|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 29, 2013 16:40:16 GMT
A few things I really appreciate about all this:
Pope's simple, well explained proposal. (Despite just joining the league, he hits the nail on the head.)
David's honesty in not reversing course despite recently trading for a good player with a QO.
Loren's comment about how closed bidding won't skyrocket the prices the same as open bidding. (Interesting thought. I think he's right. If so, it could provide a little incentive for some to expose their players as RFAs a year earlier. I'd love to have more data to compare what kind of discount could be expected, but that'll take some time.)
Mostly, I really appreciate Tiago and Jose even posting this poll, and taking into account what everyone thinks. They could've just said "Here's the rule. End of story." Even if nothing changes, its very respectable that they listened. Thanks guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jan 30, 2013 16:24:52 GMT
If Hawks and Clippers doesn't want to, we understand given the date when they joined us.
But we need the others 7 GM's to vote....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 16:53:16 GMT
Are the 2 Lms voting? (tiago&jose)
|
|
|
|
Post by Celtics GM (Jose) on Jan 30, 2013 17:19:31 GMT
We already did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 18:16:12 GMT
Ok, was just wondering if y'all were voting too or not
|
|
|
|
Post by Celtics GM (Jose) on Jan 30, 2013 18:51:39 GMT
Despite being LM's, we're also "playas"...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 19:02:02 GMT
well i know THAT lol... my only point is yall were the ones already knew what you wanted the rules to be. just thought you wanted to know what the rest of us thought in the poll |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 19:14:25 GMT
I'm ok with how rules are stated regarding QO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 20:27:13 GMT
For myself, the understanding of QO and RFA was that if you do not pick up the QO the player goes straight to UFA. I will say that i didn't spend an excess of my time reading and researching on that rule; I just thought that was fairly standard reading QO & RFA.
However, I don't mind the idea (or current structure of the rule) that if you don't extend the QO to said player, they you get to keep them at the QO contract price for one more year and then they will hit UFA. I think that IF RFA is closed and UFA is open (which is what I think I'm getting thru reading these) than this option definitely makes sense.
If you don't pick up the QO. You get your guys for one year at an affordable contract. Then they hit UFA and they are up for grabs. But if you DO extend the QO, you get the advantage of having your player go into a closed bidding format where you will have the final determination in where that player lands.
So after reviewing both options, how I thought it was and also how the LM's had intended it to be originally...
I like either way... I think it's just important that we determine the course of action going forward so GM can plan accordingly as some may be trying to deal their QO guys if they can't keep em for one year cheap.
I know this discussion applies directly to me as we've got DeRozan and Teague coming into QO years next season.
:/ lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 22:25:08 GMT
So my simple question is this... If more people vote for the "we get one more cheap deal" option is anything going to change or is this just part of the process? Because even if the remaining 5 votes votes that way, it looks like half the league voted the other way and made moves based on that thinking and to me that would be a major problem. Already now people with players who have RFA's and originally thought the other way are saying "hey I don't mind getting that extra year"(basically saying hell no I won't pick up the option). I AGREE that the QO should give a team an advantage and I think a rule like the one suggested by Joe would fix all this. You sign your player to a multiyear deal(which the QO is supposed to be for anyway) and if incoming offers from other teams(silent bids) aren't 30% better you keep your player at the multiyear contract you offered. It makes the QO work the way it's supposed to, while also giving equal opportunity to other teams.
|
|
Ethan
Role Player
Posts: 60
|
Post by Ethan on Jan 30, 2013 23:40:27 GMT
Tiago, even though you said I don't have to vote as I just got into the league and may not have a chance to decide, I will go ahead and vote (not just because it's an activity check).
I read the rules quickly, but the entire time I was following the assumption that the QO is not meant to be a positive benefit to the owner. That's why I thought you wouldn't be able to decline and keep a player for a cheap year, especially because this league does not grant extra value to offers that have longer years.
Since 1 year deals are going to be very very common and very very expensive, I genuinely thought you would not be able to get a 1 year ride.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 21:04:59 GMT
Utah picks up these offers.
QO's
UTA Tyler Hansbrough $4,23
UTA Byron Mullens $3,29
UTA Rodrigue Beaubois $3,27
TO
UTA Lance Stephenson $0,93
|
|
