Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Your thoughts on the RFA rules in the league

Posted on 12/14/13 at 10:10 am
Posted by quail man
New York, NY
Member since May 2010
40924 posts
Posted on 12/14/13 at 10:10 am
I'd love to hear from some people who know far more about contract stuff than myself but I'm going to spitball here and see where I get.

I feel like the Pelicans have been royally fricked by the RFA rules the past two years on both sides. First the Gordon shite then the forced trade of GV and Lopez (partially for cap room but also not) to get Reke. I get that RFA was somewhat there to help the small market teams (?) but I feel like it kinda handicaps them too. Should they just extend rookie contracts an extra year and allow complete free agency after?
Posted by JohnnyKilroy
Cajun Navy Vice Admiral
Member since Oct 2012
35280 posts
Posted on 12/14/13 at 10:12 am to
quote:

Should they just extend rookie contracts an extra year and allow complete free agency after?
Yes.

This is speaking from a philosophical pov, not necessarily as a pels fan.
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61434 posts
Posted on 12/14/13 at 10:17 am to
quote:

Should they just extend rookie contracts an extra year and allow complete free agency after?




It kind of sucks because it's a compromise. I don't think you'd get the owners to ever agree to go from 7-9 years of controlling an asset down to 6. There has actually been quite a bit of restraint with RFAs since the new CBA. It was a big change to have Ty Lawson, Steph Curry, and Jrue Holiday all agree to reasonable extensions rather than go the normal route of hoping there's one a-hole out there to give you more. I think part of the problem with Gordon was his reputation always exceeded his ability. Despite his versatile skill set he's still a role player and role players shouldn't get max salaries.
Posted by quail man
New York, NY
Member since May 2010
40924 posts
Posted on 12/14/13 at 10:20 am to
The thing about it is that any team can force the "home team's" hand. So the rockets could have offered max and said "you either pay him that or play against him 5 times a year." I feel like teams who offer a ridiculous amount of money should have to give up some collateral. I wonder how that would work.
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 12/14/13 at 10:31 am to
I like them. Gives the teams security (matching, early extensions) and flexibility (Sign/Trade options, QO, etc). Sucks for the players though.

quote:

First the Gordon shite


Only takes one a-hole and unfortunately Phoenix was run by huge assholes at that time. No one else was giving Gordon a max. However the league is getting smarter. New CBA has everyone (outside of Brooklyn) spooked- Pekovic got nothing, Jennings and Teague got nothing.

quote:

forced trade of GV and Lopez (partially for cap room but also not) to get Reke.


I don't mind that. GV and Rolo were assets moved at their highest value. I can see the point that they overpaid Evans and/or that they should have gotten a 3 or a 5 from moving them. But i don't have a major problem with that deal.

Don't forget, they were able to get Anderson on a great deal as a RFA by trading Ayon.
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61434 posts
Posted on 12/14/13 at 10:35 am to
quote:

So the rockets could have offered max and said "you either pay him that or play against him 5 times a year."


That's why they tie up your cap space for 3 days when you make an offer. Phoenix didn't offer Gordon to spite us, they did it because they thought he was a cornerstone. Phoenix wiffed on Gordon, then wiffed on Mayo. Trying and missing can really hurt you. I think the tying up your cap space is a pretty significant deterrent and probably part of why no one made a run at Pekovic this year. If there was no cost to making an offer then you'd see teams trying to screw each other or making non serious offers, but pretty much every RFA offer is legit even if it's over priced.
This post was edited on 12/14/13 at 10:36 am
Posted by PKTiger
NOLA
Member since Apr 2013
836 posts
Posted on 12/14/13 at 10:42 am to
quote:

I feel like teams who offer a ridiculous amount of money should have to give up some collateral. I wonder how that would work.

The NFL makes teams send back draft picks for RFA, that could work. Or, the NBA could add a compensatory round at the end of the first round, saying that if you lose one of your players over a certain salary amount, you get that extra pick.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
421234 posts
Posted on 12/14/13 at 11:05 am to
quote:

That's why they tie up your cap space for 3 days when you make an offer.

quote:

If there was no cost to making an offer then you'd see teams trying to screw each other or making non serious offers

if you want to see the ultimate "oops" in this regard, look at the raps trying to make the knicks overpay for landry fields...then getting stuck with him at like $8M a year or some insane shite
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61434 posts
Posted on 12/14/13 at 1:17 pm to
Yeah, trying and making can screw you too. Larry Bird said he had a mandate from the Pacers owner to not go after RFAs because you by definition had to overpay to get them.
Posted by Unknown_Poster
Member since Jun 2013
5758 posts
Posted on 12/14/13 at 5:23 pm to
In the long run the rule is far more beneficial to teams like the Pelicans than it is a hinderance. Think a couple of years from now when Anthony Davis' rookie deal ends.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram