ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Buckets of Dimes => NBA Leagues => Buckets of Dimes: Archives => Topic started by: Vik on October 24, 2020, 10:37:05 PM
-
Pretty simple poll here. Currently RFA can be matched if team signs to a real life extensnion, but otherwise they must be won and matched via RFA bidding.
In other words, currently, franchise tag can be used on any expiring contract except expiring rookie contracts and therefore being part of RFA player pool.
Question is should we allow more flexibility for a team to have the additional tag option even if the player is RFA. Just another option for GMs if poll passes as I am flexible either way.
-
Honestly think this change would be pretty lame and unrealistic (relative to actual NBA rules). GMs can lock up elite young talent for almost a decade without ever having to subject the player to a market evaluation. The franchise tag will essentially just serve as a feedback loop instituting a salary hard cap under $30m/y. This further devalues current contracts which exceed that amount too which is another issue in its own right.
GMs have a ton of control already over their RFAs, and giving them this option as well would just have long-term negative consequences on player salaries and market value.
-
Honestly think this change would be pretty lame and unrealistic (relative to actual NBA rules). GMs can lock up elite young talent for almost a decade without ever having to subject the player to a market evaluation. The franchise tag will essentially just serve as a feedback loop instituting a salary hard cap under $30m/y. This further devalues current contracts which exceed that amount too which is another issue in its own right.
GMs have a ton of control already over their RFAs, and giving them this option as well would just have long-term negative consequences on player salaries and market value.
:iatp:
Agreed
Shorter version:
You can match an RFA bid and keep your young stud player for 4 years on his RFA contract, and at the end of that contract you can then franchise tag him for another 4 years. Add on the 4 years of his rookie contract and you have yourself a stud player foe 12 years.
This would just shorten it to 8 (can’t tag a player twice)
-
You can match an RFA bid and keep your young stud player for 4 years on his RFA contract, and at the end of that contract you can then franchise tag him for another 4 years. Add on the 4 years of his rookie contract and you have yourself a stud player foe 12 years.
This would just shorten it to 8 (can’t tag a player twice)
That's true. But at least in the current scenario young players are susceptible to open market bidding at an earlier stage which is a much bigger concern to me than team control (teams already have many advantages/options for retaining players rather than pursuing new ones). A player like Luka Doncic, who is likely to be among the top players in the league for the next 10 years, will be severely under market value for 8 years under the proposed rule change versus just 4 in the current rules. Being able to franchise tag players worth $30m+/y and 2 first round picks (RFA compensation) and get them for 4 years at around $25m/y is a very significant change.
I think we should make changes to limit the number of misvalued contracts, not increase them.
-
A player like Luka Doncic, who is likely to be among the top players in the league for the next 10 years, will be severely under market value for 8 years under the proposed rule change versus just 4 in the current rules. Being able to franchise tag players worth $30m+/y and 2 first round picks (RFA compensation) and get them for 4 years at around $25m/y is a very significant change.
Agree again with Wiz :iatp:
-
Good points brought up in discussion so far, the main one being we do want to try and make majority of contracts as realistic as possible.
I originally voted yes but going to change vote to no which puts us at 7-4 right now. I'd like to get feedback from few other teams yet to do so. I now think we are better off keeping as is.
-
Vote stands at 6-6 with a couple of changes.
Ill leave this till tomorrow but if it's a tie we are going to stick with things as is.
-
:iatp:
Agreed
Shorter version:
You can match an RFA bid and keep your young stud player for 4 years on his RFA contract, and at the end of that contract you can then franchise tag him for another 4 years. Add on the 4 years of his rookie contract and you have yourself a stud player foe 12 years.
This would just shorten it to 8 (can’t tag a player twice)
Hi everyone! I quote this because its exactly what I think!
I vote that it is no neccesary yo change ir.
-
In the interest of transparency, I voted for this rule because I have Doncic and I want to lock him up for as long as possible. Perhaps many people who have voted for this might be in the same boat as me.
