|
|
Post by eric on Nov 9, 2020 20:14:10 GMT
What we want:
-all teams can get birds on bad rookies
-good teams have more limited access to good rookies
How we can get there:
Each team gets a yearly extension that can be used on a rookie or a second year player.
They will be processed after the season, using the same market value calculation we currently do with resignings.
If used on a rookie, the maximum possible value will be capped at $11,300,000.
If used on a second year player, the maximum will be capped at $11,900,000.
It's extremely unlikely any rookie reaches these values anyway, but this ensures $12,500,000 remains the highest starting value for a first max.
If the extended player actually resigns, a team can instead use their extension on a different player.
If a team does not choose to, the extension will take precedence.
.
This lets essentially any team build birds on a very bad rookie, since their market value will be close to the old second round draft contracts.
It also gives preference to teams with more cap space for keeping the best rookies, since they'll be very expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Nov 9, 2020 20:23:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Nov 9, 2020 20:36:01 GMT
Sure
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Nov 9, 2020 21:21:43 GMT
i like this
|
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Nov 9, 2020 23:25:50 GMT
veto
|
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Nov 10, 2020 18:25:53 GMT
yes. implement immediately.
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Nov 10, 2020 18:49:37 GMT
yes. implement immediately. agreed, i see no downside |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 10, 2020 20:10:26 GMT
as discussed in shout this will be renamed to something like "Market Value Team Option" so as to avoid confusion with extensions
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Nov 10, 2020 20:14:01 GMT
vehemently against this
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Nov 10, 2020 20:24:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Nov 10, 2020 21:14:07 GMT
I am also curious as to why? |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Nov 10, 2020 22:31:23 GMT
I think this is a good idea, but I'm not sure how I feel about the 2nd year part. I think it's a good idea for the 1st year for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Nov 10, 2020 22:41:19 GMT
I think this is a good idea, but I'm not sure how I feel about the 2nd year part. I think it's a good idea for the 1st year for sure. whats the downside |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Nov 11, 2020 0:39:51 GMT
I think this is a good idea, but I'm not sure how I feel about the 2nd year part. I think it's a good idea for the 1st year for sure. whats the downside Getting an option on a player that may have already played on another team doesn't feel right. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 11, 2020 17:06:40 GMT
I think this is a good idea, but I'm not sure how I feel about the 2nd year part. I think it's a good idea for the 1st year for sure. the premise is we want to get to birds though, and to do that we have to do either two year options on first year players or one year options on second year (and first year) players. of those two choices, i think the second one is preferable in the scenario you indicate where a player plays on team A year 1, and is then signed in FA or post TC by team B, they won't be able to get birds with the second year MVTO since they'll only have two bird years after the player's third year. if the player is acquired by team B by trade, then they maintain birds no different than the old rookie contracts |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Nov 11, 2020 17:18:05 GMT
So make the 2nd year player MVTO require 2 years of birds. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Nov 11, 2020 17:21:54 GMT
what about players that get 0 minutes, do they re-sign to a min?
|
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Nov 11, 2020 17:35:59 GMT
Make there be a minutes minimum to be eligible for it so people can't couch a good rookie for a below market MVTO
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 11, 2020 17:47:14 GMT
So make the 2nd year player MVTO require 2 years of birds. Problem solved. i'm not sure what you mean though, a player can have played for another team and have 2 birds |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 11, 2020 17:47:52 GMT
what about players that get 0 minutes, do they re-sign to a min? yes |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Nov 11, 2020 17:53:34 GMT
So make the 2nd year player MVTO require 2 years of birds. Problem solved. i'm not sure what you mean though, a player can have played for another team and have 2 birds I don't have issues with guys being traded, it's the 2nd FA signing scenario that felt off. Because that would no longer be a rookie FA deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Nov 11, 2020 18:29:32 GMT
i'm not sure what you mean though, a player can have played for another team and have 2 birds I don't have issues with guys being traded, it's the 2nd FA signing scenario that felt off. Because that would no longer be a rookie FA deal. if the minors still existed that player could be demoted |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Nov 11, 2020 18:36:34 GMT
I don't have issues with guys being traded, it's the 2nd FA signing scenario that felt off. Because that would no longer be a rookie FA deal. if the minors still existed that player could be demoted Sure |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 11, 2020 19:08:08 GMT
i'm not sure what you mean though, a player can have played for another team and have 2 birds I don't have issues with guys being traded, it's the 2nd FA signing scenario that felt off. Because that would no longer be a rookie FA deal. but how would a 2 birds requirement change that, it would still be their 2nd FA right? i'm not clear on what you're going for |
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Nov 11, 2020 19:10:44 GMT
So we are starting this this year, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Nov 11, 2020 19:34:53 GMT
I don't have issues with guys being traded, it's the 2nd FA signing scenario that felt off. Because that would no longer be a rookie FA deal. but how would a 2 birds requirement change that, it would still be their 2nd FA right? i'm not clear on what you're going for It makes MVTO apply exclusively to Rookie FA deals. Has to either be a 1st year rookie, or a 2nd year rookie that was already given an MTVO or was a guy originally signed to a two year rookie fa deal. I don't like the idea of getting to extend a player that was signed as a 2nd yr player in FA. It doesn't really accomplish anything but allowing someone to keep a player for 1 extra season |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Nov 11, 2020 19:35:23 GMT
So we are starting this this year, right? I would think next year, but I'm open to discussion |
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Nov 11, 2020 19:58:14 GMT
but how would a 2 birds requirement change that, it would still be their 2nd FA right? i'm not clear on what you're going for It makes MVTO apply exclusively to Rookie FA deals. Has to either be a 1st year rookie, or a 2nd year rookie that was already given an MTVO or was a guy originally signed to a two year rookie fa deal. I don't like the idea of getting to extend a player that was signed as a 2nd yr player in FA. It doesn't really accomplish anything but allowing someone to keep a player for 1 extra season it accomplishes delaying that players free agency so you can have more time to restructure to have enough money to offer him whatever he may need to be offered. it accomplishes 1 additional bird year so you could mle to get the third bird and then have two options to use that year |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Nov 11, 2020 20:27:58 GMT
It makes MVTO apply exclusively to Rookie FA deals. Has to either be a 1st year rookie, or a 2nd year rookie that was already given an MTVO or was a guy originally signed to a two year rookie fa deal. I don't like the idea of getting to extend a player that was signed as a 2nd yr player in FA. It doesn't really accomplish anything but allowing someone to keep a player for 1 extra season it accomplishes delaying that players free agency so you can have more time to restructure to have enough money to offer him whatever he may need to be offered. it accomplishes 1 additional bird year so you could mle to get the third bird and then have two options to use that year Eh I guess that's true, doesn't change my feelings much |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 11, 2020 20:53:58 GMT
So we are starting this this year, right? no even if we had all the kinks worked out, which we clearly don't |
|
