|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 22, 2017 1:45:24 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:05:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 1:54:23 GMT
The number was only 16 as of 2014 and the biggest two FAs who've done it were Greg Monroe and Ben Gordon. If you were the PA, Kawhi would've signed the QO.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 22, 2017 5:56:27 GMT
The number was only 16 as of 2014 and the biggest two FAs who've done it were Greg Monroe and Ben Gordon. If you were the PA, Kawhi would've signed the QO. He didn't in real life did he?
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 22, 2017 14:33:27 GMT
I think if someone had traded for them and would have normally had BR's then it will be honored. Or do you mean if someone traded for a 2 year left rookie will they get those BR's back? I mean, does JR get Vala's BRS? and do I get Meyers Leonard's BRs? OR others in that type of situation. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 22, 2017 17:15:40 GMT
Well from what I understand the QO is only on next years crop of would be RFAs not this year.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 22, 2017 17:27:37 GMT
Basically, my question is since:
>Bird Rights will automatically apply to RFA players even if they had less than three years on their contracts when joining their team.
In the situations of Vala and Leonard, while not RFAs, will teams have BRs on these players? Like, if Glenn were to trade AD right now, would his BRs go with him?
Technically Vala and Leonard and AD are all RFA players, although the 5th year has already passed and they will enter UFA, I’m just wondering if BRs will apply to these players.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 22, 2017 19:25:47 GMT
Basically, my question is since: >Bird Rights will automatically apply to RFA players even if they had less than three years on their contracts when joining their team. In the situations of Vala and Leonard, while not RFAs, will teams have BRs on these players? Like, if Glenn were to trade AD right now, would his BRs go with him? Technically Vala and Leonard and AD are all RFA players, although the 5th year has already passed and they will enter UFA, I’m just wondering if BRs will apply to these players. Ian Noble
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:05:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 19:34:06 GMT
Dude I'm pretty sure it's an "obviously not"
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 22, 2017 20:07:58 GMT
Dude I'm pretty sure it's an "obviously not" Is it really obvious? I was under the impression that RFA and BR status was being granted retroactively to those players who were traded with less than 3 years left on their contract… Including players like Shane Larkin and Mason Plumlee dynasty5ive.proboards.com/thread/8655/nets-mavericksdynasty5ive.proboards.com/thread/8668/oklahoma-city-utahMeaning that these players will enter RFA, and their teams will retain BRs. However, in the case of those players currently the 5th year of their rookie contracts, they would enter UFA instead of RFA since they were already in their 5th year/QO year (ie, Davis, Valancunias). Now, since RFA and BR status was granted retroactively to players like Larkin and Plumlee, will those currently in their 5th year without BRs be granted neither RFA nor BRs?
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 22, 2017 20:10:06 GMT
Basically, my question is since: >Bird Rights will automatically apply to RFA players even if they had less than three years on their contracts when joining their team. In the situations of Vala and Leonard, while not RFAs, will teams have BRs on these players? Like, if Glenn were to trade AD right now, would his BRs go with him? Technically Vala and Leonard and AD are all RFA players, although the 5th year has already passed and they will enter UFA, I’m just wondering if BRs will apply to these players. Ian NobleIt's a good question, but the answer is 'no'. Not for 2012 draftees because it's now impossible to go through the RFA process with them, or rather it would not be a good idea to do it now during the season. If a 2012 draftee joined their team with 2 years or less left on their contract, their team does NOT possess Bird Rights this off season. 2013 draftees will be the first RFAs.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:05:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 20:10:43 GMT
Dude I'm pretty sure it's an "obviously not" Is it really obvious? I was under the impression that RFA and BR status was being granted retroactively to those players who were traded with less than 3 years left on their contract… Including players like Shane Larkin and Mason Plumlee dynasty5ive.proboards.com/thread/8655/nets-mavericksdynasty5ive.proboards.com/thread/8668/oklahoma-city-utahMeaning that these players will enter RFA, and their teams will retain BRs. However, in the case of those players currently the 5th year of their rookie contracts, they would enter UFA instead of RFA since they were already in their 5th year/QO year (ie, Davis, Valancunias). Now, since RFA and BR status was granted retroactively to players like Larkin and Plumlee, will those currently in their 5th year without BRs be granted neither RFA nor BRs? It seems obvious to me that it's for RFAs only
