be a conspiracy against you since you didn’t get LeBron.

Pushing the extension or free agency of the rookies into an earlier year, makes them easier to re-sign for teams that pretty well under the cap. It also means that teams who are contending who drafted good players and who are currently at the mercy of the hard cap, will need to relinquish them earlier. 

RFA is only advantageous to those with good amount of hard cap space. Not for those who do not have it. 

Respectfully, I don’t see any of those points as persuasive. The IRL teams already have to face these challenges of cap management, and our League has inflated rookie contract values by adding the extra year. RFA levels the playing field to a degree that as opposed to the unrestricted free for all it is now when rookies come up, there’s at least a chance for GMs to make bids and incumbent GMs to say “no I don’t want to match” or “sure, I will match” just as it is done IRL. 

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Mar 31, 2021 22:52:11 GMT George Gervin said:

Mar 31, 2021 22:08:43 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Pushing the extension or free agency of the rookies into an earlier year, makes them easier to re-sign for teams that pretty well under the cap. It also means that teams who are contending who drafted good players and who are currently at the mercy of the hard cap, will need to relinquish them earlier. 

RFA is only advantageous to those with good amount of hard cap space. Not for those who do not have it. 

Respectfully, I don’t see any of those points as persuasive. The IRL teams already have to face these challenges of cap management, and our League has inflated rookie contract values by adding the extra year. RFA levels the playing field to a degree that as opposed to the unrestricted free for all it is now when rookies come up, there’s at least a chance for GMs to make bids and incumbent GMs to say “no I don’t want to match” or “sure, I will match” just as it is done IRL. 

My point is not about realism. My point is about these rules favoring the tankers. Do not used realism as your argument to my point that this favors tankers because those two are looking at this, differently. 

Your point about RFA is shallow. That is true. That is the effect of it. My point is, tankers have easier time taking advantage of it due to the hard cap. 

Do not worry. This has been a Tankers5ive for a while now. So, I am pretty sure my points will not be considered at all. 

So, for tankers out there. Congrats. Keep tanking boys! Keep it up.

[George Gervin]

Mar 31, 2021 23:15:01 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Mar 31, 2021 22:52:11 GMT George Gervin said:

Respectfully, I don’t see any of those points as persuasive. The IRL teams already have to face these challenges of cap management, and our League has inflated rookie contract values by adding the extra year. RFA levels the playing field to a degree that as opposed to the unrestricted free for all it is now when rookies come up, there’s at least a chance for GMs to make bids and incumbent GMs to say “no I don’t want to match” or “sure, I will match” just as it is done IRL. 

My point is not about realism. My point is about these rules favoring the tankers. Do not used realism as your argument to my point that this favors tankers because those two are looking at this, differently. 

Your point about RFA is shallow. That is true. That is the effect of it. My point is, tankers have easier time taking advantage of it due to the hard cap. 

Do not worry. This has been a Tankers5ive for a while now. So, I am pretty sure my points will not be considered at all. 

So, for tankers out there. Congrats. Keep tanking boys! Keep it up.


I’d argue the fact this proposal cuts the contract length makes it more difficult on tankers as it helps prevent long term stacking of rookie scale deals and requires more thoughtful planning. A team like the D5 Celtics couldn’t exist as it does were this rule in effect as they’d have maxes a year earlier than the LeBron addition, or the D5 Nets being able to add Kawhi. 

RFA isn’t just about teams with hard cap issues being disadvantaged; that exists independent of RFA or no RFA, as they would have only MLE available. That point you make feels more straw man than concrete argument, as you’re not actually articulating why RFA introduction would disadvantage hard capped teams disproportionately when by the nature of the hard cap, they already have a real constraint on contracts. 

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Mar 31, 2021 23:20:46 GMT George Gervin said:

Mar 31, 2021 23:15:01 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

My point is not about realism. My point is about these rules favoring the tankers. Do not used realism as your argument to my point that this favors tankers because those two are looking at this, differently. 

Your point about RFA is shallow. That is true. That is the effect of it. My point is, tankers have easier time taking advantage of it due to the hard cap. 

Do not worry. This has been a Tankers5ive for a while now. So, I am pretty sure my points will not be considered at all. 

So, for tankers out there. Congrats. Keep tanking boys! Keep it up.


I’d argue the fact this proposal cuts the contract length makes it more difficult on tankers as it helps prevent long term stacking of rookie scale deals and requires more thoughtful planning. A team like the D5 Celtics couldn’t exist as it does were this rule in effect as they’d have maxes a year earlier than the LeBron addition, or the D5 Nets being able to add Kawhi. 

RFA isn’t just about teams with hard cap issues being disadvantaged; that exists independent of RFA or no RFA, as they would have only MLE available. That point you make feels more straw man than concrete argument, as you’re not actually articulating why RFA introduction would disadvantage hard capped teams disproportionately when by the nature of the hard cap, they already have a real constraint on contracts. 

