Proposal: RFA players Price.

[itnas123]

I think instead of $300 to RFA a player we should increase it to $500 for a few reasons: 

1. This price is equivalent to the max amount for any trade. 

2. It will make FA more competitive with more young players in the FA pool

3. Less multiple high picks do to a higher price

4. Should keep money regulated to not have too much money or too little money

5. Not as many lowball trades for superstars especially if you do not have the money to get your rookie back or have multiple young players
 

[tyfreak]

I think 300 is fine..

[shorty]

$500 makes it less likely for teams to RFA their role players. For example, I RFA'd Chris Andersen for $300, but I might not have done so if it was $500.

[daedalus]

Going to offer a counter argument:

Price is $300 with the guaranteed loss even if you resign the player. Seasonal income per team fluctuates pretty highly between league leaders and non-playoff teams. By increasing the price you are essentially giving more advantages to successful teams and stretching the gap between them and less successful teams even more. I think the addition of the GM cash cap will be effective at regulating cash as well as the $500 max trade cap.

If an unsuccessful team, or one rebuilding with multiple picks, wants to retire their young stars to be successful they will struggle to pull together the funds to both keep and camp their young players. This leads to them trading them away to a team that can afford the GM cash hits. Thus they are poorer for it talent-wise and are back in the same pit.

Current system seems to have kept the "mid-level" rookies in the pool and I think the cap / trade rule introductions will swell the pool a little more. Having to pay 300 GM cash + match a sometimes hideous contract is enough of a burden.

[itnas123]

Mar 22, 2014 4:11:43 GMT daedalus said:

Going to offer a counter argument:

Price is $300 with the guaranteed loss even if you resign the player. Seasonal income per team fluctuates pretty highly between league leaders and non-playoff teams. By increasing the price you are essentially giving more advantages to successful teams and stretching the gap between them and less successful teams even more. I think the addition of the GM cash cap will be effective at regulating cash as well as the $500 max trade cap.

If an unsuccessful team, or one rebuilding with multiple picks, wants to retire their young stars to be successful they will struggle to pull together the funds to both keep and camp their young players. This leads to them trading them away to a team that can afford the GM cash hits. Thus they are poorer for it talent-wise and are back in the same pit.

Current system seems to have kept the "mid-level" rookies in the pool and I think the cap / trade rule introductions will swell the pool a little more. Having to pay 300 GM cash + match a sometimes hideous contract is enough of a burden.

Not necessarily even if he is unable to RFA they will have bird rights and cap to sign back their rookies. Also as I see it if you know that your Rookie's contract is going to finish up then you save up before hand, and doing the camps as soon as they get there rookie so they have three years to save-up also we do have the rule of getting $100 every season, so that's $300 right there.  

[rookieoftheyear]

I say no, RFA is good in this league.

[daedalus]

Mar 22, 2014 4:18:20 GMT itnas123 said:

Mar 22, 2014 4:11:43 GMT daedalus said:

Going to offer a counter argument:

Price is $300 with the guaranteed loss even if you resign the player. Seasonal income per team fluctuates pretty highly between league leaders and non-playoff teams. By increasing the price you are essentially giving more advantages to successful teams and stretching the gap between them and less successful teams even more. I think the addition of the GM cash cap will be effective at regulating cash as well as the $500 max trade cap.

If an unsuccessful team, or one rebuilding with multiple picks, wants to retire their young stars to be successful they will struggle to pull together the funds to both keep and camp their young players. This leads to them trading them away to a team that can afford the GM cash hits. Thus they are poorer for it talent-wise and are back in the same pit.

Current system seems to have kept the "mid-level" rookies in the pool and I think the cap / trade rule introductions will swell the pool a little more. Having to pay 300 GM cash + match a sometimes hideous contract is enough of a burden.

Not necessarily even if he is unable to RFA they will have bird rights and cap to sign back their rookies. Also as I see it if you know that your Rookie's contract is going to finish up then you save up before hand, and doing the camps as soon as they get there rookie so they have three years to save-up also we do have the rule of getting $100 every season, so that's $300 right there.  

What I'm trying to get across is raising the price punishes more harshly for less successful teams than successful ones. Getting bonuses for playoffs, star players performing, and player awards typically all point towards already having quality players. That cash boost each season makes the 200 more or less manageable. For a team that doesn't make the playoffs aside from maybe once every CY cycle guaranteeing resigning of their young stars is much more of a burden.

Personally for me the change wouldn't be all that adverse given what I said above but I think the league health would take a hit from it. Rebuilding teams need to keep their stars or the league will be extremely top heavy. Any rule that could potentially widen the gap between the league leaders and cellar dwellers needs to be studying VERY closely as parity keeps the game enjoyable for all.

[itnas123]

Mar 22, 2014 4:22:29 GMT daedalus said:

Mar 22, 2014 4:18:20 GMT itnas123 said:

Not necessarily even if he is unable to RFA they will have bird rights and cap to sign back their rookies. Also as I see it if you know that your Rookie's contract is going to finish up then you save up before hand, and doing the camps as soon as they get there rookie so they have three years to save-up also we do have the rule of getting $100 every season, so that's $300 right there.  

What I'm trying to get across is raising the price punishes more harshly for less successful teams than successful ones. Getting bonuses for playoffs, star players performing, and player awards typically all point towards already having quality players. That cash boost each season makes the 200 more or less manageable. For a team that doesn't make the playoffs aside from maybe once every CY cycle guaranteeing resigning of their young stars is much more of a burden.

Personally the change wouldn't be all that adverse given what I said above but I think the league health would take a hit from it. Rebuilding teams need to keep their stars or the league will be extremely top heavy.

true. but for it to be only $300 is too little..... maybe $400 if you believe $500 is too high:

still I do see a lot of thing benefiting from an increase of price at least something not just leave it at $300 which can be gained easily.

