|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on May 21, 2021 3:08:36 GMT
So, we have another one here benefitting the tankers. Is this Dynasty5ive or Tankers5ive? WRONG Hana, actually at least the restricted free agency part of it would help competitive teams who happen to have cap room. For example a mid level young guy in year 4 whos good but not great approaching maybe a breakout season could potentially be bid away from another team. Best example I can think of was Gordon Hayward's RFA year in real life when I think it was the Celtics or Brooklyn or someone offered him (at the time 16ppg type guy) a max contract and reportedly Utah was almost ready to let him go not thinking he'd end up being good enough to be worth the actual max. In practice in D5 a young guy averaging 16 ppg getting a max contract would be matched most likely, but that has the effect of forcing a tanking team nearer to the cap earlier IE forcing them to actually compete in FA earlier so they don't get left as a team with one overpaid youngers and a bunch of min contract tanky players. AND would end up making guys like 4th year Marcus Smart or 4th year Will Barton to be available to 6-10 seed teams if they are willing to pay more than the team who has them. Also would make it easier for bad teams to get mid level guys off of the super teams who happen to luck into draft picks if they are willing to pay. I know it's super easy for me to say given how much my team has benefitted from tanking and gaming that but I was also single and working a basic ass job that let me spend 3 hours a day scouting players plus getting lucky. But I do like that specific proposal for realism and could even be done via a system where RFAs go to a unique player agent. Then the team who has them saying what the max salary for that player is and then if other teams offer more then the original GM can match or let them go. IDK. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on May 21, 2021 3:41:17 GMT
Hana, actually at least the restricted free agency part of it would help competitive teams who happen to have cap room. For example a mid level young guy in year 4 whos good but not great approaching maybe a breakout season could potentially be bid away from another team. Best example I can think of was Gordon Hayward's RFA year in real life when I think it was the Celtics or Brooklyn or someone offered him (at the time 16ppg type guy) a max contract and reportedly Utah was almost ready to let him go not thinking he'd end up being good enough to be worth the actual max. In practice in D5 a young guy averaging 16 ppg getting a max contract would be matched most likely, but that has the effect of forcing a tanking team nearer to the cap earlier IE forcing them to actually compete in FA earlier so they don't get left as a team with one overpaid youngers and a bunch of min contract tanky players. AND would end up making guys like 4th year Marcus Smart or 4th year Will Barton to be available to 6-10 seed teams if they are willing to pay more than the team who has them. Also would make it easier for bad teams to get mid level guys off of the super teams who happen to luck into draft picks if they are willing to pay. I know it's super easy for me to say given how much my team has benefitted from tanking and gaming that but I was also single and working a basic ass job that let me spend 3 hours a day scouting players plus getting lucky. But I do like that specific proposal for realism and could even be done via a system where RFAs go to a unique player agent. Then the team who has them saying what the max salary for that player is and then if other teams offer more then the original GM can match or let them go. IDK. If a rule doesn't help tanking, then I am against it. All rules should be in favor of tankers. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Jul 5, 2021 1:49:27 GMT
Bump for any GMs who haven’t weighed in that want to provide input. To recap, the three items included for this proposal are: 1) shorten rookie scale deals effective the 2022 D5 draft from 5 yrs to 4 yrs in length; 2) add RFA effective the 2017 D5 draft class (Tatum/Fultz class) and 3) add an early extension process effective the 2018 D5 draft class (Doncic/Ayton class) that would be pre-season
|
|
|
|
Post by Arvydas Sabonis on Jul 5, 2021 6:23:54 GMT
I support this change, as close as possible to NBA rule is preferred.
One comment about this point in your OP
Based on the experience in D720 where RFA is already implemented, I think it's wise to have tier 1 and 2 for RFA, and start already UFA after tier 1 RFA's are signed, but keep RFA for tier 2 still open. I noticed that in our D720 RFA, only the max (or close to max) RFA's got any interest as everyone was waiting to save their cap space on the best players in UFA.
But after teams have missed their initial UFA targets, they would have been happy to spend money on Tier 2 RFA's (<15mil per year type young players)
|
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Jul 5, 2021 12:28:18 GMT
I support this change, as close as possible to NBA rule is preferred. One comment about this point in your OP Based on the experience in D720 where RFA is already implemented, I think it's wise to have tier 1 and 2 for RFA, and start already UFA after tier 1 RFA's are signed, but keep RFA for tier 2 still open. I noticed that in our D720 RFA, only the max (or close to max) RFA's got any interest as everyone was waiting to save their cap space on the best players in UFA. But after teams have missed their initial UFA targets, they would have been happy to spend money on Tier 2 RFA's (<15mil per year type young players) That’s a good point on interest/value— I like the idea of RFA top guys first (cutoff could be 85 and above rated players), then once those are signed open up the rest of RFA and UFA concurrently to your point. If there is that type of tiered system, though, there would need to be a tighter schedule to ensure that first RFA period doesn’t become a slog. Maybe 7-10 days for the top tier RFA period between offers, review, and decisions? |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Price on Jul 6, 2021 13:44:50 GMT
Rookie contracts have felt weird for this league, but everyone was playing under the same rules so I don't think anyone was at an advantage/disadvantage.
