|
Post by Ian Noble on May 28, 2017 8:35:10 GMT
Scrapping RFAFor the first time in D5 History we're going to make a big change on the fly for what I believe will be better for the entire league - we are going to scrap the newly introduced Restricted Free Agency process (and replace it with tradable Bird Rights on rookie contract players). A working RFA system is fantastically over-complicated, placing too much strain on GMs who already have enough rules to follow, and RFA also places more workload on Player Agents. More importantly RFA is easily replaced with a much simpler system: Tradable Bird Rights on rookie contract playersFrom now on the Bird Rights on rookie contract players can traded. - What would have been this year's crop of Restricted Free Agents, the 2013 Draft Crop, will instead play out their fifth and final year with their teams as normal. They will not be free agents until next year.
- The 2013 Draft Crop, and all other players on rookie contracts, can be traded and their Bird Rights will be traded along with them.
- In future when rookie contracts end (after the fifth and final year) the player will enter into Off Season Free Agency like normal and their re-signing team will possess Bird Rights no matter how long the player has been with their team.
I apologise for the confusion this has created, I should have foreseen this back in February when the matter was discussed. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask here on in PM.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on May 28, 2017 14:16:20 GMT
Ugh.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:33:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 14:18:04 GMT
I'll point out that it doesn't put more work on player agents, actually quite less. Now all of those players that would've seen a few pitches and sign an offer sheet now have full-blown negotiations again.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:33:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 14:31:21 GMT
zach lavine otb
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 28, 2017 14:36:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on May 28, 2017 14:42:05 GMT
I like the move. Simple, straightforward and offers basically the same benefits, but these benefits are advantages, not guarantees. I think there is some Kawhi Leonard shellshock going on and people think all the good young stars will up and leave now. That was an odd situation that had a combination of a shitty franchise going nowhere and an apathetic GM not interested in doing anything about it.
Looking around the league, the only guy who might be at risk of leaving imo is Damian Lillard. The odds that guys like Giannis or Towns will leave their teams are very small.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:33:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 14:49:21 GMT
Ian, this also changes some things, in that now all the 2nd rounders since 2013 now have Bird rights as well? Including the ones given the two year deal?
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on May 28, 2017 14:50:16 GMT
I know I could banned for this, but why can't we just allow Bird Rights to be trade-able like in the real NBA? This would avoid Vlade with Sacramento-type situations.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:33:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 14:56:29 GMT
I know I could banned for this, but why can't we just allow Bird Rights to be trade-able like in the real NBA? This would avoid Vlade with Sacramento-type situations. If your primary focus of these rules is increasing activity, this would do it. People complain about less off-season activity, but that's a really weird complaint to have. Oh no so we only have like 700 posts instead of 1000 in the offseason? There's no problem with activity during the offseason. The problem is with activity during the regular season, and if you can shift 300 posts from the offseason to the regular season, you should do it. And making bird right's tradeable would do that. We've had 54 trades this season, counting both accepted and rejected threads. How many more would being able to trade Bird Rights have facilitated? It would've facilitated a few from me for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 28, 2017 15:02:26 GMT
Ian, this also changes some things, in that now all the 2nd rounders since 2013 now have Bird rights as well? Including the ones given the two year deal? I think that's a different conversation. Up until now it's only affected 1st Rounders. There's no particular reason for it to not affect 2nd Rounders, I just think there's been enough upheaval for yet more change to occur for now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:33:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 15:04:23 GMT
Ian, this also changes some things, in that now all the 2nd rounders since 2013 now have Bird rights as well? Including the ones given the two year deal? I think that's a different conversation. Up until now it's only affected 1st Rounders. There's no particular reason for it to not affect 2nd Rounders, I just think there's been enough upheaval for yet more change to occur for now. Hmm, from reading the OP I got the impression it was changed. It currently includes all rookies drafted after 2013. Maybe more specificity will be needed if that wasn't your intention.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 28, 2017 15:09:33 GMT
