Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 2, 2024 15:09:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2015 0:54:27 GMT
Off Season Free Agency Regulations
The maximum salary of the first season of the contract-offer depends upon the years in the NBA of the player and the current salary cap. Years in the NBA0-6 / 25% of the salary cap 7-9 / 30% 10 or more 35% Computation: www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q17*5th Year 30% Max/Derrick Rose RuleA first round draft pick who completed all four years of his rookie scale contract, or a second round draft pick or an undrafted player who has four years of service, is eligible to receive a higher maximum salary if he meets one of this criteria, called the "5th Year 30% Max" criteria: - Named to the All-NBA First, Second or Third team at least twice - Voted as a starter in the All-Star game at least twice - Named the NBA Most Valuable Player at least once 4. You may include Player Options and/or Team Options in the contracts you offer. You may only include one option, and it can only be in the last year of the contract. This is the rule we use in this other league I am in, I believe Hanamichi Sakuragi can also attest that it is pretty simple and works well. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2015 1:15:24 GMT
The Bledsoe signing didn't make sense to me and I got pissed off about it because nothing about the contractual negotiations represented anything about his amateur or professional career. Going by the Free Agency Guidelines for PA's, number 6, perceived player personality, should have been a factor. And it was totally disregarded. Numbers 1-5 were near equal between not only my team and Walt's, but others bidding for his services. If Bledsoe goes to Minny, yeah I am upset and mad, and bitter. But when he goes to Minny because I refused to move Rose, and Walt agrees to move Rubio, I AM PISSED OFF. Because nothing about that makes actual fucking sense in regards to the guidelines. I agree with the first point you make - Bledsoe hasn't shown anything that would make us think he would demand to be the "main guy." I'm not sure why that was brought into the equation. Having said that, and now operating under that belief (falsely, but still) that Bledsoe did want to be the main PG, to address your later point in this paragraph - I bolded the part I'm talking about - Me moving Rubio shows a higher level of "effort/commitment" to sign the player than you refusing to move Rose showed him. So, AGAIN, so you don't misread - I disagree that Bledsoe should have even been thinking that way. BUT, since he "was", me moving Rubio for Bledsoe is a higher level of commitment, which IS in the guidelines. We have to fix that first problem first, but the 2nd part does make sense under the guidelines. Again, it shouldn't have been at that point to begin with but at least acknowledge it would go under the part about a GM's commitment and effort to sign the player. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 29, 2015 1:18:53 GMT
Why are your points hard to implement? Why is this even an argument? Who said they were hard to implement? It could definitely be done. The question is if it would be effective. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 29, 2015 2:09:50 GMT
I just wanna say I hate the idea of restricted free agency. I love the wrinkle we have here of the 3 years on same team for bird rights, restricted free agency will kill this.
I like most of the changes proposed here but I hate restricted free agency IRL and would hate it even more in D5. Player movement here would go down so much if we added it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 2, 2024 15:09:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2015 2:29:47 GMT
I just wanna say I hate the idea of restricted free agency. I love the wrinkle we have here of the 3 years on same team for bird rights, restricted free agency will kill this. I like most of the changes proposed here but I hate restricted free agency IRL and would hate it even more in D5. Player movement here would go down so much if we added it. Uh how does RFA effect birds? |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 29, 2015 2:50:14 GMT
I just wanna say I hate the idea of restricted free agency. I love the wrinkle we have here of the 3 years on same team for bird rights, restricted free agency will kill this. I like most of the changes proposed here but I hate restricted free agency IRL and would hate it even more in D5. Player movement here would go down so much if we added it. Uh how does RFA effect birds? Because if you have rfa rights on a player than having bird rights is pretty much irrelevant, since you can keep them if you want anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 29, 2015 3:07:03 GMT
Restricted Free Agency Example:
Player Bob's Rookie Contract on Team A
1,000,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 (TO) 1,300,000 (TO) 2,250,000 (Qualifying Offer)
OK so basically a restricted free agent becomes a free agent the year of his qualifying offer.
A player can take offers or sign the qualifying offer meaning that they would become an unrestricted FA on year six.
If the player takes offers then here is what happens.
Team B decides to offer Bob a 5 year 50 million dollar contract. So 5 years 10 million each year. Bob signs the contract.
Team A has the option to Match the contract, regardless of cap and keep the player automatically.
A player can only be a restricted free agent at the end of his first contract.
Restricted free agency does nothing to affect the value of a player unless you make bird rights on Qualifying Offer Eligible players transferable.
