Contract Amendments (Free Agency)

[UOducksTK1]

I like the principle, but I have some issues with the actual execution....
Bird rights is my issue. I don't think Bird rights should get an advantage over the market on one year deals. We should encourage player movement vs. teams playing year to year (or more often using Birds to sign a deal nobody else can then immediately putting the guy on the block). If you don't want a player poached offer him more than 1 year.

Then whats the point of bird years? Teams should have an advantage when it comes to bird players. For the players that would be offered a high 1 year amount with bird, they would be middle tier players and if a team overpays to keep them then so be it b/c it hurts them to overpay.

The point of bird rights is that you can go over the cap to re-sign them, just like it should be, and that it gives you a chance to pay more on multi-year deals for guys rather than lose them. 1 year deals never hurt to overpay, they have no downside, because it's 1 year. And for attractive players being able to offer just a tiny bit more lets you re-sign and then trade guys, which is stupid.

What is the positive to the league of allowing teams with Bird rights a major advantage that applies ONLY to 1 year deals? It's fundamentally stupid, and encourages unrealistic chaining of 1 year deals.

Edit- I would be for either eliminating the bird rights exception on 1 year deals OR saying that if you use the Bird right exception you cannot trade that player.

If we didn’t have a strict hard cap, this would make sense. But teams can’t just hog 1 year contracts. And observationally, we see teams with cap space abusing the 1 year deals the most.

[Oregon Ownage]

Years of Experience 7 or more:
-1 year max is okay

Years of Experience 6 and below:
-Max 1st year is max if offered 3 years or more
-Max 1st year is 10 mil if offered 2 years
-Max 1st year is 9 mil if offered 1 year

If you have bird rights, you can offer whatever amount or years regardless of experience.

Updated OP with this table to better reflect the options

[Cellar-door]

I like the principle, but I have some issues with the actual execution....
Bird rights is my issue. I don't think Bird rights should get an advantage over the market on one year deals. We should encourage player movement vs. teams playing year to year (or more often using Birds to sign a deal nobody else can then immediately putting the guy on the block). If you don't want a player poached offer him more than 1 year.

Then whats the point of bird years? Teams should have an advantage when it comes to bird players. For the players that would be offered a high 1 year amount with bird, they would be middle tier players and if a team overpays to keep them then so be it b/c it hurts them to overpay.

The point of bird rights is that you can go over the cap to re-sign them, just like it should be, and that it gives you a chance to pay more on multi-year deals for guys rather than lose them. 1 year deals never hurt to overpay, they have no downside, because it's 1 year. And for attractive players being able to offer just a tiny bit more lets you re-sign and then trade guys, which is stupid.

What is the positive to the league of allowing teams with Bird rights a major advantage that applies ONLY to 1 year deals? It's fundamentally stupid, and encourages unrealistic chaining of 1 year deals.

Edit- I would be for either eliminating the bird rights exception on 1 year deals OR saying that if you use the Bird right exception you cannot trade that player.

If we didn’t have a strict hard cap, this would make sense. But teams can’t just hog 1 year contracts. And observationally, we see teams with cap space abusing the 1 year deals the most.

That's the whole point of the change though, to stop the abuse of 1 year deals, having Birds shouldn't exempt you from that, you can be under the cap and still have Birds.

I can see clear downside to the Bird rights exception here, and zero upside. There isn't a really good argument for why we should carve out an exception only for 1 year deals for re-signing. There is no reason for it. We should be encouraging people to have to make more decision and making the rule universal would do that on several levels... 1. You have to make real decisions on re-signing knowing you can't just offer more on a 1 year deal, two you have to decide... do you offer the most you can on a 1 year deal and hope the guy picks you? Or do you offer 2+ years.

[DrBradBuss]

I like the principle, but I have some issues with the actual execution....
Bird rights is my issue. I don't think Bird rights should get an advantage over the market on one year deals. We should encourage player movement vs. teams playing year to year (or more often using Birds to sign a deal nobody else can then immediately putting the guy on the block). If you don't want a player poached offer him more than 1 year.

Then whats the point of bird years? Teams should have an advantage when it comes to bird players. For the players that would be offered a high 1 year amount with bird, they would be middle tier players and if a team overpays to keep them then so be it b/c it hurts them to overpay.

The point of bird rights is that you can go over the cap to re-sign them, just like it should be, and that it gives you a chance to pay more on multi-year deals for guys rather than lose them. 1 year deals never hurt to overpay, they have no downside, because it's 1 year. And for attractive players being able to offer just a tiny bit more lets you re-sign and then trade guys, which is stupid.

What is the positive to the league of allowing teams with Bird rights a major advantage that applies ONLY to 1 year deals? It's fundamentally stupid, and encourages unrealistic chaining of 1 year deals.

Edit- I would be for either eliminating the bird rights exception on 1 year deals OR saying that if you use the Bird right exception you cannot trade that player, I still think the idea that Bird rights which are supposed to be about keeping teams together long term being used for 1 year advantages are dumb, but I'd compromise to you have to keep the player if you go over the normal 1 year deal max.

I agree with this so I voted no. Bird rights should not be able to be used on 1 year contracts.

[offtheheezy]

Maybe the "not allowed to trade guys on one year deals until Day 90" or something may be effective. If a team is tanking and signs a good player, it'll ruin their tanking and hurt their chances of a better pick. Similar to real life where teams can't "sign and trade" immediately.

[The Bean Regime]

I'm in full favor of everything in the main post. I was also in favor of the old rules, just that they weren't enforced in 2.0.

Maybe the "not allowed to trade guys on one year deals until Day 90" or something may be effective. If a team is tanking and signs a good player, it'll ruin their tanking and hurt their chances of a better pick. Similar to real life where teams can't "sign and trade" immediately.

I don't really want to see a trade restriction placed on one year deals but if it ever happens 90 is nuts. That will just result in good teams signing good players for cheaper since the tanking teams won't touch them.

[Oregon Ownage]

We are getting closer to FA and would like to wrap this up shortly, if you havent commented or voted, please do so.

I want to hear your feedback

[Oregon Ownage]

Proposed Rule:

Years of Experience 7 or more, 1 year max is okay

Years of Experience 6 and below, 3 year min for max

If you have bird rights, you can offer whatever amount

If you do not have bird rights:
Players with 6 or less years experience:
-Max 1st year is max if offered 3 years or more
-Max 1st year is 10 mil if offered 2 years
-Max 1st year is 9 mil if offered 1 year

Rule passes in favor 12-4. We will monitor over the next couple of off-seasons to see if this needs readjusting

P.S. - OP Rules thread has been updated