That said, part #1 and #2 of the proposed rules make sense. Restricted free agency would be interesting/make it so teams can't load up on underpaid players for 6 years. It could also help take teams away from tanking as hard as they do because rookie scaled players won't have as lopsided a value, but you will never get rid of tanking in any basketball league.
Point 3 is interesting, but seems unnecessary for our purposes. I'm not sure how the extensions would work properly given the limitations of a sim league. Restricted free agency on its own would be good enough for me personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jul 7, 2021 4:14:00 GMT
Rookie contracts have felt weird for this league, but everyone was playing under the same rules so I don't think anyone was at an advantage/disadvantage. That said, part #1 and #2 of the proposed rules make sense. Restricted free agency would be interesting/make it so teams can't load up on underpaid players for 6 years. It could also help take teams away from tanking as hard as they do because rookie scaled players won't have as lopsided a value, but you will never get rid of tanking in any basketball league. Point 3 is interesting, but seems unnecessary for our purposes. I'm not sure how the extensions would work properly given the limitations of a sim league. Restricted free agency on its own would be good enough for me personally. You mean #1 and #2 will help against tanking? |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Price on Jul 7, 2021 14:42:52 GMT
That said, part #1 and #2 of the proposed rules make sense. Restricted free agency would be interesting/make it so teams can't load up on underpaid players for 6 years. It could also help take teams away from tanking as hard as they do because rookie scaled players won't have as lopsided a value, but you will never get rid of tanking in any basketball league. You mean #1 and #2 will help against tanking? I'd think so. If the rookie scale contracts and restricted free agency was implemented, you would get less situations like Boston where you could build an unbelievable super team through the draft because you would have to pay the players earlier than you currently do. Obviously, if you draft Luka and SGA or Simmons, Embiid, Green, etc. you're going to be really good. But the current rookie scale allows those players to be significantly underpaid for longer so that you can add established superstars around them. Rookie scale players will always have insane value. Restricted free agency would make it so teams would have a shorter window to build around those players which could hopefully lead to more balance. Also, teams will always be tanking which is fine. But having 50% of your teams tanking means that all the good veterans are distributed between 10 to 15 teams instead of 20 to 25 teams which would be ideal. This is also leads to unfair imbalance. Restricted free agency doesn't mean that there won't be imbalance or mass tanking, but measures like this plus a hard cap could make teams change their outlook over time. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jul 7, 2021 22:42:41 GMT
You mean #1 and #2 will help against tanking? I'd think so. If the rookie scale contracts and restricted free agency was implemented, you would get less situations like Boston where you could build an unbelievable super team through the draft because you would have to pay the players earlier than you currently do. Obviously, if you draft Luka and SGA or Simmons, Embiid, Green, etc. you're going to be really good. But the current rookie scale allows those players to be significantly underpaid for longer so that you can add established superstars around them. Rookie scale players will always have insane value. Restricted free agency would make it so teams would have a shorter window to build around those players which could hopefully lead to more balance. Also, teams will always be tanking which is fine. But having 50% of your teams tanking means that all the good veterans are distributed between 10 to 15 teams instead of 20 to 25 teams which would be ideal. This is also leads to unfair imbalance. Restricted free agency doesn't mean that there won't be imbalance or mass tanking, but measures like this plus a hard cap could make teams change their outlook over time. Rule #1 and Rule #2 are bad then. It should not be implemented. Ian Noble I am changing my stance with rule #1 and rule #2. I am against it now. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Arvydas Sabonis on Jul 8, 2021 7:36:02 GMT
Rule #1 and Rule #2 are bad then. It should not be implemented. Ian Noble I am changing my stance with rule #1 and rule #2. I am against it now. Thanks. Clearly a decision made with good understanding what is proposed. /s Looking through the thread I count 8-10 GM's positive for changes (maybe not for the extension part) and only 1 against |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jul 8, 2021 9:37:31 GMT
Rule #1 and Rule #2 are bad then. It should not be implemented. Ian Noble I am changing my stance with rule #1 and rule #2. I am against it now. Thanks. Clearly a decision made with good understanding what is proposed. /s Looking through the thread I count 8-10 GM's positive for changes (maybe not for the extension part) and only 1 against I already simplified my decision making about this things. If it is bad for tanking, I am against it. If it helps tanking, I am in favor. |
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Jul 16, 2021 14:48:24 GMT
Fellow GMs, a debate that is going on in the D5 Discord on the rule portion for shortening contracts is when it should be implemented. We have two camps emerging: - Implement as initially proposed with the 2022 D5 draft, making this upcoming draft starting in two weeks with Walt Frazier OTC with #1 the last one on the 5 year current 1st round rookie scale
- Defer implementation till the 2025 D5 draft to allow already traded 1st round selections in the 2023 and 2024 drafts (as well as all other picks) to be conferred as 5 year contracts
I should note that deferring to 2025 only impacts a handful of GMs who I will tag in this reply— if those tagged below could provide your thoughts, it’d be greatly appreciated in ironing out a rule that has unanimous approval.