@riogho
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 2, 2024 15:09:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2015 4:34:35 GMT
Uh how does RFA effect birds? Because if you have rfa rights on a player than having bird rights is pretty much irrelevant, since you can keep them if you want anyway. But RFA only would exist for rookie contracts, while Birds is a thing throughout the entire career. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 2, 2024 15:09:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2015 4:38:27 GMT
Restricted Free Agency Example: Player Bob's Rookie Contract on Team A 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 (TO) 1,300,000 (TO) 2,250,000 (Qualifying Offer)OK so basically a restricted free agent becomes a free agent the year of his qualifying offer. A player can take offers or sign the qualifying offer meaning that they would become an unrestricted FA on year six. If the player takes offers then here is what happens. Team B decides to offer Bob a 5 year 50 million dollar contract. So 5 years 10 million each year. Bob signs the contract. Team A has the option to Match the contract, regardless of cap and keep the player automatically. A player can only be a restricted free agent at the end of his first contract. Restricted free agency does nothing to affect the value of a player unless you make bird rights on Qualifying Offer Eligible players transferable. @riogho Yeah, I mean, count me as someone who likes free agency. The only thing is you're not right that you can match the contract no matter what, that's only if you hold the players bird rights... if you trade a rookie after a few years (which will happen a lot), then there will be plenty of RFAs that will get offers that their home team can't match. It's a fun part of the real NBA... fucking over a conference opponent by making an offer they can't match, or by making a really big offer that the team feels obligated to match to not lose value (Kanter is a great example). RFA just adds a whole nother level of intrigue to the process. Brian's issue that it would lessen player transcations is actually the exact opposite... people will be willing to trade for younger players because they can do smart cap work and keep them. But why would I trade for a 3rd or 4th year player now? I wouldn't have their bird rights and thats all that matters in this league... RFA would give you MORE transactions, but less free agency changes. Which would probably help with a lot of the offseason chaos...
However, I'm not really advocating for RFA, I don't mind not having it. The only rule that really needs implemented is max contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 29, 2015 5:12:22 GMT
Well in real life, they'll do a sign and trade and a lot of bird rights transfer with trades.
Like, when you offer a player the max the other GM has to decide if he values the player more than cap flexibility depending on their team situation. For example Utah Jazz Gordon Hayward signed a max offer sheet from Charlotte the year he was a restricted free agent. Utah ultimately elected to match. Charlotte was just making sure that Utah wasn't going to get a deal. When Houston did the same thing with Jeremy Lin it actually sort of backfired because NYK actually made the correct decision to not match that deal. That affected Houston's tax line situation and ability to sign players.
Check out my free agent personality test post. It's basically a roadmap to the upcomming free agents and what various FAs care about in real life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 29, 2015 14:48:49 GMT
This thread might be the largest conglomeration of ideas ever submitted. It's great but im struggling to see the wood for the trees and I'm not sure all of it is constructive, and I'm pretty sure some of it is a bit superfluous really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Dec 29, 2015 15:07:38 GMT
I guess I'll chime in now with my opinion...
I think OSFA is probably the most exciting time in our league, it rewards dedication, commitment, and proper planning. I think it would be a mistake to "formalize" the process and take any matter of judgement out, as it seems is being proposed here. I don't always agree with the choices of player agents, especially this past offseason, but so what? No one is ever going to agree on everything. I think we have a good system here that creates a lot of excitement, and I would hate to see it go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 29, 2015 17:04:35 GMT
This thread might be the largest conglomeration of ideas ever submitted. It's great but im struggling to see the wood for the trees and I'm not sure all of it is constructive, and I'm pretty sure some of it is a bit superfluous really. Ian is looking at our wood! |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 29, 2015 17:08:56 GMT
And also Ian if you read only my posts you have a decent idea of whats going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 30, 2015 5:56:14 GMT
I think that the easiest to implement that solves many of these problems is the Max Salary Scale and limiting options to the end of the contract. Max Salary Scale has these pros: Is easy to do and keep track of. It protects teams from terrible signings being complete death sentences. If the cap was going to remain the same that Josh Smith contract would ruin a team for years. If he had signed to a scale max his contract would have started at 17.6 million instead. Thats a good bit of shaving off the top. It can trap you into an average player. If you have a guy like say Joe Johnson who peaked and declined into being an alright player at a max contract. It would end up being untradeable unless you give up assets, but would prevent peoples ability to full blown tank because those players would stick around for a few years. (Players don't just go from 84 to 60 overall) When you are talking about two players competing for a max contract guy. Which lets be honest is the only time people get pissed. Then it truly does come down to the intangibles of what a players personality is, how much