Had an idea, inspired by the NFL, for restricted free agent rules and further the equity balance between teams. In addition to being able to match and offer an additional season to RFA, if a another team successfully signs a RFA they must surrender a draft pick to the original team. Not sure if it should be a second or a first ( probably protected), but this model would further add balance to small market teams, like the Jazz, and teams wouldn't lose RFAs for nothing or feel obligated to overpay as much. The Pelicans/Hornets wouldn't have felt as obligated to match the Suns offer for Eric Gordon and saddle themselves with his huge deal if the Suns had to surrender a pick to them. If the Celts or suns go after Hayward hard, I wouldnt mind getting a pick from them rather than have to pay Hayward max to keep him.
Revise Restricted Free Agent Rules!
- Thread starter Jeffrey32
- Start date
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Doubt the Players' Union would go for it.
It works in the NFL because draft picks aren't as important and there are more rounds.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
I don't think that would make it completely fair, even if the pick were lottery-protected. So assume standings end as is. If Atlanta signs a RFA agent away from Indiana, the Pacers get the 15th pick. But if the reverse happened, Atlanta would only get the 30th pick?
There also needs to be a distinction between which players are more valuable. Obviously a Hayward or Monroe is much different than a Songalia or Mack.
If I were to change the rules, I do it via compensatory selections and only on the basis of net difference (RFA's AND UFA's). For example, if the Jazz lost Hayward but then got Bledsoe, that's not really a net loss. FA's would be ranked into tiers and compensatory selections, if applicable awarded at the end of the 1st or 2nd round the following draft.
EDIT: End of first round would be classified as a second round to make it a non-guaranteed contract. And these picks would be rare. Reserved for situations such as LeBron leaving Cleveland, etc.
But I think in the NFL they have to give up 1st round picks in many cases, which are equally if not more valuable.
Maybe basketball should implement an arbitration scenario like baseball and football. I think baseballs is confusing and makes many mistakes, but given basketballs cap, maybe they could come up with one that makes more sense. An arbitration board determines if a player is a max player rather than the market.
No, 1st round picks in the NBA are more valuable.
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];777653 said:
No, it's really not debatable.
Do you even watch Football?
Last edited:
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Let me take a MAD LIB from you: "Trust me, I've watched a lot more _______, and therefore I know a lot more about _________. You're not very good at ______. Thanks for playing."
Lemme fill it in: Trust me, I've watched a lot more football than you, and therefore I know a lot more about front office management. You're not very good at ****. Thanks for playing.
If you've followed football in the era of free agency, you'd know how important the draft is to redistributing salaries and the effort that can be put out on the field. Picks in the 1st round have a high impact. Fairly reliably, impact can be had through the first three rounds.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Also:
you really suck. Still. Please go away again.
you really suck. Still. Please go away again.