Alex English, you have three 1sts in 2023 that would be impacted
Tim Duncan and Steve Nash, you have two picks— one each in 2023 and 2024 — that would be impacted
Jared Montini, Brian Scalabrine, Arvydas Sabonis, and Shaquille O'Neal, you have one 1st in those two classes that would be impacted
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Jul 16, 2021 15:14:50 GMT
I'm fine moving to 4 years as soon as 2022
|
|
|
|
Post by Arvydas Sabonis on Jul 16, 2021 15:23:42 GMT
I would support changing it for this 2021 draft also if that means I get RFA rights for the rookies I'm going to pick now. I really don't see negatives with a quick change, only positives
So definitely ok for 2022
|
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Jul 16, 2021 15:28:32 GMT
I would support changing it for this 2021 draft also if that means I get RFA rights for the rookies I'm going to pick now. I really don't see negatives with a quick change, only positives So definitely ok for 2022 For RFA rights, I proposed that effective the Tatum/Bam draft class (2017) RFA would be available, so regardless of the contract duration for the 2021 class, they will be RFA eligible once their rookie deals end |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jul 16, 2021 15:34:36 GMT
Change it for 2022, or even 2021. Waiting until 2025 is being overly cautious. It's the last year of the contract, so we wouldn't even see the difference until 2029, which is absurd. Change it asap, we all still have many many years to adapt.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Jul 16, 2021 15:36:49 GMT
Ian Noble, responses rolling in from GMs who hold future picks above— right now three in favor of the 2022 implementation, with four yet to reply
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Nash on Jul 16, 2021 20:26:02 GMT
I would be fine with the rule being implemented in 2021 as well. Closer to the NBA the better
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jul 16, 2021 22:51:51 GMT
Fellow GMs, a debate that is going on in the D5 Discord on the rule portion for shortening contracts is when it should be implemented. We have two camps emerging: - Implement as initially proposed with the 2022 D5 draft, making this upcoming draft starting in two weeks with Walt Frazier OTC with #1 the last one on the 5 year current 1st round rookie scale
- Defer implementation till the 2025 D5 draft to allow already traded 1st round selections in the 2023 and 2024 drafts (as well as all other picks) to be conferred as 5 year contracts
I should note that deferring to 2025 only impacts a handful of GMs who I will tag in this reply— if those tagged below could provide your thoughts, it’d be greatly appreciated in ironing out a rule that has unanimous approval.
Alex English , you have three 1sts in 2023 that would be impacted
Tim Duncan and Steve Nash , you have two picks— one each in 2023 and 2024 — that would be impacted
Jared Montini , Brian Scalabrine , Arvydas Sabonis , and Shaquille O'Neal , you have one 1st in those two classes that would be impacted
I am with #2. Shortening the contract I think is bad for tankers. Thus, lengthening the implementation will benefit the tankers. So, I am going with #2. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jul 17, 2021 3:03:13 GMT
I'm for whichever makes the change occur soonest. I understand how hypocritical this makes me look after tanking so long but I got a title to win and want more Free Agents.