time/effort you spent on an offer etc. Not who was able to squeeze that extra few hundred thousand out of their offer. Limiting options to the end of a deal is just smart. It doesn't allow someone to offer an unheralded prospect a 4 year minimum with 3 team options on it. It doesn't allow someone to just swipe a player off someone by throwing in some dumb option on year 2 of a 5 year deal. I love the idea of RFA. But lets try to avoid adding too much craziness in terms of new regulations in one offseason. Although it wouldn't be that hard to implement. That last part, about the RFA, is exactly why it shouldn't be overlooked. Adding in RFA does a lot for the league, one of those things is limit the craziness of the OSFA. On one hand, I think RFA would be a good idea. On the other hand, I think it gets rid of too much of the craziness. If we had RFA this off-season, how many URFA would we have had? There would not have been Cousins, Bledsoe, Wall, Favors, Draymond Green, and Kyle Singler, among other lesser known RFA's. RFA would have taken all of that away from us. And we basically already have RFA when it comes to how our Bird Rights work. But what RFA takes away in off-season free agency, it adds to in-season trading and value of player's on rookie deals with less than 3 years left. I am torn between RFA, I feel like if you do the right things with your franchise, any rookie you hold BRs on should re-sign with you. It does give that guarantee though, and maybe that is where RFA should be focused, on how often and why the QO is taken. Scaling max deals aren't fun. Saying I am offering someone 25% of the salary cap isn't fun. It isn't something people can relate to easily. Percentage based contracts help when the salary cap is increasing, but what about when it decreases? How many percentage points can we increase an offer from year to year, or decrease? It just works better with real dollars, in my opinion. Limiting the amount of options and where they are in a contract is another idea. But, if we take both of those away, and restrict them, then how can one team swing a negotiation? Sure, when it is an All-Star caliber player, the GM will surely match a competitors option offers, but maybe that is an added element of "strategery" that needs to be in play. That is how I feel. Options are all about strategery. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 30, 2015 6:03:30 GMT
I guess I'll chime in now with my opinion... I think OSFA is probably the most exciting time in our league, it rewards dedication, commitment, and proper planning. I think it would be a mistake to "formalize" the process and take any matter of judgement out, as it seems is being proposed here. I don't always agree with the choices of player agents, especially this past offseason, but so what? No one is ever going to agree on everything. I think we have a good system here that creates a lot of excitement, and I would hate to see it go away. I feel like everyone here is misunderstanding what I am saying. And maybe it is because my message has changed a little? Or at least the words I am using have become more concise. I am not calling for a simple equation to decide what free agent goes where. But what I am asking for is that player personalities not be ignored as they seem to be. Like Jeremiah said, when it comes to an All-Star caliber player, usually dollars and options will be near equal, that is when it is most important a player's personality comes in, and maybe not just their personality but how they play as well. And the GM's offer and dedication should also be taken more in to consideration in this. Someone will always be upset. And things will never go perfectly for everyone. This process doesn't need to be a formula. But just please, make it so the PA's are operating uniformly in how they are considering offers. One PA shouldn't disregard a key component in an offer when another PA makes it the most important thing. Incorporate player personalities more, in to what a player wants from a team when it comes to fit, style, city, teammates, money, flexibility, etc. And make the effort the GM shows worth something. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 30, 2015 6:18:43 GMT
The Bledsoe signing didn't make sense to me and I got pissed off about it because nothing about the contractual negotiations represented anything about his amateur or professional career. Going by the Free Agency Guidelines for PA's, number 6, perceived player personality, should have been a factor. And it was totally disregarded. Numbers 1-5 were near equal between not only my team and Walt's, but others bidding for his services. If Bledsoe goes to Minny, yeah I am upset and mad, and bitter. But when he goes to Minny because I refused to move Rose, and Walt agrees to move Rubio, I AM PISSED OFF. Because nothing about that makes actual fucking sense in regards to the guidelines. I agree with the first point you make - Bledsoe hasn't shown anything that would make us think he would demand to be the "main guy." I'm not sure why that was brought into the equation. Having said that, and now operating under that belief (falsely, but still) that Bledsoe did want to be the main PG, to address your later point in this paragraph - I bolded the part I'm talking about - Me moving Rubio shows a higher level of "effort/commitment" to sign the player than you refusing to move Rose showed him. So, AGAIN, so you don't misread - I disagree that Bledsoe should have even been thinking that way. BUT, since he "was", me moving Rubio for Bledsoe is a higher level of commitment, which IS in the guidelines. We have to fix that first problem first, but the 2nd part does make sense under the guidelines. Again, it shouldn't have been at that point to begin with but at least acknowledge it would go under the part about a GM's commitment and effort to sign the player. I know why he signed with you and not with me. Even if I would have tried to trade Rose, I wouldn't have been able to. And then that would have only further complicated things about promising a signing contingent upon a trade. The whole idea of it