I know I could banned for this, but why can't we just allow Bird Rights to be trade-able like in the real NBA? This would avoid Vlade with Sacramento-type situations. I think one of the aspects that makes D5 stand out from other leagues could be the sense of realism, or the roleplaying aspect? Hand in hand with that aspect of D5 is each GMs dedication to their players: Danny Longley's dedication to Dirk, Magic Johnson's dedication to Kobe before retirement and Kevin Hollis's dedication to KD for instance. Even dedication to players that are not playing for their real-life teams anymore: Mike Krzyzewski's dedication to Melo, Alex English's dedication to James Harden etc. I worry that making ALL Bird Rights tradable you invite teams to become all like a trading carousel and you lose that sense of dedication and realism.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:33:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 15:21:38 GMT
I know I could banned for this, but why can't we just allow Bird Rights to be trade-able like in the real NBA? This would avoid Vlade with Sacramento-type situations. I think one of the aspects that makes D5 stand out from other leagues could be the sense of realism, or the roleplaying aspect? Hand in hand with that aspect of D5 is each GMs dedication to their players: Danny Longley 's dedication to Dirk, Magic Johnson 's dedication to Kobe before retirement and Kevin Hollis 's dedication to KD for instance. Even dedication to players that are not playing for their real-life teams anymore: Mike Krzyzewski 's dedication to Melo, Alex English 's dedication to James Harden etc. I worry that making ALL Bird Rights tradable you invite teams to become all like a trading carousel and you lose that sense of dedication and realism. Maybe it would just make that dedication even more special.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 28, 2017 15:26:44 GMT
I think one of the aspects that makes D5 stand out from other leagues could be the sense of realism, or the roleplaying aspect? Hand in hand with that aspect of D5 is each GMs dedication to their players: Danny Longley 's dedication to Dirk, Magic Johnson 's dedication to Kobe before retirement and Kevin Hollis 's dedication to KD for instance. Even dedication to players that are not playing for their real-life teams anymore: Mike Krzyzewski 's dedication to Melo, Alex English 's dedication to James Harden etc. I worry that making ALL Bird Rights tradable you invite teams to become all like a trading carousel and you lose that sense of dedication and realism. Maybe it would just make that dedication even more special. that is also a possibility
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on May 28, 2017 17:31:44 GMT
I know I could banned for this, but why can't we just allow Bird Rights to be trade-able like in the real NBA? This would avoid Vlade with Sacramento-type situations. I say this every time this comes up but enacting this would destroy parity in D5. Good teams would continue to churn through awesome players and wouldn't ever have to let them go. In addition free agency would be hurt. I can go into more detail if needed but I am very very very against this idea. I personally think it would disastrous for D5.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on May 28, 2017 18:01:49 GMT
Think this is the wrong move, and I await the moment someone gets screwed over.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:33:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 18:52:44 GMT
I know I could banned for this, but why can't we just allow Bird Rights to be trade-able like in the real NBA? This would avoid Vlade with Sacramento-type situations. I say this every time this comes up but enacting this would destroy parity in D5. Good teams would continue to churn through awesome players and wouldn't ever have to let them go. In addition free agency would be hurt. I can go into more detail if needed but I am very very very against this idea. I personally think it would disastrous for D5. I'd love to hear the arguments because I feel like I refuted them in an earlier thread. Bird rights being tradeable helps the bad teams more than the good because you don't lose your stars for nothing. Imagine how much better off Sacramento would be right now if birds were tradeable.
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on May 28, 2017 20:32:28 GMT
I'm resigning as the gm of the Phoenix Suns
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on May 28, 2017 21:31:12 GMT
I say this every time this comes up but enacting this would destroy parity in D5. Good teams would continue to churn through awesome players and wouldn't ever have to let them go. In addition free agency would be hurt. I can go into more detail if needed but I am very very very against this idea. I personally think it would disastrous for D5. I'd love to hear the arguments because I feel like I refuted them in an earlier thread. Bird rights being tradeable helps the bad teams more than the good because you don't lose your stars for nothing. Imagine how much better off Sacramento would be right now if birds were tradeable. I agree with everything Billy says.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 7, 2024 16:33:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 21:36:07 GMT
I agree with everything Billy says. Quoted for truth
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 28, 2017 21:53:35 GMT
I'm resigning as the gm of the Phoenix Suns What's up?
