|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 25, 2013 19:56:33 GMT
Good point Suns. I was focusing on the extremes.
Even for non-superstars, their owners have to give up a locked in rate and expect a price increase though. If they see value in locking a player up longer term, someone else will see that value too.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 25, 2013 23:09:25 GMT
If it helps I won't pick up hardens QO. I'm keeping him for cheap
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 23:18:08 GMT
-
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 23:18:23 GMT
The more i think about it the more i dont understand it tbh. If you pick up the QO THEN guy becomes a RFA and he can receive bids from other teams? You decline it and you keep him dirt cheap 1 more year? I dont see any incentive or anyone in their right mind picking up the QO.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jan 26, 2013 0:06:08 GMT
Hate this. I always thought we were able to bid on RFAs otherwise I never would have dealt Curry or Tyreke
Never would have made like any of the trades I made.
Every league I've ever been in for salary cap, you bid on RFAs and teams choose whether or not to match. Just like the NHL where teams submit what is called an offer sheet. Usually they have to be overpaid so that there's more of a chance the owner doesn't keep em
Again this is a rule I thought was inplemented here... So I traded Curry and Reke
Ridiculous if this is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 26, 2013 1:01:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 26, 2013 2:15:22 GMT
Tiago told me this rule as soon as I got harden week 6 from memory so it's been around a while
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2013 2:51:31 GMT
The rule was always decline the QO (results in you keeping him 1 year for the price listed on the spread) or accept the QO (everyone puts in an offer and the best offer wins or is matched by the owner of the player). I dont see the controversy here because its always been that way.
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Jan 26, 2013 2:59:57 GMT
I asked Tiago regarding this matter before and was told exactly the same as what magic and bucks said here. I will leave it to the LM to decide but just to let people know what I know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2013 3:03:41 GMT
Yea I mean the advantage is keep him 1 year for cheap or extend his contract for what the league thinks he is worth for slinger contract. I feel as if this rule was clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2013 3:29:50 GMT
"To sign a RFA, there will be a one-bid-blind-auction where every team will a have a chance of taking such player. Those offers should all be sent to a specific proboard account. Every offer must be at least 20% better in terms of average salary than the value of his contract's QO. The team that owned the player has 48 hours to decide if it wants to match the offer and keep the player or not."
TO ME THAT seems pretty clear. Nowhere does it state that you must pick up the QO in order for a player to become a RFA. I understand why joe and jay will fight hard for the what they were individually told after acquiring a player with a QO but to almost everyone else we were under the assumption that like it says in that rule "there will be a one-bid-blind-auction where every team will a have a chance of taking such player". Im obviously not the only one whose made trades with this assumption and it honestly isn't right. Even the raptors who have 2 RFA's says the DECLINE THE QO AND KEEP THE GUY CHEAP rule is "crap". Adam did great job finding trades where the way ya'lls responses supported the rule i posted here.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 26, 2013 3:36:08 GMT
If this was already established, it was done verbally without informing all owners.
In the TC, Tiago states that Pekovic will be a RFA next year. When trading for Splitter, Jose stated that he had a chance of keeping him. Other owners seem to have a short memory about conversations around re-signing players with QO.
None of this makes any sense if everyone knew they could just keep these players an extra year.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 26, 2013 8:18:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 26, 2013 8:43:27 GMT
Just to be fair, a few things I hadn't noticed before:
In the Warriors/Pacers trade, Warriors describes Curry and Evans as RFAs while Pacers says they will be cheap "this year and next". It's sad we didn't pick up on that discrepancy when it mattered.
In the Jazz/Magic trade, Magic was uncertain about whether he could keep Harden but mentioned it was worth the risk. I hadn't noticed that hint at a change either.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 26, 2013 9:25:17 GMT
I guess what I'm lobbying for with all this is to make the clarifications match the written rules as closely as possible (which don't have any provision for keeping a player by declining to offer a QO) rather than the verbal rules only some teams were aware of. Otherwise it's as if those teams had access to inside information that wasn't available to everyone. The written rules are available to anyone, and as David highlighted, seem to be clear enough that all players with a QO become RFAs. One of the great strengths of this league is how well written the rules are. Pretty flawless if you ask me. I really appreciate the great job Tiago and Jose do with this.
Sorry for getting too wrapped up in this. One of my pet peeves is midseason rule changes. And even though it was stated that this isn't a rule change, that's the appearance it has from my perspective after reviewing the rules and trade threads.
I'll gladly respect whatever decision is made. Thanks
|
|