is just wrong. If Bryan was operating this way, why was it that you were actually taking in to account player personality? If you had disregarded RL PP, where would your players have signed? We can't have PA's operating under different sets of guidelines, I get that they weren't given different sets of guidelines, but the law isn't the law unless it is enforced. Yeah, you showed more commitment by meeting the PA's demands, which in turn are the player's demands, that would have never been demanded and should never have been demanded in the first place. And I am not even going to say that if Bledsoe's personality is taken in to account, I sign him. Because it has no longer become about me being bitter about not landing him. What it is about is making sure, going forward, that the life blood of this league, the off-season, is fair, and "correct". And by correct, I don't mean that everything goes in to some equation and comes out right and that everything is nice and predictable. I just mean that the PA's use the RL PP, take in to consideration the effort put forth by the GM, and that all the PA's abide by the guidelines. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 30, 2015 6:20:32 GMT
I just wanna say I hate the idea of restricted free agency. I love the wrinkle we have here of the 3 years on same team for bird rights, restricted free agency will kill this. I like most of the changes proposed here but I hate restricted free agency IRL and would hate it even more in D5. Player movement here would go down so much if we added it. Uh how does RFA effect birds? Player movement signing would go down if we added it, but player movement via trades would increase, because the value of a rookie on a deal with less than 3 years left would increase, and therefore, create a larger haul for the trading team. It is a double edged sword, one that I am not sure to wield. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 30, 2015 6:38:14 GMT
This thread might be the largest conglomeration of ideas ever submitted. It's great but im struggling to see the wood for the trees and I'm not sure all of it is constructive, and I'm pretty sure some of it is a bit superfluous really. This thread probably is the largest conglomeration of ideas ever, but most of them have been stirred about before. -RFA -Instituting a Max Contract -% Base
- D5 Contractual Realism
-Options -How many?
-What years?
-Off-Season Free Agency Guidelines -Where does Real Life Player Personalities rank?
-Does every PA use the same guidelines, always?
-What weight does the GMs efforts in negotiations and in-season statements have on the chance he lands a target?
I get that they're a lot. And to look at them all, all at once, it does seem cumbersome. But to discount any one of these ideas, and not give it any thought, simply because there's just too many, seems like a major oversight. I think there's some simple questions that need to be addressed, and when they are, everything else will fall in to place. Do we want RFA? It is something that will greatly inhibit OSFA, compared to what it is now. However, it adds value to rookie contracts being traded with out BRs, increasing in-season player movement. It also gives rebuilding teams a better chance. And it lessens the extents of rebuilds. I no longer have to trade Kawhi because he won't re-sign here without any key pieces. But, why wouldn't he re-sign here in the first place, if my team matches everything he seems to want in a team and I offer him competitive monies compared to the market place, as well as options? What is the max amount of monies I should be allowed to offer a player? Should that max be the same as the NBA's? (No.) How many options can I give a player? Team? Player? What years? How does all of this effect and affect this league? I think having these discussions will affect our league in a good manner. We all want to better our league and making every GM feel like their voice is heard will boost morale. Implementing these things will effect our league in a number of ways. Mainly in the off-season. We can't wait until this off-season to have these talks, so why not have them now? |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 31, 2015 10:46:45 GMT
Silence Jeremiah. Don't ruin the grand plan! |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 31, 2015 10:47:42 GMT
Just for the record, the league that I am managing and the one that Adam is managing use more real life rules specially in OSFA (Maximums, RFAs, PO restriction) and it run smoothly. (Although in my league, it was ruined by lack of active GMs during the offseason) Bump |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 2, 2024 15:09:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2015 18:22:55 GMT
Just for the record, the league that I am managing and the one that Adam is managing use more real life rules specially in OSFA (Maximums, RFAs, PO restriction) and it run smoothly. (Although in my league, it was ruined by lack of active GMs during the offseason) I think that not all leagues should be the same, what works for one does not work for all. But if changes were what GMs (and Ian) wanted to go in, there is now evidence to show that it can in fact work. Lots of potential problems have already been figured out and such. I don't know if RFA would be good to implement 5 years into a leagues lifespan. Not having RFA isn't a problem -- it's just different. Which is good. I think that maximum contracts + option restrictions (which I think Ian has already said he would adopt) will solve problems that we encountered last offseason. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 1, 2016 17:29:49 GMT
After reviewing this for most of the day today, here's my conclusions: Off Season Free AgencyAfter reading through the discussion thread the one feeling that I've come away with was that more needed to be done in preparation for OSFA to let GMs know what to expect, and that this should be done without reverting to any kind of automated system for any part of OSFA, but rather by better communicating and anticipating many of the factors that were mentioned.