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on May 28, 2017 22:16:08 GMT
I say this every time this comes up but enacting this would destroy parity in D5. Good teams would continue to churn through awesome players and wouldn't ever have to let them go. In addition free agency would be hurt. I can go into more detail if needed but I am very very very against this idea. I personally think it would disastrous for D5. I'd love to hear the arguments because I feel like I refuted them in an earlier thread. Bird rights being tradeable helps the bad teams more than the good because you don't lose your stars for nothing. Imagine how much better off Sacramento would be right now if birds were tradeable. Because it lets the good teams churn through good player after good player and makes their defacto salary cap not the actual cap number but whatever the hard cap is. Right now only 2 or 3 teams are near the hard cap but if we had tradeable bird rights then every good team would start aggregating salary and because money isn't real here, it's more useful to be at $140 million or so in salary every year than it is to be at $105 million since you can always trade for an expiring star and then resign him to any amount. The other effect I see is that free agency activity will decrease and subsequently cap space will be devalued. One of a rebuilding team's strongest weapons is having cap space and luring a high rated free agent for free. But Bird rights team will always be able to pay more and always be able to go over the cap so in most situations players will resign. Moves such as James Kay's signing of Ibaka a few years ago or when the Timberwolves got Bledsoe that catapulted those teams into contention won't happen as often if at all. It leaves the teams at the bottom stuck with not many options to move up and will lead to even more teams trying to tank for the best players since free agency won't be as robust. I see no problem with the 3 year bird rights rule we have currently. If you want to keep a player so badly just have him on your team for 3 years or identify that you want him while he's still young. I think eliminating RFA and shifting it to rookie bird rights is the right move Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on May 28, 2017 22:28:40 GMT
I'd love to hear the arguments because I feel like I refuted them in an earlier thread. Bird rights being tradeable helps the bad teams more than the good because you don't lose your stars for nothing. Imagine how much better off Sacramento would be right now if birds were tradeable. Because it lets the good teams churn through good player after good player and makes their defacto salary cap not the actual cap number but whatever the hard cap is. Right now only 2 or 3 teams are near the hard cap but if we had tradeable bird rights then every good team would start aggregating salary and because money isn't real here, it's more useful to be at $140 million or so in salary every year than it is to be at $105 million since you can always trade for an expiring star and then resign him to any amount. The other effect I see is that free agency activity will decrease and subsequently cap space will be devalued. One of a rebuilding team's strongest weapons is having cap space and luring a high rated free agent for free. But Bird rights team will always be able to pay more and always be able to go over the cap so in most situations players will resign. Moves such as James Kay's signing of Ibaka a few years ago or when the Timberwolves got Bledsoe that catapulted those teams into contention won't happen as often if at all. It leaves the teams at the bottom stuck with not many options to move up and will lead to even more teams trying to tank for the best players since free agency won't be as robust. I see no problem with the 3 year bird rights rule we have currently. If you want to keep a player so badly just have him on your team for 3 years or identify that you want him while he's still young. I think eliminating RFA and shifting it to rookie bird rights is the right move Ian. That is ridiculous. How many huge cap space teams got a free agent last year? Because no PA values flat dollar values and you have Walt lowering total values of contracts which is bullshit. People should get fucked with huge contracts if they offer them. It happens in real life cough cough Milwaukee. RFA was going to be the next natural step towards true realism. I'm not gonna cry about it. I think maybe it needs a little bit more refinement as we clearly sort of just all had our own idea of what it would mean. I would really like to see this get implemented though.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on May 29, 2017 1:09:02 GMT
I will say that its a travesty if Lillard leaves. He literally is quoted saying he doesn't care if he wins a championship if he can stay in Portland. He's been in Sac forever.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on May 29, 2017 1:26:53 GMT
I will say that its a travesty if Lillard leaves. He literally is quoted saying he doesn't care if he wins a championship if he can stay in Portland. He's been in Sac forever. Very true. But how good would he look in a Brooklyn Nets jersey?