[getbeard]

Definitely goin with no. You have to not look at RFAs as only star caliber rookies but other rooks as well say someone has 2 expiring rook deal that are solid role players on their team but by no means stars, that shouldn't cost 1,000 GM cash to be able to match someone else's possible overpay. I believe capping the money at 2000 (or 2200) is already enough of a way to keep people in check about spending wisely and what not but adding this also would mean bad/middle road teams would stay getting screwed.

[itnas123]

it is only $500..... not $1000

[themouth]

I hate RFA.

RFA is the reason why it's so difficult to build a team.

Say a rookie comes at 20 in the league, 4 years rookie contract, 6 years RFAed, the first time he's on the market he's 30... Yay for rebuilding teams...

[rookieoftheyear]

Mar 22, 2014 10:30:26 GMT themouth said:

I hate RFA.

RFA is the reason why it's so difficult to build a team.

Say a rookie comes at 20 in the league, 4 years rookie contract, 6 years RFAed, the first time he's on the market he's 30... Yay for rebuilding teams...

Thats a lazy excuse, you build a team through the draft/trades like in real life. Rarely do teams rebuild through free agency

[tyfreak]

Mar 22, 2014 10:30:26 GMT themouth said:

I hate RFA.

RFA is the reason why it's so difficult to build a team.

Say a rookie comes at 20 in the league, 4 years rookie contract, 6 years RFAed, the first time he's on the market he's 30... Yay for rebuilding teams...

At least it's more realistic. You can turn this the other way. Say without RFA in 4 years or w/e Kevin Love walks. Than you have to re enter the rebuilding stage basically.. And like ROTY said... Teams build through drafts. Except teams like Knicks or LA, so at least your keeping it realistic there lol.

[daedalus]

Conversation spilled into discussion so I'll drop this here.

Mar 22, 2014 16:48:29 GMT daedalus said:

With the cap going up people won't retain their role players for max contracts. =) That will allow other teams to overpay for talent just like in regular free agency. The early league was unbalanced with RFA due to low max contracts but as the cap raises it'll be harder and harder to retain your own players.

The higher cap with the flat hard cap means you won't be able to fit a ton of max/near max people under the cap.

[shorty]

Great back and forths gentlemen. As per the rules, it only requires 7 Yes votes before a proposal gets passed along to Cunch, but since there's a lot of No's as well, we may have to modify the rules so that a 50/50 decision doesn't become a unanimous decision.

[rookieoftheyear]

Like daedalus said, the hard cap will make teams make money decisions. It didn't go this way @ the beginning of the league due to low salary cap/max contracts but it will now & moving forward. For example I've already had to give Lamar Odom away for free & this is without my guys on rookie contracts even being up for extensions yet. Once that happens I'll have to decide who to keep as I can't possibly resign them all. This is similar to how the Thunder had to make a money decision between Harden/Ibaka & decided to trade Harden

[itnas123]

Mar 22, 2014 17:16:17 GMT shorty said:

Great back and forths gentlemen. As per the rules, it only requires 7 Yes votes before a proposal gets passed along to Cunch, but since there's a lot of No's as well, we may have to modify the rules so that a 50/50 decision doesn't become a unanimous decision.

sounds good. How many GM's do we have?

[rookieoftheyear]

27 GM's . Not counting Flip & SRG as they don't participate

[itnas123]

well then 3/4 vote I guess.

[itnas123]

Mar 22, 2014 4:10:03 GMT shorty said:

$500 makes it less likely for teams to RFA their role players. For example, I RFA'd Chris Andersen for $300, but I might not have done so if it was $500.

I do not think you can RFA a role player like Anderson unless:

The RFA/Qualifying Offer allows you to match ANY contract that is accepted by the player before the next day's sim.


Basic Rules:
1. Must be coming off a rookie contract.
2. Must not have been offered to resign in the RESIGNINGS thread.
3. Must pay 300 GM cash (non-refundable) and link bank in your offer post.
4. Must match contract BEFORE the next day of Free Agency.

[itnas123]

nevermind I think I might of read it wrong.

[shorty]

Mar 23, 2014 19:59:08 GMT itnas123 said:

nevermind I think I might of read it wrong.

Yeah I was referring to back when I RFA'd him off his rookie contract. 

[HyperYellow]

Who would want to increase the RFA fee:

They've traded away their rookies or 1sts, and want a better chance of "stealing" them away from other teams who through trades have accrued more 1st rounders.

OR

They have the star players making GM cash, so an increase of 60% isn't going to faze them at all.

Who would want to maintain the status quo:

Teams who sacrificed wins now, for a brighter long term future. (Possibly "Tankers") For parity's sake, we shouldn't make it easier for these teams to keep youth.

OR

Teams who have not been motivated to claim GM cash. This is just slackness, and I couldn't think of any other reason than the point above why you'd be too concerned about an RFA fee increase.

So there is a valid argument from both sides. A solution that immediately comes to mind is to award GM cash for in-game team achievements, e.g. 10 steals and 10 blocks in a game - 7 players getting double digit points to name a couple of possibilities, but @commish stated on more than one occasion that he is happy with the cash awards, so that isn't going to happen.

The only fair way to resolve this is to abandon the whole concept of RFA.

[rookieoftheyear]

There's nothing wrong with RFA in this league at all.

[itnas123]

looks like a no right shorty

[daedalus]

Yeah it's a no. You need 75% of the vote with a minimum of 14 votes.

[itnas123]

well both proposals got killed eh oh well it was a good discussion

[shorty]

itnas123, over 50% of the league has voted, and the people have spoken. Your proposal has failed.