I’d argue the fact this proposal cuts the contract length makes it more difficult on tankers as it helps prevent long term stacking of rookie scale deals and requires more thoughtful planning. A team like the D5 Celtics couldn’t exist as it does were this rule in effect as they’d have maxes a year earlier than the LeBron addition, or the D5 Nets being able to add Kawhi.

- This one has more juice into it if all rookies are actually good. That is not the case. So, the quantity is not really the focus. It is the quality. By making it a year earlier, again, it makes it easier for the team that drafted them to retain them. Your D5 examples are good but only if you think they will not actually do something in trying to accomplish the same signings. Can Boston trade one or two of their young guns for younger rookie-scale contract and still come up with a dominant team? They can. 

Let me explain it in a macro point. By, making it a year earlier for them to extend, more money will then be added to the overall pockets of the players. Increased in money will not be taken advantage by teams who are already having a problem with the hard cap. The tanking teams will have much more leeway. 

Contending teams are the ones facing the hard cap. Tanking teams are not. So, any rule that will further increased the power of the hard cap is decreasing the value of contending. 

[Jerry West]

Hana I think you approaching this with the idea that the 20th pick as the same chances of being a good player as the 1st pick

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Mar 31, 2021 23:59:14 GMT Jerry West said:

Hana I think you approaching this with the idea that the 20th pick as the same chances of being a good player as the 1st pick

In what way? isn't it George is the one doing that because he believes that forcing teams to trade the rookie-contract players is not good for tankers. 

[Jerry West]

Apr 1, 2021 0:05:26 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Mar 31, 2021 23:59:14 GMT Jerry West said:

Hana I think you approaching this with the idea that the 20th pick as the same chances of being a good player as the 1st pick

In what way? isn't it George is the one doing that because he believes that forcing teams to trade the rookie-contract players is not good for tankers. 

Because the idea is teams who tank for 3 and get top 3 picks won't then have 2 years to sign 2 max players to pair up with then.

I understand your point of taking 1 year off a cheap contract away from good teams. But in reality how many teams compete 5 years straight? Not only that but their 25th pick has a lesser chance of being a successful player and being a steal of a contract than the top 5 picks on the tanking teams.

[Alex English]

Mar 31, 2021 23:52:04 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Let me explain it in a macro point. By, making it a year earlier for them to extend, more money will then be added to the overall pockets of the players. Increased in money will not be taken advantage by teams who are already having a problem with the hard cap. The tanking teams will have much more leeway. 

Contending teams are the ones facing the hard cap. Tanking teams are not. So, any rule that will further increased the power of the hard cap is decreasing the value of contending. 

I agree with your description but I don't see the negative outlook you have, unless you're in favour of super teams staying dramatically better than the average D5 team.

The flipside of "decreasing the value of contending" as you put it, is increased competitive balance. Taking a year off of rookie contracts means good players get paid what they're worth sooner. A good player on a cheap contract doesn't help bad teams, because the team sucks, who cares. A good player on a cheap contract on a good team is extremely valuable and lets the good teams accumulate more talent than they would be able to if they had to pay their players what they're worth. So I think we agree that it hurts good teams more than bad teams. I think we agree this can be bad for specific teams that are very good.

The point we're making is that while it may be bad for specific super teams, it's good for the whole league because it helps prevent the unrealistic accumulation of talent. So the Boston Celtics will become worse, but that means your Cavaliers will be more likely to beat them. It means bad teams will have an easier time becoming competitive because they don't have to acquire as much talent as they do now. That means more teams will believe they have a chance at winning, which will mean more tanking teams will try and compete.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Apr 1, 2021 1:16:03 GMT Alex English said:

Mar 31, 2021 23:52:04 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Let me explain it in a macro point. By, making it a year earlier for them to extend, more money will then be added to the overall pockets of the players. Increased in money will not be taken advantage by teams who are already having a problem with the hard cap. The tanking teams will have much more leeway. 

Contending teams are the ones facing the hard cap. Tanking teams are not. So, any rule that will further increased the power of the hard cap is decreasing the value of contending. 

I agree with your description but I don't see the negative outlook you have, unless you're in favour of super teams staying dramatically better than the average D5 team.

The flipside of "decreasing the value of contending" as you put it, is increased competitive balance. Taking a year off of rookie contracts means good players get paid what they're worth sooner. A good player on a cheap contract doesn't help bad teams, because the team sucks, who cares. A good player on a cheap contract on a good team is extremely valuable and lets the good teams accumulate more talent than they would be able to if they had to pay their players what they're worth. So I think we agree that it hurts good teams more than bad teams. I think we agree this can be bad for specific teams that are very good.

The point we're making is that while it may be bad for specific super teams, it's good for the whole league because it helps prevent the unrealistic accumulation of talent. So the Boston Celtics will become worse, but that means your Cavaliers will be more likely to beat them. It means bad teams will have an easier time becoming competitive because they don't have to acquire as much talent as they do now. That means more teams will believe they have a chance at winning, which will mean more tanking teams will try and compete.