|
|
Tim Duncan
Former Jazz GM
Sophomore
Posts: 482
Mar 9, 2022 22:04:51 GMT
|
Post by Tim Duncan on Jul 17, 2021 7:40:19 GMT
I would be okay with the rookie contracts shortened as soon as possible. However I do think that RFA should start with the class in which the rookie contracts is 4 years since 5 years + RFA feels too OP to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Jul 17, 2021 17:45:36 GMT
Without RFA I don’t agree with 4 year rookie deals, however I’m for 4 year with the rfa. It’s the most realistic way to go
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 18, 2021 22:56:10 GMT
I'm unwilling to stand in the way of progress for my personal benefit. Do it asap. Also I'm a fantastic GM so Cade will be happy to stay  |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jul 19, 2021 16:41:06 GMT
Without RFA I don’t agree with 4 year rookie deals, however I’m for 4 year with the rfa. It’s the most realistic way to go Historically you have to be an absolute dud submitting a criminally low effort offer to not have a rookie resign if you want to retain them. Personally I think in terms of RFA it could be accomplished via a table like the primacy one that people can edit. Then list the RFAs for that season and have people just enter the dollar amount they want to offer. Then let the GM who has the player decide if they want to match or not. If they want to match then they match the highest number and get them. Boom easy as shit. What would this system accomplish? 1 Player agents would immediately have a lighter load with significantly less offers to worry about reading through (particularly for Rookies getting their first contract which 99.999% of the time they will go back to the team assuming equal money). 2 GMs who have these players wouldn't have to waste tons of time on writing offers for guys they won't get and the GM who has the player knows that if he doesn't get the player back it's because they decided themselves to not pay them so no one can get mad and cry. 3 It immediately makes rookie resigning deals MUCH more realistic. Young players will go where the money is period because that first big one might be the only big one. Also it allows for more competition via the cap, if someone offers WAY over to try and force another GM to match a higher contract that GM can say no go ahead to that new team effectively trapping the other GM into a potentially unsavory contract which I think could be fun lol. |
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Jul 19, 2021 16:46:13 GMT
Without RFA I don’t agree with 4 year rookie deals, however I’m for 4 year with the rfa. It’s the most realistic way to go Historically you have to be an absolute dud submitting a criminally low effort offer to not have a rookie resign if you want to retain them. Personally I think in terms of RFA it could be accomplished via a table like the primacy one that people can edit. Then list the RFAs for that season and have people just enter the dollar amount they want to offer. Then let the GM who has the player decide if they want to match or not. If they want to match then they match the highest number and get them. Boom easy as shit. What would this system accomplish? 1 Player agents would immediately have a lighter load with significantly less offers to worry about reading through (particularly for Rookies getting their first contract which 99.999% of the time they will go back to the team assuming equal money). 2 GMs who have these players wouldn't have to waste tons of time on writing offers for guys they won't get and the GM who has the player knows that if he doesn't get the player back it's because they decided themselves to not pay them so no one can get mad and cry. 3 It immediately makes rookie resigning deals MUCH more realistic. Young players will go where the money is period because that first big one might be the only big one. Also it allows for more competition via the cap, if someone offers WAY over to try and force another GM to match a higher contract that GM can say no go ahead to that new team effectively trapping the other GM into a potentially unsavory contract which I think could be fun lol. Point #3 here is my favorite thing about the addition of RFA — I will be one of those GMs looking to make poison pill structures to make it a difficult decision (i.e. Tyler Johnson IRL Heat offer sheet where it was $18 MM per in the middle two years to coincide with extensions his drafted team would have to do for other guys). |
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Jul 21, 2021 7:47:48 GMT
I was laughed about before when i told you guys to shorten the rookie contracts (remembering i exampled the Rookie contract of Anthony Davis years ago) just do the shortened rookie contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Price on Jul 22, 2021 14:13:47 GMT
I’m for implementing the rule now.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Jul 22, 2021 14:33:40 GMT
Ian Noble, responses are all in for GMs with future 1sts— overwhelming consensus on implementing the contract change with the 2022 D5 draft class as opposed to waiting for any trades future picks to convey. Only question now is with RFA, do we make it retroactively apply to classes from 2017 onward (the posting system that Jeremiah Hill cited in a post above could be a great way to streamline RFA) or RFA would start with the 2022 draft class?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jul 22, 2021 15:54:01 GMT
Yes I'm in favour of #1 and #2 in the OP of this thread also.
To start in 2022.
I'll make an attempt to draw up rules soon.
edit: and try to think of the best method to implement RFA
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jul 22, 2021 22:55:24 GMT
Yes I'm in favour of #1 and #2 in the OP of this thread also. To start in 2022. I'll make an attempt to draw up rules soon. edit: and try to think of the best method to implement RFA Can I at least vouch for 2023? I hold two 1sts in 2022 and the 5 year contract was a big part of my decision in doing those trades, knowing that last year, this discussion was already on going. Thanks. |
|
Cleveland Cavaliers
San Antonio Spurs
New York Knicks
LA Lakers
New Orleans Pelicans
Denver Nuggets
Orlando Magic
Utah Jazz
Minnesota Timberwolves
Miami Heat
Boston Celtics