RFA - Nando de Colo

[Thunder GM (Tiago)]

As expecteded, there was zero interest in the Frenchman guard, that will play in europe next season.

Jose made the (new) minimum 1 year bid, with a $1,83 M contract, and keeps him (at least until December).

Just that you know, this RFA proved us that we need some small changes in this process, and next year things will be a bit different.

Teams won't need to pick up their QO's prior to this RFA period.

And if they don't bid in their RFA's and nobody else bids on them also, they will turn UFA.

[Deleted]

I think if nobody bids on the player they should be retained for their QO. In real life the player has the choice to sign a QO offered by the team that's why they are in place.

[Nuggets GM (Joe)]

Agree with Loren. I think if anyone offer contract, it has to be with a min of 3 years (including the original owner). And if no one bid on the RFA (including the original owner), then the RFA get to return to their original team for 1 year with that QO.

[Thunder GM (Tiago)]

You are missing the point.

We have in our rules, that the TEAM decides if they pick up the QO or not.

We are only going to delay that decision, from the current trade deadline to the start of RFA.

[Deleted]

No your missing the point. I'm saying a team should not get to decline a contract if no one bids on their player. They should be forced to pay the player the 1yr QO. NOT returned to the UFA pool.

I like that your extending the period of accepting or declining QOs, but my point above is beside that.

[Nuggets GM (Joe)]

agree with Loren again

[Thunder GM (Tiago)]

That rule is already set in our league and is NOT going to change.

So, the only thing that is changing (or not, thus "the point")is the deadline to decide if a team does pick the QO or not.

It can't be me missing the point, because I know what the point is because I was the one that started the conversation...

What you are talking about is not debatable, so it can't be a "point".

Also, how can the two following sentences work together?

"a team should not get to decline a contract if no one bids on their player"

"the period of accepting or declining QOs"

[Thunder GM (Tiago)]

Also, by NBA rules:

What is a qualifying offer?
For a team to make one of their players a restricted free agent, they must submit a qualifying offer to the player by June 30. This offer must be a one year offer for 125% of the player's previous salary or the player's minimum salary plus $175,000 (whichever is greater). If a player agrees to this offer, they play under a one-year contract and become an unrestricted free agent the following year. If not, he becomes a restricted free agent.

What is an offer sheet?
If another team wants to sign a restricted free agent, they extend an offer sheet to the player. If he signs it, the original team now has seven days to match.


www.nba.com/knicks/freeagency/faqs.html

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2014 13:59:51 GMT Thunder GM (Tiago) said:

And if they don't bid in their RFA's and nobody else bids on them also, they will turn UFA.

So, this is what I am referring to. This was MY point that YOU missed. I was not claiming you missed your own point obviously I was claiming you were misunderstanding what joe and I were referring to.

Once in RFA if a player is not big upon by anybody, then that player should not be released into UFA...as you stated above. They should be on the one year deal, or QO, they were offered by their team originally.

No point in posting the NBA rules on QOs as I already know them and are only supporting what I am stating. Unless what I quoted here from you was a mis understanding on my part, this should not be the rule.

Hope your seeing MY point now

[Deleted]

Also the 2 quotes you posted of mine are out of context, but they go together because the first quote refers to a player already going through the RFA process, the second quote refers to accepting the QO before the RFA period begins. Not sure what the confusion was about.

[Thunder GM (Tiago)]

What I'm saying is that those two periods should be together in a dynasty fantasy league, in my opinion.

And we are thinking about joining them.

This is something that some of you already asked us to do on the past and we now agree.

We are not real teams and can control lots of stuff about real players.

So, I see as a disadvantage for the owner having to decide 5 months in advance, because the real team can trade then, send them to Europe, etc.

This way you can decide what to do in "real time" when RFA is happening.

You can decide to let them go to UFA (like you always could, but now five months later), you can bid and/or match.

It's just putting the two periods together so we can't be harmed by the decisions real players and real teams make in those five months.

But if anyone can explain me one advantage of having this process in February, I could change my mind...

[Suns GM (Roberto)]

Aug 28, 2014 22:26:02 GMT Thunder GM (Tiago) said:

So, I see as a disadvantage for the owner having to decide 5 months in advance, because the real team can trade then, send them to Europe, etc.

This alone is more than enough to agree with the proposed change, imo.

[Former Spurs GM (Adam)]

Deciding on QOs at the beginning of the RFA period makes perfect sense. Very good idea to change that!

What I think Loren (and Joe) are saying is that once a team offers a QO, then under no circumstances should they convert to UFA. The QO is is a contract offer in itself. I agree with them also.

It may have just been misstated at the top of this report that an RFA receiving no bids becomes a UFA, since all RFAs have at least one offer already on the table. A player whose QO is declined should become a UFA.

If I could ask a separate question as well - Aside from the one year QO, are we going back to 3 year minimum bids in the future? (As stated in the original rules.) Thanks.

[Former Spurs GM (Adam)]

Come to think of it, should the same courtesy be extended to players with Team Options?

There are so many factors out of our control that delaying that decision could offer the same advantages as what's being discussed here.

[Stephen]

Does this mean I can lose Pargo???