Nice one. I am hoping others can see now that this hurts good team. 

I just wonder about your 2nd paragraph. So, people here wants to prevent unrealistic accumulation of talent. I wonder if the most unrealistic part of D5 is not really that but the way teams here are tanking. When IRL we saw what happened to The Process mastermind. HE WAS FORCED OUT! 

And yet here, we have teams allowed to keep a roster for the entirety of two seasons without any single guy with 79+ rating. And only me is sick of it. 

And yet realism is again being used for this rule-change but nobody wants to talk about the most unrealistic part of the game. 

Thanks Alex. I am fine already that you agree with me that this hurts the good teams. At the very end, we all know how this will settle. 

#KeepTankingBoys! 

[Alex English]

Apr 1, 2021 3:01:40 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Nice one. I am hoping others can see now that this hurts good team. 

I just wonder about your 2nd paragraph. So, people here wants to prevent unrealistic accumulation of talent. I wonder if the most unrealistic part of D5 is not really that but the way teams here are tanking. When IRL we saw what happened to The Process mastermind. HE WAS FORCED OUT! 

And yet here, we have teams allowed to keep a roster for the entirety of two seasons without any single guy with 79+ rating. And only me is sick of it. 

And yet realism is again being used for this rule-change but nobody wants to talk about the most unrealistic part of the game. 

Thanks Alex. I am fine already that you agree with me that this hurts the good teams. At the very end, we all know how this will settle. 

#KeepTankingBoys! 

You're not the only one that doesn't like how much tanking there is in D5. So many teams tank because we know getting top draft picks is the only effective way to accumulate enough talent to compete for a championship. If this rule change makes it easier to acquire the amount of talent needed to compete for a championship, then it will lead to less tanking not more.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Apr 1, 2021 3:27:10 GMT Alex English said:

Apr 1, 2021 3:01:40 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Nice one. I am hoping others can see now that this hurts good team. 

I just wonder about your 2nd paragraph. So, people here wants to prevent unrealistic accumulation of talent. I wonder if the most unrealistic part of D5 is not really that but the way teams here are tanking. When IRL we saw what happened to The Process mastermind. HE WAS FORCED OUT! 

And yet here, we have teams allowed to keep a roster for the entirety of two seasons without any single guy with 79+ rating. And only me is sick of it. 

And yet realism is again being used for this rule-change but nobody wants to talk about the most unrealistic part of the game. 

Thanks Alex. I am fine already that you agree with me that this hurts the good teams. At the very end, we all know how this will settle. 

#KeepTankingBoys! 

You're not the only one that doesn't like how much tanking there is in D5. So many teams tank because we know getting top draft picks is the only effective way to accumulate enough talent to compete for a championship. If this rule change makes it easier to acquire the amount of talent needed to compete for a championship, then it will lead to less tanking not more.

If you really think that this will make it much easier in all fronts to acquire enough talent, I think you are putting too much eggs on one effect of it. 

I really think now that the macro view is still the best way to look at it. Teams that are much further from the hard cap, will benefit a lot from this. Yep, it may make it harder to remain as talented as you want to be, but it also means that tanking will again be a much better way of going for it. 

And again, tanking too much is not realistic. I just wonder if anyone will listen if I suggest something that will help in straightening this unrealistic happenings in D5.

[Alex English]

Apr 1, 2021 5:31:44 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

If you really think that this will make it much easier in all fronts to acquire enough talent, I think you are putting too much eggs on one effect of it. 

I really think now that the macro view is still the best way to look at it. Teams that are much further from the hard cap, will benefit a lot from this. Yep, it may make it harder to remain as talented as you want to be, but it also means that tanking will again be a much better way of going for it. 

And again, tanking too much is not realistic. I just wonder if anyone will listen if I suggest something that will help in straightening this unrealistic happenings in D5.

Of course it's not a magical fix everything solution, but it should be a positive step.

Also, if we're all about realism, rookie contracts in the NBA are 4 years not 5 years. So it's more realistic for us to make this change.

[Amare Stoudemire]

I support this change!

[George Gervin]

Bumping this up to see if any other GMs have thoughts on this— going by the replies thus far, adding RFA effective with the 2017 D5 draft class and shortening rookie contracts from 5 to 4 years in length effective the 2022 D5 draft class have near universal support. Early extensions have near universal disproval

Ian Noble, not sure your feelings on these suggestions— including recommended draft classes when these rules would go into effect (RFA with the Tatum/Fultz class and four year contracts with the Chet Holmgren 2022 class)

[Ian Noble]

Sorry George Gervin, my focus has all been on the other rules change thread and not here, and even then I've been pretty lazy addressing that thread also.

I'll try and give this thread the attention it deserves soon.