billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Feb 26, 2017 18:55:42 GMT -5
This is the thread where you post suggestions about the league and it's operations.
Rules you want changed, removed, or added.
Anyone can post an idea, or comment on anyone else's idea.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Feb 26, 2017 19:52:14 GMT -5
1. Have the Stepien rule match the NBA: you cannot make a trade which might leave a team without a first round pick in consecutive years. (Any pick, not necessarily your own). Having the more restrictive Stepien rule that we have just makes the trade market too restrictive, and it's superfluous. Unlike the NBA, we have a trade committee. So if not having your own first round pick in consecutive years is too dangerous in 99% of cases, it can be a de facto rule via the trade committee vote. It's doesn't need to be de jure. 2. Off-season roster limit: Once your team's season is over, your roster limit increases to 20 players.
3: DPVE: You can designate 1 (or 2) players on your roster to an veteran extension, up to the 35% max, provided they meet one of the following criteria:- All-NBA twice in the last three seasons
- All-NBA in the previous season
- MVP award in the past three seasons
4. Mid-Level Exception: If the sum of your salaries and cap holds is >90% and <=110% of the salary cap, you get an exception worth 10% of the cap which allows you to exceed the cap. The exception counts against your cap as a hold unless rescinded.
5. "Taxpayer" Mid-Level Exception: If the sum of your salaries and cap holds is >110% of the salary cap, you get an exception worth 5% of the cap which allows you to exceed the cap. The exception counts against your cap as a hold unless rescinded.
6. Room Mid-Level Exception: If the sum of your salaries and cap holds is <=90% of the salary cap, you get an exception worth 5% of the cap which allows you to exceed the cap. The exception counts against your cap as a hold unless rescinded.
7. Draft Pick Conveyance: If a protected pick with increasing conveyance does not convey after two year, it becomes unprotected in year 3. If a protected pick with decreasing conveyance does not convey after year two, it become the next available 2nd round pick.
8. Birds Rights Player Cap Hold: Any unrestricted free agent with Birds Rights counts against the cap of the team that holds their Birds Rights at 150% of their previous salary. If the Birds Rights are renounced, the cap hold comes off the books.
9. Over-38 rule: If a 4+ year contract extends beyond a player's 38th birthday, any year which ends with the player being 38 or older will be attributed to the previous seasons' amount pro rata.
Allan Houston has submitted a few suggestions in his team forum. How do you guys feel about these?
|
|
Paul Pierce
Chicago Bulls
Posts: 2,818
Likes: 1,143
Total Bank: 6,050
|
Post by Paul Pierce on Feb 26, 2017 20:05:38 GMT -5
I like 1,2,4,7,9
|
|
Pete Maravich
Washington Wizards
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 772
Total Bank: 55,000
|
Post by Pete Maravich on Feb 26, 2017 20:47:20 GMT -5
I don't know how much any of these really improves the league. I think 4, 5, & 6 especially would just muddy the waters a bit when it comes keeping up with the rules. I do think we will need a way to penalize teams over the cap since a luxury tax isn't possible in a sim. I don't know how to accomplish that without adding a lot of language so I'll be on the fence pretty much across the board.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Feb 26, 2017 23:41:56 GMT -5
I 100% agree with #1. It's actually exactly how I thought the rule worked for at least the entire first season of D720. I don't see any reason to force a team to keep their own first, just that they have at least one on draft day every other year to make sure they don't screw themselves completely out of a future (for a multitude of reasons).
#2 is an interesting idea, and I support it to an extent, but as of now the offseason roster limit is "there is no offseason roster limit" so I'm not sure what the point of capping that non-limit at 20 is.. There will be some teams that use the lack of a roster limit to have 5 guys on their team and try to sign star players, and there will be some teams that use the offseason to stock up on extra players and figure out which 15 to trim down to right before the season starts. I think adding "D-League" Rosters would go a lot farther than Adding 5 players to the roster limit during the offseason.
