|
Post by Suns GM (Roberto) on Jul 21, 2014 15:16:10 GMT
I think it's a little more complicated than that, because there are 2 variables in the sign and trade: - the contract offer - the players/picks that a team is willing to give back
This has to be good for both teams, right?
For example, if CHA thinks that in 2015/16 won't have enough cap to sign klay thompson, he declares his intent to sign and trade him. Imo, the bids of all interested teams should state klay's contract and the assets that they're willing to give back.
Then it should be similar to RFA rules, except not only the highest bidder wins, but all contract offers 20% above CHA QO would be valid (could be top 3/5, to avoid having offers too low).
CHA would then choose the valid offer with the best assets given.
If CHA opted to match, it would have to be the highest bid and the contract would start the next season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 15:39:20 GMT
I still stand by my point of view where only the original owner can work out a sign and trade with the highest bidder. I understand that this sign and trade is to give a chance for the original owner to get something back. However, we cannot forget the purpose of the original RFA bidding. I think it's crazy to think that I win the bid, but I lose a player for nothing. So now you have compensate the original owner, but no compensation for the highest bidder. This sign and trade doesn't work in every case, so I don't think we need to maximaze the chance at all. We move from original owner either match or get nothing in return to original owner can match or work out a sign and trade deal with highest bidder or get nothing in return. I think this already a big step forward. Winning the bid and losing the player for nothing is the same as the team matching the highest bid. I see that as the nature of RFA.
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Jul 21, 2014 16:06:46 GMT
Yes, but then you lose the player and the player doesn't goes back to the original team, instead goes to another team, which I think it's not fair.
And to Roberto, if I'm not misunderstanding, what you mean is that the original owner can discuss sign and trade with the top 3 bidder, and use their own bid. For example, if the highest bidder bid 20M for Cousins and offer 1 draft pick. 2nd highest bidder bid 16M and offer 2 draft picks. 3rd highest bidder bid 12M but offer 4 draft picks. Then the original owner can choose to do sign and trade with the 3rd highest bidder and if they do, the 3rd highest bidder only have to pay 12M to Cousins? I don't think that would work. If so, nobody would offer good money to the RFA and all they have to do is make good offer for sign and trade, so no, no, no, this is not going to work.
|
|
|
Post by Suns GM (Roberto) on Jul 21, 2014 16:22:08 GMT
It's exactly that Joe. The problem might occur when the original owner submits a QO that's too low, but in those cases the TC should veto.
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Jul 21, 2014 16:41:50 GMT
no, i hate that idea Roberto, and i explained that. I think the worst i would accept is that whoever get to do the sign and trade with the original owner, he has to pay whatever the highest bidder bid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 16:56:30 GMT
I think my idea is the best option. But of course I'm biased
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 21, 2014 16:57:36 GMT
Roberto, that would be perfect in real NBA since the player's opinion is also taken into account because they (in almost every case) only sign offer sheets to the team that offers the better contract.
In here we have to take that into account, and always pick the higher salary.
Also, I don't like having TC members deciding wether a contract is fair or not.
So, there are a few things that I feel must occur in every sign and trade process we implement:
1 - Original owner needs to have the cap to match (or he actually won the bidding) 2 - It has to be done in 24 hours because that's the time we have between RFAs 3 - The final contract has to be the one that won the bid, either from a new team or from the current owner
My only questions at this moment is with whom can the original owner do a sign and trade.
A) Owner can only discuss a sign and trade with the team that made the highest bid B) Owner can discuss with the top 2/3 teams that bid the most C) Owner can discuss with a X number of teams that he states before the bidding process D) Owner can discuss a sign and trade with every team during that 24 hour period
Again, this whole idea is so the teams that already have the players to gain something if they lose the player or decide not to match.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 21, 2014 17:46:44 GMT
Even if we go with the sign and trade only being allowed with the highest bidder,IF the original owner wins the bid, then what? In that case he could discuss it with everyone?
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Jul 21, 2014 17:49:32 GMT
if he wins the bid, i say keep it simple and just let him have the player.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 21, 2014 17:55:18 GMT
what if someone offers him at that point a good deal?
what's the difference? shouldn't he be allowed to at least discuss it with some of the guys that lost the bidding process?
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Jul 21, 2014 17:57:52 GMT
if that's the case, i don't think the new team should have that 20% discount for original owner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 18:04:30 GMT
If I can give my input.
I'd only allow the highest bidder to talk sign and trade with the original owner. I mean, he won the biding war, how can anyone else talk to the current owner? It's the most logical way and prevents from auction situations that could occur if you had 3 teams fighting fot the player. Plus as some mentioned, problem of bluffing from the original owner would be minimized this way, since there would only be one possible team for that sign and trade to occur. And the possibility of matching the offer is still strong enough to force something out of the GM with the winning bid.
And I don't think that bluffing would be such a major inssue this way. The GM with the winning bid could also bluff and say, here, match the player you obviously don't like so much and be stuck with him until the minimum of DEC 15th, and throw away your cap space and roster spot for someone on a contract you don't think is fair value. If the current owner has no cap space and is pushed into a corner, well... he knew what's coming, should plan for it.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Jul 21, 2014 18:06:25 GMT
100% agree with you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 19:06:07 GMT
In the option where you can only negotiate with the highest bidder I think the sign and trade would be pointless. I stand by my stance that no sign and trade will be be fair. Let's say the team who owns the player doesn't want to keep the player but can only negotiate with the highest bidder. The highest bidding team can say "hey I know you can't really afford to keep this guy so I offer you a couple of 2nds and cap for Gordon Hayward." This trade under normal circumstances would be an easy veto. But since the team who owns the player can only negotiate with the highest bidder, this is the best available trade option. This is wrong for many reasons. Its wrong since:
•The Tc SHOULDNT pass the trade because it would be terrible for the league and just a terrible trade overall. Why should this trade be passed just so the team trading the player doesn't lose him for nothing.
•If the Tc vetoes its sucks for the team who owns the player because now he's stuck in a cap log jam because he could only negotiate with one team that knew they arent obligated to part with fair pieces.
Its an avoidable double edged sword.
In my proposed idea there couldve been competitive negotiations that in the end could benefit both teams involved. Since negotiations are already going on, there should be almost no wait for a trade to be posted.
|
|
|
Post by Grizzlies GM (Max) on Jul 21, 2014 19:31:11 GMT
Just a little tidbit:
In a league I am in, we allow S+T between the signing team and the team that holds the player's rights for RFA and the signing team and any team for UFA since these players cannot be dealt until December 1st if not traded within in 48 hour S+T period. The main reasoning we have this is because our league allows teams to go slightly over the cap (usually $5M but this year we are experimenting with $15M) in the offseason and only in trades. So, this allows more teams to have access to more players and for a team with an RFA to get something if he does not have the necessary cap to match (because, also, if you go over cap by matching you have 24 hours to get under (I think we have something like that here))
Just my .02. I wrote some of the rules for this other league, the RFA and S+T ones specifically, so I know my way around them and whatnot.
|
|