|
Post by Celtics GM (Jose) on Jan 29, 2013 0:46:43 GMT
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
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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 0:54:06 GMT
can i just say one thing about what you wrote about not buying that 95% of people wouldnt pick up the QO, and only people who feel they have a legit shot to compete would decline it? IMO 95% of the league thinks they can somehow compete next year otherwise they wouldnt really be trying to make moves or care about the league. jst ask teams like anthony's or bee's if they think theyll be amazing next year
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 1:05:11 GMT
for me, its not the explaination of the rule (i know, and understand that it states that a rejected QO means player gets paid QO price for one year) The problem i have is that i can't understand why anyone would accept a QO when presented with the ability to decline and keep the player at the QO price. it makes no sense to me. sending a player to RFA surely means that player will be getting a raise from the QO price. why would anyone subject themselves to a blind bidding war when the other option is to keep the guy at a discount for one more year and then be able to bid for his services in the open market in a years time.
i understand the rule, and the idea behind it, i just feel like its a bad and unnecessarily complicated way to deal with QOs. rewrite the whole rule, make it simple. an accepted QO means the other 29 teams submit a bid, to which the current owner can match. a denied QO means the player goes straight to UFA. simple
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jan 29, 2013 1:05:20 GMT
Neither of these are correct.
Thought if you declined it player was a RFA which means people place blind bids and the owner has a chance onto match the contract or not
This would give you the player long term
Or if you choose to pick up the QO you get te cheap 1 year deal and the player is a UFA next year
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 1:07:10 GMT
agreed with LAC.. the way GSW doesnt make sense to me because essentially he just described a TO. This whole vote is now skewed because everyone who has a RFA AND thought if you have a RFA every team bids on him, will now simply vote for the way you guys just explained it.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 29, 2013 1:12:06 GMT
What is the time frame for this poll? Is it what we thought at the beginning of the season?
|
|
|
Post by Celtics GM (Jose) on Jan 29, 2013 1:19:46 GMT
It's for what you understood of the rule, in all the moves everyone has made so far, regarding the QO's and how it would work in the future.
Prior to the public release of the re-written rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 1:24:43 GMT
Well is RFA closed bidding as opposed to open bidding in UFA? And also is there some sort of pick compensation to excepting the QO then not matching top bid? These things would sway a team to accept or refuse QO. Cause we all know an open bid on these superstars will be an outrageous process and very pricey where as closed bidding would most likely end up being significantly less. Jw
|
|
|
Post by Pistons GM (Anthony) on Jan 29, 2013 1:31:52 GMT
i thought if QO declined the option was the players stays with current team for one more year at that offer or the current team could retain player or could decide to let player go to free agency, but then again that would be incorrect cause thats what TO is for....
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jan 29, 2013 2:46:33 GMT
No I assumed QO was a TO with an option to make the guy a RFA so you could keep him long term. This is how RFA and QOs have worked in all my leagues
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 29, 2013 3:13:26 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 3:21:22 GMT
even if most people vote for the way tiago and jose "wins", the other half already looks like voted under the other assumption.
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jan 29, 2013 3:34:50 GMT
I hope the trade threads can also be taken into account as an accurate picture of what people were thinking on the matter. It serves the same purpose as a poll, but with even greater description and clear time references.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jan 29, 2013 8:07:34 GMT
I have not voted because neither really fits what I thought. Option 2 yes I thought if you declined a QO you'd keep em for a year but it doesn't address if you accept... Which I assume is when the player becomes a RFA
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jan 29, 2013 9:29:52 GMT
The player will always be a RFA IF YOU PICK UP THE QO. That's not even under discussion.
The only thing that could have different views was when you don't pick up the QO. Does the player go to UFA or does he stay at his salary value?
So its:
Pick up QO - RFA - Bids - Match Don't Pick up QO - UFA
OR
Pick up QO - RFA - Bids - Match Don't Pick up QO - Stays for his salary - UFA next summer
|
|