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on May 29, 2017 2:01:46 GMT
I'm resigning as the gm of the Phoenix Suns What's up? nevermind haha
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on May 29, 2017 2:40:40 GMT
I'd love to hear the arguments because I feel like I refuted them in an earlier thread. Bird rights being tradeable helps the bad teams more than the good because you don't lose your stars for nothing. Imagine how much better off Sacramento would be right now if birds were tradeable. Because it lets the good teams churn through good player after good player and makes their defacto salary cap not the actual cap number but whatever the hard cap is. Right now only 2 or 3 teams are near the hard cap but if we had tradeable bird rights then every good team would start aggregating salary and because money isn't real here, it's more useful to be at $140 million or so in salary every year than it is to be at $105 million since you can always trade for an expiring star and then resign him to any amount. The other effect I see is that free agency activity will decrease and subsequently cap space will be devalued. One of a rebuilding team's strongest weapons is having cap space and luring a high rated free agent for free. But Bird rights team will always be able to pay more and always be able to go over the cap so in most situations players will resign. Moves such as James Kay's signing of Ibaka a few years ago or when the Timberwolves got Bledsoe that catapulted those teams into contention won't happen as often if at all. It leaves the teams at the bottom stuck with not many options to move up and will lead to even more teams trying to tank for the best players since free agency won't be as robust. I see no problem with the 3 year bird rights rule we have currently. If you want to keep a player so badly just have him on your team for 3 years or identify that you want him while he's still young. I think eliminating RFA and shifting it to rookie bird rights is the right move Ian. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with anything you said, but of this is minor compared to the negative effects of Bird Rights. I am not even going to pretend to make it fictional because we saw it happen. Sacramento Kings Major Assets: Damian Lillard (possess bird rights) Russel Westbrook (possess bird rights) Marc Gasol (no bird rights) I don't want to get into the fact whether or not Marc Gasol would have resigned with my team or not. Rather, let us assume that he does not resign for whatever reason. Now, the Kings faced a situation where A. they cannot contend B. they cannot get enough value for Westbrook or Lillard because the new team will not have their bird rights. What are they supposed to do? Does this seem right to anyone? Answer that question, Brian or anyone else, and I will support BRs for more than three years. In my opinion, it is an arbitrary and capricious rule that does nothing but curtail trading. Several of the contending teams ignored the salary cap, so we added a hard cap to prevent that from happening as much. A player can choose to leave with or without bird rights, but a team can at least some value for a player that leaves (ala Cleveland got picks for LeBron James when he left for Miami in real life) by trading away their bird rights. Honestly, I don't see what function this rule serves.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on May 29, 2017 4:11:29 GMT
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with anything you said, but of this is minor compared to the negative effects of Bird Rights. I am not even going to pretend to make it fictional because we saw it happen. Sacramento Kings Major Assets: Damian Lillard (possess bird rights) Russel Westbrook (possess bird rights) Marc Gasol (no bird rights) I don't want to get into the fact whether or not Marc Gasol would have resigned with my team or not. Rather, let us assume that he does not resign for whatever reason. Now, the Kings faced a situation where A. they cannot contend B. they cannot get enough value for Westbrook or Lillard because the new team will not have their bird rights. What are they supposed to do? Does this seem right to anyone? Answer that question, Brian or anyone else, and I will support BRs for more than three years. In my opinion, it is an arbitrary and capricious rule that does nothing but curtail trading. Several of the contending teams ignored the salary cap, so we added a hard cap to prevent that from happening as much. A player can choose to leave with or without bird rights, but a team can at least some value for a player that leaves (ala Cleveland got picks for LeBron James when he left for Miami in real life) by trading away their bird rights. Honestly, I don't see what function this