If i'm trying to think like an objective commissioner, I agree with the well thought out points from WizKid and I think that you'd probably want to star players to have more movement than 2 teams per career as it makes for a more interesting league. This is my first time playing in a salary cap league but in other non-salary cap leagues dynasty I've played in, a lot of the top players change teams multiple times in a season. I think Harden was traded 2-3 times last year in one of my leagues which is a lot of fun.
If we want realism then we should probably vector around star players playing for 3+ franchises per career but there should also be some mechanism to keep players for the duration of their career. So if Doncic is my favourite player ever and I want to keep him on my team for life, I should be able to. IMO RFA is not a strong enough disincentive as I'd think most teams in the top half of the league would be willing to give up their low ranked draft picks and plan their cap to sign Doncic in his absolute prime years.
As an alternative to franchise tagging for years 9-12, could we be allowed to exceed the cap to resign our own players (or just one of them) if we want contracts to be subject to market valuation? Or maybe if a player has been under one team's control for 8 years, you could franchise tag and you are able to exceed the cap just for that player, but that player's salary has a X% premium over the current franchise tag amounts. I dont really have a good solution but just throwing some ideas out to allow for control for one player's career (with negative cap ramifications)
-
In general, i feel the RFA and franchise tagging mechanics are very heavy influences on player salaries compared to market valuations
-
In the interest of transparency, I voted for this rule because I have Doncic and I want to lock him up for as long as possible. Perhaps many people who have voted for this might be in the same boat as me.
If i'm trying to think like an objective commissioner, I agree with the well thought out points from WizKid and I think that you'd probably want to star players to have more movement than 2 teams per career as it makes for a more interesting league. This is my first time playing in a salary cap league but in other non-salary cap leagues dynasty I've played in, a lot of the top players change teams multiple times in a season. I think Harden was traded 2-3 times last year in one of my leagues which is a lot of fun.
If we want realism then we should probably vector around star players playing for 3+ franchises per career but there should also be some mechanism to keep players for the duration of their career. So if Doncic is my favourite player ever and I want to keep him on my team for life, I should be able to. IMO RFA is not a strong enough disincentive as I'd think most teams in the top half of the league would be willing to give up their low ranked draft picks and plan their cap to sign Doncic in his absolute prime years.
As an alternative to franchise tagging for years 9-12, could we be allowed to exceed the cap to resign our own players (or just one of them) if we want contracts to be subject to market valuation? Or maybe if a player has been under one team's control for 8 years, you could franchise tag and you are able to exceed the cap just for that player, but that player's salary has a X% premium over the current franchise tag amounts. I dont really have a good solution but just throwing some ideas out to allow for control for one player's career (with negative cap ramifications)
Great to see and appreciate your feedback as new owner.
One thing I want to point out is that in the RFA process whatever the contract won by other team can be matched so, while teams are willing to give up risk the GM has final say to match regardless and we allow a decent chunk of salary to be exceed (up to 15m) to help out matching and can then sort out cap later in off season the if necessary.
If you match an RFA bid for let's say 3 or 4 years, you are then able to franchise this player another once duration of contract is up. Technically from rookie year you have opportunity to keep same player for 12 years in some instances.
Last point is interesting can mull on it a bit and see if a minor change can be added. However, in theory it matches what I said above, if you control a player for 4 years (4 year rookie, and 4 matching RFA bid, you then have option to franchise for year 9-12 if you'd like).
All this said, as it stands I am going to consider this poll closed still at 6-6 (few teams didn't vote and we do have 3 open teams still but that's ok). We will keep rules as is but definitely will take into account everything and proposed an additional potential change down the line if I see it fit. However, with RFA starting on this coming Monday (Nov 2nd), not sure I want to change anything else at this point. Our main priority is to find 3 owners
-
oh sorry, i thought the rule change was to introduce the ability to franchise tag after y9-12. if that is already the case and we are only adding flexibility to the value of the RFA contract (y5-8) then i dont think it's a needed rule change. i'll change my vote
-
oh sorry, i thought the rule change was to introduce the ability to franchise tag after y9-12. if that is already the case and we are only adding flexibility to the value of the RFA contract (y5-8) then i dont think it's a needed rule change. i'll change my vote
Cool, glad we on same page, we are good to stay as is.