|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 25, 2013 9:45:18 GMT
This appears to me to be a significant change in how qualifying offers work. It's certainly possible that I didn't pay close enough attention to the matter.
Previously, I was under the impression that the QO simply gave the owner of that player the right to match any higher bids and hold that player for one additional year.
If I'm understanding this right, however, QOs actually allow the owner the chance to offer a multi-year extension. Declining to offer a QO means the player doesn't even get exposed as a restricted free agent for one more year, but no extension can be offered.
Why it matters: I've made several moves based on this incorrect understanding. I could've held Pekovic for a second year without paying a free agent rate! Same with Splitter.
Qualifying offers have changed from something to generally avoid to being better than a team option.
I appreciate the clarification on this, but didn't realize it was unclear in the first place.
This is still the greatest basketball league I've been a part of, but I wish I knew whether I was mistaken or if this is a change in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jan 25, 2013 12:30:40 GMT
The rule did not changed.
Simply there were some doubts about it, and we decided to clarify it now, after 3 pm's in the last few days about that subject, we realized that it was not written anywhere (it was a mistake because we had this same text in our original rules on the word document).
I've seen some discussions in the chat about it, and the owners were talking about keeping the players for that salary and then releasing them via FA (Harden is a guy I'm sure i read about it), so we thought everyone understood it like us.
We were wrong, and we are sorry for that, as apparently there were some moves made under false assumptions.
I will discuss with Jose the possibility of making a league vote to decide if this rule will be applied only next season and not this one. If the majority of the league thought the rule was different, I can see a point in postponing it to next season and this year's QO would be auto picked and subject to bidding.
This last one is unfair for someone that traded for a player thinking about keeping the player for 1 more year for "cheap", but I think we must go with the majority here.
Like i said, I will discuss it with Jose, but would like to read your opinions here.
Sorry again.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 25, 2013 13:46:31 GMT
Thanks for understanding.
I thought the rule was clear when apparently it wasn't. If other owners also thought that every QO was automatically open to concealed bidding at the end of the season then it undoubtedly affected many decisions made thus far. Harden would definitely top that list. I have no room to complain, and will be just fine taking these new additions into account.
If the rule was really unclear, I understand you would have to do something about it, and any clarification would seem to be a change to those who understood it differently.
Again, I think you guys do a great job running this league. Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 14:57:21 GMT
"If other owners also thought that every QO was automatically open to concealed bidding at the end of the season then it undoubtedly affected many decisions made thus far. Harden would definitely top that list. I have no room to complain, and will be just fine taking these new additions into account."
This was my understanding as well. Tiago with your explanation please correct me if I'm wrong, does that mean their really are no rfa's? Is the QO just their to allow an owner to sign the player to an extension(in which case in this type league, would anyone? It would be cheaper to leave their contract dirt cheap sign a superstar and then let their player with the QO walk)? If we're trying to emulate the nba shouldn't the rfa be like it too? Look at the UFA list. The top 3 superstars will almost certainly be taken by TWO teams only. It leaves some guys like big al there sure but nowhere near superstar level of cp3, dh12, and josh smith. Then add all the rfa's and look at the talent level explosion that becomes available; harden, curry, Jennings just to name a few. It adds more strategy to the entire league; should I let player a walk because there's A superstar in player B that I really want to sign. Nicolas batum almost became a twolve and Landry fields became a raptor because of rfa. If I understand by you're explanation then honestly, having the orange QO on a players contract doesn't even matter. I love this league but that's my opinion
|
|
|
Post by Suns GM (Roberto) on Jan 25, 2013 15:15:42 GMT
first of all, i agree with the rule. having said that, i can see the problem of some teams that made their trades without fully understanding the rule, adding to the fact that it wasn't written in the league rules thread.
My suggestion is to postpone the teams decision to submit a contract from the trade deadline to the end of the playoffs/season, giving more time to think about what to do.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jan 25, 2013 15:29:41 GMT
There are RFA's.
A team that have a player with QO has two options:
- Pick up the QO, making a bid and the player becomes a RFA - doesn't pick the QO, keeps the player for the last year at his price, and then he becomes UFA the year after that
for good players, i believe lots of people will pick up the QO and match the offer, so they can get those players for 4 more years.
But like i said, I will talk with Jose with the input from this thread already coming into discussion, and I am thinking about a league vote on this subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 16:10:28 GMT
i've only got one thing to say about this. if, by declining the QO, the GM then gets to keep the player for the final year of his contract at the QO price. what's the point of RFA? you would have to be stupid to accept the QO. i would take the extra year at the low price and if i still wanted to keep the guy beyond that i would be able to bid on him in the open. i would do that 100 times out of 100. the rule is fine aside from that. just change the "decline" rule to mean that once the option is declined the player automatically becomes UFA at seasons end
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 25, 2013 16:13:58 GMT
Of the 2 options:
"1. Pick up the QO, making a bid and the player becomes a RFA 2. doesn't pick the QO, keeps the player for the last year at his price, and then he becomes UFA the year after that"
I've been thinking the exact same thing as the Kings, option 2 is almost always going to be the one chosen.