Here is the TL;DR version of this post:
* Player Personalities will be discussed in separate threads for each big-name upcoming free-agent throughout the regular season and will play a more prominent role in OSFA.
* Contracts may only contain one Player or Team Option, and that Option can only be in the final year of their contract.
* A Maximium Salary Scale will be introduced.
* Restricted Free Agency will be shelved and maybe introduced later.
* The OSFA Period will be split into two phases: 1. Big-Name Free Agents for the first few weeks. 2. All Other Free Agents.
* Efforts will be made so that more transparency will be shown in the decision making process. Player PersonalitiesWhat can be inferred from an NBA player's actions? And how much of that should be used when deciding their destination? I feel like that's a question that can't be answered completely and there will always be some technicality a GM can bring up when they lose a player to OSFA.
That being said I agree that all of the factors Player Agents consider should be viewed within the context of a player's perceived personality:
1. Money Offered
2. Playing time.
3. The chances of success with your team (playoff/championship calibre)
4. How much dedication you have shown to the player.
5. Whether your team is a "big market" team, or a team with "prestige" or history.
6. The perceived effort you put into making a offer.
Preparation for OSFA:
* A General Discussion thread on each major OSFA player throughout the regular season to discuss each player's personality, and then to decide the factors that will affect whether they re-sign so that this information can be displayed next to their name on the end of season Off Season Free Agents List for the reference of both GMs and PAs. Options in ContractsPlayer and Team Options in contracts will now be restricted to only the final year of a contract and there will be a maximum of only one Option per contract, no matter how long.
Max Salary ScaleI don't really see why not to implement a Max Salary Scale. Every year GMs in podcasts casually mention D5's Max Salary Scale as if it already exists and it really would not hurt or help anything at all in my opinion. There are some contracts that have been signed in the past that would exceed the Max Salary Scale, but the damage done by these is so minimal as to be inconsequential in my opinion, in fact inflated contracts can often be a positive thing because they encourage trades to be made and boost league activity.
Overall I feel like a Max Salary Scale would add a feeling of realism and professionalism.
0 - 6 years experience: 25% of Salary Cap
7 - 9 years experience: 30% of Salary Cap
10 + years experience: 35% of Salary Cap
Years experience will now have to be a piece of information that accompanies each major player on the list of Off Season Free Agents, so we have good reference.
Restricted Free AgencyRFA can wait for now. OSFA is already the most complex time of the year and, although this is quite an easy concept to introduce, I would rather keep all variables minimised as much as possible until other more pressing issues are "solved" as best we can.
There are a lot of complicated bits to RFA in real life but it can be kept extremely simple for our purposes:
* Only players that were selected in the first round of their rookie draft, and who are entering the final (fifth) year of their rookie contract are eligible to be RFAs.
* The player remains on their current team, and remains on their current contract, unless a different team offers the player more money.
* The player will leave for the different team if the original team does not match the better offer.
RFA would have multiple knock-on effects for the league:
* Players on rookie contracts will be much more valuable trade assets for the entirety of their 5 year rookie contract, they are technically always Bird Rights players because even with only 1 year left they have an upcoming RFA year in which their current team can match any competing offered contract which will most likely be at least 3 years long anyway. This will actually be beneficial to rebuilding teams but...
* ... The window in which rebuilding teams have a lot of cap space is technically reduced from 5 to 4 years if any of their players take higher contracts and are matched.