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 22, 2017 20:18:41 GMT
It's a good question, but the answer is 'no'. Not for 2012 draftees because it's now impossible to go through the RFA process with them, or rather it would not be a good idea to do it now during the season. If a 2012 draftee joined their team with 2 years or less left on their contract, their team does NOT possess Bird Rights this off season. 2013 draftees will be the first RFAs. Hmm… Alright, I just thought that maybe since we were handing out RFA and BR status to 2013 draftees, that 2012 draftees would at least get their BRs able to be traded.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 22, 2017 21:20:42 GMT
It's a good question, but the answer is 'no'. Not for 2012 draftees because it's now impossible to go through the RFA process with them, or rather it would not be a good idea to do it now during the season. If a 2012 draftee joined their team with 2 years or less left on their contract, their team does NOT possess Bird Rights this off season. 2013 draftees will be the first RFAs. Hmm… Alright, I just thought that maybe since we were handing out RFA and BR status to 2013 draftees, that 2012 draftees would at least get their BRs able to be traded. I'm against it, it kind of gives an unfair win to anyone who traded for those players because they held more value if they had BRs.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 22, 2017 21:51:45 GMT
Hmm… Alright, I just thought that maybe since we were handing out RFA and BR status to 2013 draftees, that 2012 draftees would at least get their BRs able to be traded. I'm against it, it kind of gives an unfair win to anyone who traded for those players because they held more value if they had BRs. I'm just checking, doing my due diligence
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 23, 2017 4:31:06 GMT
So to be clear, when 2nd round picks come off their 3 year rookie contracts they are UFA?
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 23, 2017 11:46:56 GMT
So to be clear, when 2nd round picks come off their 3 year rookie contracts they are UFA? Correct
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 23, 2017 12:24:52 GMT
So to be clear, when 2nd round picks come off their 3 year rookie contracts they are UFA? Correct But they still have BR's if they were on the same team for 3 years?
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 23, 2017 14:01:10 GMT
But they still have BR's if they were on the same team for 3 years? Correct
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 24, 2017 21:06:48 GMT
When you match an offer do you have to match years? Since we will have BRs, if another team offers, say KCP, 100 million 4/yrs, do I have to pay him 100 in 4/yrs or only 100 million over 5 years?
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 24, 2017 22:23:52 GMT
When you match an offer do you have to match years? Since we will have BRs, if another team offers, say KCP, 100 million 4/yrs, do I have to pay him 100 in 4/yrs or only 100 million over 5 years? Just my opinion - you should have to either 1) Match exact contract Or 2) Match exact but are given the option to add a 5th year at equal value or higher to year 4 (using 11% raise rule, any amount up to that much)
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 24, 2017 22:36:02 GMT
When you match an offer do you have to match years? Since we will have BRs, if another team offers, say KCP, 100 million 4/yrs, do I have to pay him 100 in 4/yrs or only 100 million over 5 years? Just my opinion - you should have to either 1) Match exact contract Or 2) Match exact but are given the option to add a 5th year at equal value or higher to year 4 (using 11% raise rule, any amount up to that much) I think I agree, but not match 'exact' contract - meaning you can play around with increasing/decreasing
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 25, 2017 0:44:07 GMT
Just my opinion - you should have to either 1) Match exact contract Or 2) Match exact but are given the option to add a 5th year at equal value or higher to year 4 (using 11% raise rule, any amount up to that much) I think I agree, but not match 'exact' contract - meaning you can play around with increasing/decreasing I suppose if it's the same exact years and money (or more money) then that's fine, with option to add the 5th year at equal or higher money.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 25, 2017 2:02:03 GMT
