Contract Amendments (Free Agency)

[Oregon Ownage]

Current Rule:

Anyone 29 and over 1 year max is okay

Anyone under 29: 3 year Min for Max

Max 1 year deal starting salary of 7 million
Max 2 year deal starting salary of 9 million
With Birds you can offer whatever you want

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

This would eliminate offering $1 less than max and favor current teams from losing a player being poached

Example: this past off-season, if I offered MJ a max, his starting salary would have been 11.25 million and that would be acceptable. If I didnt want to offer the max, I could only offer up to 9 million in the 1st year.

Yay or Nay, let me know your thoughts

[offtheheezy]

This looks great! Thanks for putting this together.

Quick questions to nail down some details

1. For Years of Experience 6 or below, does "max" imply you have to give the full 11.25M, 10%, 3 years? Or could you offer a 11.25M, 0%, 3 years?
2. By bird rights do we mean full bird rights or any bird rights? If I have 2 years bird rights on a player is my max still $9M?

[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.

I'm strongly for the idea overall, but I think that needs to be changed.

Edit- I'm going to hold off voting for now while it gets discussed out, but I do think that I'm leaning towards no if we're giving bird rights a major advantage (I get that hypothetically they have an advantage now, but since nobody has enforced the rules currently in place at any point it's not a real advantage).

[Oregon Ownage]

Quick questions to nail down some details

1. For Years of Experience 6 or below, does "max" imply you have to give the full 11.25M, 10%, 3 years? Or could you offer a 11.25M, 0%, 3 years?

Max in terms of salary in the first year

2. By bird rights do we mean full bird rights or any bird rights? If I have 2 years bird rights on a player is my max still $9M?

Im open either way

[Oregon Ownage]

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.

[UOducksTK1]

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

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

If you have bird rights, you can offer whatever amount
yay

If you do not have bird rights, max 1st year amount will be 9 million (unless offering max)
nay If a guy have 7 years or more of experience, he should be able to go to a team offering 1 year max. Why are we restricting this? It makes sense that a guy just wants to get paid more money, and doesn't care if the team ends up trading him for expirings and picks. This rule makes it too easier for dominating teams. And it also prevents rebuilding teams from sign and trades.

[Oregon Ownage]

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

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

If you have bird rights, you can offer whatever amount
yay

If you do not have bird rights, max 1st year amount will be 9 million (unless offering max)
nay If a guy have 7 years or more of experience, he should be able to go to a team offering 1 year max. Why are we restricting this? It makes sense that a guy just wants to get paid more money, and doesn't care if the team ends up trading him for expirings and picks. This rule makes it too easier for dominating teams. And it also prevents rebuilding teams from sign and trades.

The bottom rule is for players with 6 or less years of experience bc a player with 7 years can be offered full max salary

[UOducksTK1]

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

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

If you have bird rights, you can offer whatever amount
yay

If you do not have bird rights, max 1st year amount will be 9 million (unless offering max)
nay If a guy have 7 years or more of experience, he should be able to go to a team offering 1 year max. Why are we restricting this? It makes sense that a guy just wants to get paid more money, and doesn't care if the team ends up trading him for expirings and picks. This rule makes it too easier for dominating teams. And it also prevents rebuilding teams from sign and trades.

The bottom rule is for players with 6 or less years of experience bc a player with 7 years can be offered full max salary

But you already have a rule of at least a 3 years max for players with 6 years or less of experience. They should be able to offer max 1st year (not 9 mil) for anything 3 or more years.

[vincent1469]

I like the rules but I agree with TK that one year maxes should be okay with 7 or more years of experience

[Oregon Ownage]

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

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

If you have bird rights, you can offer whatever amount
yay

If you do not have bird rights, max 1st year amount will be 9 million (unless offering max)
nay If a guy have 7 years or more of experience, he should be able to go to a team offering 1 year max. Why are we restricting this? It makes sense that a guy just wants to get paid more money, and doesn't care if the team ends up trading him for expirings and picks. This rule makes it too easier for dominating teams. And it also prevents rebuilding teams from sign and trades.

The bottom rule is for players with 6 or less years of experience bc a player with 7 years can be offered full max salary

But you already have a rule of at least a 3 years max for players with 6 years or less of experience. They should be able to offer max 1st year (not 9 mil) for anything 3 or more years.

Yes agree. The 9 mil is for a one year contract. Lets say 10 mil for a two year contract. Three years or more, you can full max salary year one

[UOducksTK1]

Ah got it, 9mil max for 1 year for guys with 6 years of experience or less.

[UOducksTK1]

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.

[offtheheezy]

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.

I'm assuming for bird rights it's following those rules along with:

If a player is resigning with his previous team and has less than 3 bird years:

The player can receive the larger of the team's salary cap room (up to the maximum salary) and 120% of his previous salary in the first year of the contract.

If 3+ years, then anything goes?

[UOducksTK1]

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.

I'm assuming for bird rights it's following those rules along with:

If a player is resigning with his previous team and has less than 3 bird years:

The player can receive the larger of the team's salary cap room (up to the maximum salary) and 120% of his previous salary in the first year of the contract.

If 3+ years, then anything goes?

Right, otherwise it defaults to fbb rules.

[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, 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.