This league is won by having good bargain contracts. Kobe may be wonderful, but at $30m he doesn't really help as much as he should. We've just examined Joe Johnson's value several times, and I think very few would choose to have his contract when given the choice of a shorter, much cheaper deal.
If a player exceeds expectations and is offered a QO, they are going to go up in price. If a player underperforms, then they won't be offered an extension. I expect a great majority (if not all) to decline offering the QO and simply keep the player cheap for one more year.
I don't mind this arrangement, but more important than taking a vote on approving or disapproving this, I'd be curious to know how many owners would really extend these Qualifying Offers. Is there a way that could be made into a poll?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 18:42:14 GMT
I COMPLETELY agree with spurs and lac. If you decline your QO thus declining your ability to sign your player for longer years at what would be below the price they'd go for as an UFA, then the player should either
A) become an outright UFA
B) become an NBA type RFA where a team can sign him to an offer sheet.
Instead of not being penalized for declining which should be a GREAT ability in like I said, keeping a star for longer years below market value of Unrestricted Free Agency.
IMO now that the confusion about the whole thing has come out and it was stated that gms can essentially keep their players dirt cheap just by declining the QO no one who has a player coming into a QO will vote for a fairer RFA rule.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jan 25, 2013 18:48:46 GMT
I will wait for Jose, but I have to say that I was planing (and still are if the rules doesn't change) to pickup all my QO's so I can get those players 4 more years for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 19:04:11 GMT
Well perfect example for me is that I've already been told by a fellow gm that "hey I'm gonna decline the QO and keep this great player dirt cheap and sign superstar A for this ridiculous amount of money that no one can match". Where is the competitiveness in that? I agree with every single rule in this league except this one. This is one of the easiest rules that could have been made since we're supposed to be emulating the NBA and the NBA RFA is you have this player and he gets an offer sheet and you either match it or lose him. Again this is my opinion. You guys do great work tho.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jan 25, 2013 19:04:31 GMT
So, there are lots of thing being discussed in the same thread and if we decide to put this to league voting, we will need more than 1 poll i guess.
1 - If this rule is good or not
2 - IF we plan to keep this rules as it is, should it be in place for this season or not, given that it seems some people weren't aware of our idea for the QO's
Jose will later post here his thoughts on the matter, and we will go from there, and if needed, a Poll will be made and every owner will receive a PM and possibly an email asking them to vote.
I will be without connection until sunday afternoon, but Jose will keep me updated and I will try (if needed) to find some way to get internet access.
Again, no matter how this ends, sorry about the starting error of not having this in the League Rules.
|
|
|
Post by Suns GM (Roberto) on Jan 25, 2013 19:14:19 GMT
I think that it would depend on the player and the cap available. Stephen Curry, James Harden or Paul George would have bids over 20M average salary probably, so their value would be about the same as in free agency. I would keep them one more year.
But with non superstars, why not risk it and use the 20% leverage? I have never experienced a one bid auction like that, but i think nobody is going to go nuts with Gerald Henderson or Tiago Splitter.
Again, i have never been through this.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 25, 2013 19:27:17 GMT
The reasons I see for someone offering a qualifying offer are:
1. Personal attachment to a player regardless of value. (I might consider it if Ginobili had a QO. 3+ years with a base salary of $14 minimum is a bad investment, but I would love to keep Ginobili so maybe. However, if someone has that determination, he could just resolve to outbid everyone for his favorite player in free agency and enjoy the one cheap year first.)
2. A player who has underperformed, but the owner has extreme confidence will improve.
I don't mean to criticize your plan Tiago, but if you are going to extend Derrick Favors, here are the scenarios:
1. He plays well justifying his salary, other teams would love to add a young player like that. So you extend him for $20m over 3 years and risk losing him to a crazy bidder in the process instead of taking him at $8m for one year and try to resign him for $20m the next.
2. He plays poorly, not justifying his salary. No one would offer him $8m in free agency. However, you extend him 3 years with a starting figure of $8m.
The only real reason I can imagine this happening is if its a player someone is particularly attached to. It's not a good plan for staying competitive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 19:48:17 GMT
Honestly reasons I made the cp3 deal
A) I lose prince's bad contract, and was going to decline stuckey's PO anyway.
B) I believe singler is very talented and think he'll get a chance to be the THE sf in Detroit. Lowry is still a VERY good pg and will be even better when caldy leaves.
C) I knew there was a strong chance id lose cp3 in the summer (which now is guarenteed) but felt like I have cleared and can clear enough cap to make a run a budding stars like derozan, George, evans, curry, turner, or even harden who I'd all like better as a combo with Lowry than Lin, AD. I was 100% positive that this was the way RFA worked and now who am I left with? Big al.. Millsap.. Screwed me.
|
|