Just my opinion - you should have to either 1) Match exact contract Or 2) Match exact but are given the option to add a 5th year at equal value or higher to year 4 (using 11% raise rule, any amount up to that much) I think I agree, but not match 'exact' contract - meaning you can play around with increasing/decreasing The extra year is really only for extensions. Match exactly is how the rule works. The restricted free agent rule is really for the guys who you aren't sure what the value is. Lets use RL Hayward as an example, if they just flat out offer him the 5 year max of course he'd gonna sign and stay. But they waited to see if someone would offer him the max. Charlotte did so they matched it. Another example, Delly was a RFA. David Griffin incorrectly waited to give him an offer to see if he could match a baby 4mil per year offer which Delly might have signed if they had offered it up front. But Milwaukee made Cleveland have to make a choice by overpaying a little bit. It allows those middle tier teams to get the all important mid tier talent to bring them into contention.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 25, 2017 4:12:40 GMT
The extra year is really only for extensions. Match exactly is how the rule works. Are you sure? Because I thought this is what happened with Motiejunas and the Rockets. They matched the overall terms of the Nets offer sheet within the rules, but specifics of the contract were different. That pissed off Motiejunas and his agent, so they continued to hold out before they finally let him go and he signed with New Orleans. I don't really care which way we go, matching exactly is nice and simple, very easy to handle as an agent. Matching on $$$/year while allowing details to be different year to year can also be convenient for the re-signing team. So long as it's clear beforehand it's fine either way imo. Ian Noble
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 25, 2017 17:23:27 GMT
After re-reading everything about RFA - it doesn't actually say anything about extending the contract by an extra year, like BR contracts can be, so for that reason I think we just stick with the contract being whatever has been matched.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 25, 2017 23:18:03 GMT
After re-reading everything about RFA - it doesn't actually say anything about extending the contract by an extra year, like BR contracts can be, so for that reason I think we just stick with the contract being whatever has been matched. Ok, so how about this idea for a spin I just had on it. If the original team wants to make an offer as well they can. If the player signs another contract, the original team can still match but the player has the opportunity to take that 5th year outright.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 26, 2017 10:39:38 GMT
After re-reading everything about RFA - it doesn't actually say anything about extending the contract by an extra year, like BR contracts can be, so for that reason I think we just stick with the contract being whatever has been matched. Ok, so how about this idea for a spin I just had on it. If the original team wants to make an offer as well they can. If the player signs another contract, the original team can still match but the player has the opportunity to take that 5th year outright. I'd rather keep it simple for the sake of the player agents, also RFA gives the re-signing team enough of an advantage already, I don't think they need yet another year.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:05:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 14:10:39 GMT
Ian NobleI ran across an interesting penalty for the hard cap that could replace some of the other penalties we currently have: Maybe "days" is too short of an interval, but I think it's a very interesting idea.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 26, 2017 15:17:19 GMT
I think I agree, but not match 'exact' contract - meaning you can play around with increasing/decreasing The extra year is really only for extensions. Match exactly is how the rule works. The restricted free agent rule is really for the guys who you aren't sure what the value is. Lets use RL Hayward as an example, if they just flat out offer him the 5 year max of course he'd gonna sign and stay. But they waited to see if someone would offer him the max. Charlotte did so they matched it. Another example, Delly was a RFA. David Griffin incorrectly waited to give him an offer to see if he could match a baby 4mil per year offer which Delly might have signed if they had offered it up front. But Milwaukee made Cleveland have to make a choice by overpaying a little bit. It allows those middle tier teams to get the all important mid tier talent to bring them into contention. I think it should be "match exactly". This will allow for more decision making to be made in free agency by gms. The more we lax up on the rules, making it easier for gms, the easier it is for disparity to continue. Since there is no real money in this league, we need to implement rules that require a lot of thinking/decision making where opportunity costs are relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 26, 2017 15:30:49 GMT
Ian NobleI ran across an interesting penalty for the hard cap that could replace some of the other penalties we currently have: Maybe "days" is too short of an interval, but I think it's a very interesting idea. Meh, too complicated imho
|
|