* In real life an owner's money actually matters. Here at D5 it's just a number. The implications of allowing other teams to make your team pay more by offering money, in a universe in which money affects only cap flexibility, extend further beyond what it does in the real NBA. As such I feel I personally need more time to reflect upon RFA before it is implemented. Other ChangesTiered Off Season Free Agency SystemWhenever OSFA begins it can be a nightmare for Player Agents and could be the cause of some unhappiness that results from OSFA, because PAs have to spend absurd amounts of their free time helping out. This will be slightly alleviated by implementing two phases of OSFA:
Phase 1: Big Name Free Agents (rated over 82)
Phase 2: All other Free Agents (rated 81 and below)
This system should hopefully mean OSFA becomes a more studied and less chaotic affair.
OSFA OverseerThis upcoming Off Season there will be five Player Agents and one Overseer (me) to ensure that contracts are both legal and realistic and so that I can help out in general whilst also having more time available to make the usual mountain of administration changes that are needed for the league during the off season. TransparencyIf any big-name players decide to leave their team, or even if a player receives a lot of offers and more justification needs to be given for a decision, a randomly selected GM, or maybe even more than one GM, will be contacted and drafted in to give their verdict on a decision and whether they feel it is warranted before a decision is made. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 1, 2016 18:25:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 2, 2024 15:09:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2016 19:25:43 GMT
Ian I love what you've done here, and I can tell you that all of it will actually help an offseason run more smoothly -- we did most of these things in the offseason of 720 (including tiers and RFA) and it went by without a hitch ---- -- there is just one thing you're missing that is very important, and that is the Derrick Rose for max contracts. For a player like AD to only get 25% would be ultra unrealistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 1, 2016 19:37:20 GMT
Ian I love what you've done here, and I can tell you that all of it will actually help an offseason run more smoothly -- we did most of these things in the offseason of 720 (including tiers and RFA) and it went by without a hitch ---- -- there is just one thing you're missing that is very important, and that is the Derrick Rose for max contracts. For a player like AD to only get 25% would be ultra unrealistic. I always thought the Derrick Rose rule was stupid. Its gonna be the reason the Pelicans aren't ever going to be competitive. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 1, 2016 20:42:44 GMT
Ian I love what you've done here, and I can tell you that all of it will actually help an offseason run more smoothly -- we did most of these things in the offseason of 720 (including tiers and RFA) and it went by without a hitch ---- -- there is just one thing you're missing that is very important, and that is the Derrick Rose for max contracts. For a player like AD to only get 25% would be ultra unrealistic. I always thought the Derrick Rose rule was stupid. Its gonna be the reason the Pelicans aren't ever going to be competitive. You have to win an MVP for the DRose rule to apply though, not even AD is eligible. edit: I'd actually be in favour of the DRose Rule. It's so rare that it applies anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 1, 2016 20:53:04 GMT
I always thought the Derrick Rose rule was stupid. Its gonna be the reason the Pelicans aren't ever going to be competitive. You have to win an MVP for the DRose rule to apply though, not even AD is eligible. edit: I'd actually be in favour of the DRose Rule. It's so rare that it applies anyway. I think there are like 3 ways for the DRose rule to apply, right? Something with being in the All-Star game twice, is another way...and one more? EDIT: if he's twice been voted an All-Star starter, twice been voted All-NBA, or won an MVP award |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 1, 2016 20:54:21 GMT
You have to win an MVP for the DRose rule to apply though, not even AD is eligible. edit: I'd actually be in favour of the DRose Rule. It's so rare that it applies anyway. I think there are like 3 ways for the DRose rule to apply, right? Something with being in the All-Star game twice, is another way...and one more? EDIT: if he's twice been voted an All-Star starter, twice been voted All-NBA, or won an MVP award Yep something along those lines. If we did it here, I'd say just base it on the MVP award, surely that's enough. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 2, 2024 15:09:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2016 21:01:20 GMT
I think there are like 3 ways for the DRose rule to apply, right? Something with being in the All-Star game twice, is another way...and one more? EDIT: if he's twice been voted an All-Star starter, twice been voted All-NBA, or won an MVP award Yep something along those lines. If we did it here, I'd say just base it on the MVP award, surely that's enough. If you only count MVP then AD would be making way less money than he does in real life! Derrick Rose Blake Girffin Paul George have all made the money they deserve because of this rule! It's an important exception. You're right that it only effects a few people, but only using half the rose rule for some reason makes it basically pointless to have... 1 player a year that gets the exception at least gives us a reason to implement it  |
|
Minnesota Timberwolves
Denver Nuggets
New Orleans Pelicans
Boston Celtics
Brooklyn Nets
Cleveland Cavaliers
