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.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];777655 said:
Question: What sport can field a better team without first round draft picks? An NBA team or an NFL team?
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Disagree entirely that first round picks in the NFL are worth less than they are in the NBA.
I would agree that top 5 picks in the NBA are more valuable (unless it's a good year for QBs) but outside of the top 5, the NFL teams can almost always find a capable All-Star player late. The bigger rosters and deeper draft just make it that way. I'd take a late first round pick in the NFL value-wise over anything outside of the top 10 (maybe even 8) in the NBA.
I mean, this is supposed to be one if the best and deepest drafts in the NBA in a decade, and it's pretty well established that you need a top 4 or 5 pick to have a shot at an all star.
I would agree that top 5 picks in the NBA are more valuable (unless it's a good year for QBs) but outside of the top 5, the NFL teams can almost always find a capable All-Star player late. The bigger rosters and deeper draft just make it that way. I'd take a late first round pick in the NFL value-wise over anything outside of the top 10 (maybe even 8) in the NBA.
I mean, this is supposed to be one if the best and deepest drafts in the NBA in a decade, and it's pretty well established that you need a top 4 or 5 pick to have a shot at an all star.
Clearly NFL. The overwhelming majority of the top NBA players (not even top, just all the ones who are good) are 1st round picks.
There are plenty of top guys in the NFL who were later round draft picks (Tom Brady is the biggest example).
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
I'm not playing that crap. This over-simplifies things waaaaay too much.
For example, what's the difference in value from an NBA pick near the top of the first round versus one near the bottom of the first round? What's the difference in value between an NFL pick near the top of the first round versus one near the bottom of the first round?
Next, let's discuss the differences between staffing NBA team and an NFL team such that they can be consistent within a coaching philosophy.
Or, we can get diverted to your trash question.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
.... please don't try to add any nuance to this discussion... a first-round pick is a first-round pick... nuff said.
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
NBA roster - 15 players x 30 teams. Total players = 450. Total starters = 150. Guys have to play both offense and defense. It's much easier to field a roster full of 1st round picks because there's only two rounds.
NFL roster - 53 players x 32 teams. Total players = 1,696. Total starters = 704. Guys play either offense or defense, but not both. And yet the vast majority of superstar players are 1st round picks.
The management of the two sports just aren't comparable.
Outside of getting a star QB, top 5 picks in the NFL aren't nearly as valuable as they are in the NBA, and there's almost never a time where a top 20 pick in the NFL isn't worth exponentially more than a top 20 NBA pick.
NFL roster - 53 players x 32 teams. Total players = 1,696. Total starters = 704. Guys play either offense or defense, but not both. And yet the vast majority of superstar players are 1st round picks.
The management of the two sports just aren't comparable.
Outside of getting a star QB, top 5 picks in the NFL aren't nearly as valuable as they are in the NBA, and there's almost never a time where a top 20 pick in the NFL isn't worth exponentially more than a top 20 NBA pick.
Yes, end of the 1st round picks in the NFL have more of a chance to contribute meaninfully.
Still, 1st rounders are more important in the NBA. If you lose your 1st rounder in the NFL, you still have rounds 2-7 to add good players.
In the NBA if you lose your 1st round pick, you have the 2nd round to add a player, who probably won't make your roster. You lose the ability to sign long-term cheap talent.
Still, 1st rounders are more important in the NBA. If you lose your 1st rounder in the NFL, you still have rounds 2-7 to add good players.
In the NBA if you lose your 1st round pick, you have the 2nd round to add a player, who probably won't make your roster. You lose the ability to sign long-term cheap talent.
Disagree on the 1st part, agree on the 2nd.