|
Post by Ben Wallace on Aug 16, 2018 8:37:34 GMT 8
Honestly I don't like the idea of BR can be traded because in some way in can be abuse by other GM here. I like the idea of what duncan/jefferson BR it explain clearly. In my opinion if BR is tradable it means we need to implememt the cap holds rule to balance this but like Bill Bayno i'm also reluctant and confuse the cal holder rules.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 9:10:25 GMT 8
Honestly I don't like the idea of BR can be traded because in some way in can be abuse by other GM here. I like the idea of what duncan/jefferson BR it explain clearly. In my opinion if BR is tradable it means we need to implememt the cap holds rule to balance this but like Bill Bayno i'm also reluctant and confuse the cal holder rules. Trading BRs doesn’t open the door for any abuse, it’s how the actual NBA functions. If anything, the trading restrictions here (like the 60 days) will mitigate any BR trading abuses possible.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Wallace on Aug 16, 2018 10:51:49 GMT 8
OK..just post this to Poll and Suggestion and will vote for it. Create new Thread with poll so we can have a result. If you don't Mind Bill Bayno or Richard Jefferson
|
|
|
Post by Bill Bayno on Aug 16, 2018 13:54:35 GMT 8
|
|
Brooklyn Nets
Posts: 36
Beginner
|
Post by Richard Jefferson on Aug 16, 2018 17:44:36 GMT 8
Honestly I don't like the idea of BR can be traded because in some way in can be abuse by other GM here. I like the idea of what duncan/jefferson BR it explain clearly. In my opinion if BR is tradable it means we need to implememt the cap holds rule to balance this but like Bill Bayno i'm also reluctant and confuse the cal holder rules. I don't think there is any really a chance that trading them can be abused. It works in real NBA, and they have been trade-able in D720 for few years now, and there hasn't been any sign abuse. The trades are checked and approved anyways by you and Kobe and there are some trade regulations, so that acts as preventing abuse.
I don't think it's necessary to have the cap holds for having the BR trading. Cap hold can seem pretty confusing, but it's pretty simple in the end. But I left it out of my proposal on purpose. I think it's something that can be added later as additional realism (and voted on poll separately), but it's not necessary for basic BR implementation.
I think trading BR is good for the league and adds a lot without disadvantages in my opinion.
Few examples of Bird Rights effect on trading:
Let's look at the real life Kawhi-Derozan trade. Kawhi's Bird Rights were transferred to Toronto on the trade. If they didn't get the BR, they would have never made the trade. Toronto would be over the cap, and they would not have enough cap space next year to make the max-contract offer to Kawhi. So without BR they would know for 100% certainty that it's only 1-year rental, and next season he is gone Lakers or somewhere else. But with getting his BR, they know that they have at least a chance to offer and keep him. They will be able to offer him max contract and be over the salary cap. Kawhi could still decide to leave, but Toronto thinks he is worth risking it. Same thing happened with the Indiana-OKC trade for Paul George. OKC got the Bird Rights of PG13 and took a chance that they can convince him to stay. And it worked out.
Similar trades could be done in this league also, by having BR transferred in trade, which could add more potential trades.
For example my team is full of good young players. Probably few future potential All-Stars but maybe not superstar MVP level talent. Let's say that Kawhi becomes unhappy in this league also and demands a trade (sorry for the person being GM of Kawhi team ). I could try to package some of my young talents (Wiggins+Murray+something) and offer that for Kawhi to get the superstar level guy. But Kawhi contract is only 1+1 year left, and my team is over the cap (or very close to it) also next year. So if Bird Rights are not transferable via trade, I would 100% not be able to offer him a max contract next year and would lose him (and my young guys). Even with me having the BR, he might still decide to leave as unrestricted free agent. But at least I could offer and if I would be successful enough he probably would want to stay in a good team. But without getting his BR, I would never do that trade. And the other team would of course benefit also by getting BR of the players received from me. So it's advantage to both sides always.
|
|
Brooklyn Nets
Posts: 36
Beginner
|
Post by Richard Jefferson on Aug 16, 2018 17:55:28 GMT 8
I'm a newbie here so don't really know how it's normally done. But I guess just post the rule suggestion I made above and add two voting options?
1) Yes. I support adding this to the rules 2) No, Rules are fine as they are now
(Or does there need to be also third option? something like: 3) support suggestion partly, but not all the points. comment below)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 18:12:51 GMT 8
I'm a newbie here so don't really know how it's normally done. But I guess just post the rule suggestion I made above and add two voting options?
1) Yes. I support adding this to the rules 2) No, Rules are fine as they are now
(Or does there need to be also third option? something like: 3) support suggestion partly, but not all the points. comment below)
I would say include an option in the voting to retroactively apply Bird Rights to all rookie contracts at the minimum, and possibly retroactively to all vet contracts that have existed at least 3 years as well. A good, functioning Bird Rights rule set is absolutely CRUCIAL to keeping player valuations appropriate at all times based on talent & production rather than arbitrary "how long has he been on my team" type of rules. If we don't retroactively apply Bird Rights, a guy like Jokic - who by all means should be top 2 or 3 in the league in terms of trade value right now (89 rated player on a $1M contract) becomes almost valueless.
|
|