Re: Qualifying Offers

[Nuggets GM (Joe)]

I can see everyone got a point, some were informed one way and the others were not aware until now. And there's no way to satisify both parties. So my suggestion is to ignore the chance of keep player for one year. But at the same time, there should be sizeable advantage for those who's holding those QO contracts. Let's say maybe after they offer a contract, if no offer is 30% higher than what the original owner's offer, then the original owner get to keep that player with his original offer. Of course if there's any offer that is 30% higher, then the orginal owner get to choose if they want to match the offer or not.

I understand this doesn't sounds good to some owners. However, due to the fact that this situation already occur, and like I said, there's no solution that can satisfy both sides. I think both sides need to give up some to make this work.

But like I said, I respect the LM and will be okay with whatever the decision they make.

[Deleted]

Joe thats the best ideal Ive heard. I completely support it.

[76ers GM (Giga)]

I also thought that the QO was for that last year only.Until, a couple a days ago, I was talking to José and Tiago and they explained how the QO work. Then I've realized that QO's are more interesting then I thought it was. Fuck, how would I've traded Jrue (QO's next year with a nice contract for marcus"fat fuck who's playng nothing NOTHING" thornton?!?!? (not to mention the other guys involved...). But that's life! Move on!!!

And now what? Who thought that the QO's, like me, were for only the last year, well, we got sodomized. No worries...

This is a minor error (that was made by a honest mistake!!!) comparing with this league stands for. This is, probably, the best league that all of us as ever been. ok, they made a mistake, correct it, everybody now knows. Any questions? No? Approved!

Cheers!

[Celtics GM (Jose)]

After a lot of discussion on this topic, here's my point of view on what happened:

- Tiago and I had already written the rule we posted last week a while back when we noticed that the original rule was omissive
- However, and we don't know why, it was never posted
- I believe that whoever talked to us about this rule got the correct information on how it would work
- None of the mentions of RFA and QO's in past trades are unequivocal regarding what we had decided and started spreading around, or the contrary


On the rule itself and how it works and future ramifications:

- When we wrote the rule, the idea was to give an edge to an owner that through planning could get an extra year out of a good player at a low price and have a go at the title, knowing that it would very likely cost him that player at the end of the extra year
- I do not agree with the strategic opinion going around that 95% of QO's wouldn't be picked up
- I'd rather have a guy at 5M/10M/15M/20M for 4 years and know that i'm the one deciding if he stays or goes, than an extra year at a very low price and probably never see him again
- As i've stated above, only in cases where i feel like i have a legitimate chance next year, i wouldn't pick up the QO and have him at the stipulated price on the last year


As it seems, there are lots of folks that had a different understanding of the rule, but we need to know the implications that this decision may have on the various owners.

So we're starting a poll, just to know what you guys thought the rule was. (This poll is also an activity-test)

Please be true to the understanding you had of the QO's and RFA process previous to this topic being brought up.