rule serves. I think with a hard cap that's low enough, you're probably right. Disallowing the trading of bird rights, and having a hard cap sort serve the same function. One is just on a team level, the other an individual level. Look at how much everyone in this league hates the cap ignoring moves I've made (like acquiring Josh Smith). I don't care at all about salary, I don't have to pay these guys. So if I'm going to be over the cap, why not be really over the cap. By having a salary of $160 million vs $100 million I'm actually increasing the money I have to play with by $60 million. These are basically the concerns of Brian Scalabrine I think. How much worse is it, when I can not only horde all the bad contracts, but I can also now re-sign them using traded bird rights? At that point, the salary cap is barely a real thing to me. In that situation the rule mattered. But now, with a hard cap, I can't play that game anymore. I have tons of expiring money next season that I could have taken advantage of but I now have to let it come off my books just to stay under the limit. So yea.. I think the primary effect of not allowing bird rights to be traded is no longer to promote parity by preventing salary hording, but now to hurt parity because teams that know they will lose players to free agency can't get anything for them.
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on May 29, 2017 12:57:07 GMT
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with anything you said, but of this is minor compared to the negative effects of Bird Rights. I am not even going to pretend to make it fictional because we saw it happen. Sacramento Kings Major Assets: Damian Lillard (possess bird rights) Russel Westbrook (possess bird rights) Marc Gasol (no bird rights) I don't want to get into the fact whether or not Marc Gasol would have resigned with my team or not. Rather, let us assume that he does not resign for whatever reason. Now, the Kings faced a situation where A. they cannot contend B. they cannot get enough value for Westbrook or Lillard because the new team will not have their bird rights. What are they supposed to do? Does this seem right to anyone? Answer that question, Brian or anyone else, and I will support BRs for more than three years. In my opinion, it is an arbitrary and capricious rule that does nothing but curtail trading. Several of the contending teams ignored the salary cap, so we added a hard cap to prevent that from happening as much. A player can choose to leave with or without bird rights, but a team can at least some value for a player that leaves (ala Cleveland got picks for LeBron James when he left for Miami in real life) by trading away their bird rights. Honestly, I don't see what function this rule serves. I think with a hard cap that's low enough, you're probably right. Disallowing the trading of bird rights, and having a hard cap sort serve the same function. One is just on a team level, the other an individual level. Look at how much everyone in this league hates the cap ignoring moves I've made (like acquiring Josh Smith). I don't care at all about salary, I don't have to pay these guys. So if I'm going to be over the cap, why not be really over the cap. By having a salary of $160 million vs $100 million I'm actually increasing the money I have to play with by $60 million. These are basically the concerns of Brian Scalabrine I think. How much worse is it, when I can not only horde all the bad contracts, but I can also now re-sign them using traded bird rights? At that point, the salary cap is barely a real thing to me. In that situation the rule mattered. But now, with a hard cap, I can't play that game anymore. I have tons of expiring money next season that I could have taken advantage of but I now have to let it come off my books just to stay under the limit. So yea.. I think the primary effect of not allowing bird rights to be traded is no longer to promote parity by preventing salary hording, but now to hurt parity because teams that know they will lose players to free agency can't get anything for them. Even before the hardcap, most of the players acquired by you, LAC, the Heat, etc. were players on their last leg such as Josh Smith. Once they expire, their contracts come off the books which enable you to trade for another guy on his last leg with a massive contract.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on May 29, 2017 18:03:00 GMT
I will say that its a travesty if Lillard leaves. He literally is quoted saying he doesn't care if he wins a championship if he can stay in Portland. He's been in Sac forever. Very true. But how good would he look in a Brooklyn Nets jersey? The jerseys are the only thing cool about that team. Its run by an idiot in real life and in D5.
|
|