#3 is interesting, but it might severely decrease the number of interesting FA battles we have in the offseason by making a player far more likely to stay with their incumbent team.
#4/5/6 are all similarly cool and difficult to implement here. Now that Bird Rights will officially kick in this offseason, it will be pretty interesting to see how players travel teams, but since the cap has been sky rocketing every season recently, the lack of a jump between 17-18 and 18-19 will be the first time that any of those things are extremely necessary. Let's hold off until such a time as that becomes a reality to test out how they might work. Just like we utilized our first off-season to realize that promises and multiple option years are terrible, we could use that offseason to test those exceptions and see how we like them.
#7: Protections are already interesting enough here... Because in real life, there isn't a 4 year window of tradable picks, protections are easier to navigate. If I already traded my 2019 1st, decide to trade my lottery-protected 1st with increasing conveyance, and then manage to to fall in the lottery in 2018, the team I traded my LP-1st to ends up with no pick from me in the year that the protection was supposed to disappear?
#8: Bird Rights cap holds will be difficult to make work, but ultimately I think we'll find them necessary.
#9: Unnecessary, but definitely an interesting concept. How many 38 year olds do we even currently have rostered? How many of them (if any) have a contract that extends beyond 38? The idea behind this was more realistic at age 36 IMO.
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Feb 27, 2017 0:06:23 GMT -5
I don't know how much any of these really improves the league. I think 4, 5, & 6 especially would just muddy the waters a bit when it comes keeping up with the rules. I do think we will need a way to penalize teams over the cap since a luxury tax isn't possible in a sim. I don't know how to accomplish that without adding a lot of language so I'll be on the fence pretty much across the board. I think that's a solid point. Birds rights, and exceptions in general, certainly make things complicated. An alternative, which I actually think is better and a lot of cap head promote, is just making a hard cap. Remove exceptions and rights. We can do some empirical analysis, seeing how much top paying team typically pay, to set the hard cap. The down side is that if you don't plan well, you get no advantages once your own guy hits unrestricted free agency, or even restricted free agency if your don't have room (but we don't have an Arenas provision anyway, so that's already an issue. [Not really Allan, because we only have RFAs off 1st round rookie contracts]). Extensions ameliorate that somewhat, but still requires planning to maintain room. For what it's worth, I think I'd prefer a hard cap.
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Feb 27, 2017 0:09:54 GMT -5
#2 is an interesting idea, and I support it to an extent, but as of now the offseason roster limit is "there is no offseason roster limit" so I'm not sure what the point of capping that non-limit at 20 is.. There will be some teams that use the lack of a roster limit to have 5 guys on their team and try to sign star players, and there will be some teams that use the offseason to stock up on extra players and figure out which 15 to trim down to right before the season starts. I think adding "D-League" Rosters would go a lot farther than Adding 5 players to the roster limit during the offseason. No one's done it, but an unlimited roster seems easily exploitable. If I'm not a playoff team, as soon as the season ends I can just stock up up all the potential D-league/Euro guys there are. Literally all. I could have a 100 man roster as is. Then I get the pick of the litter when I need to cut down to 15. That uses up cap space, but if I'm a tanking team, I'm not really looking to spend big bucks in free agency, but rather I want to find the cheap upside guys. And I could monopolize that market.
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Feb 27, 2017 0:11:50 GMT -5
#3 is interesting, but it might severely decrease the number of interesting FA battles we have in the offseason by making a player far more likely to stay with their incumbent team. I don't think I'm really for this yet either. Just thought I'd put it out there since it'll be in the new CBA. But so far the consequence has been opposite its intended effect, since it likely influenced Boogie's departure from Sacramento. I'd like to see how it plays out in the NBA for a couple seasons. Though it's gonna come up pretty rarely anyway.
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Feb 27, 2017 0:22:11 GMT -5
#7: Protections are already interesting enough here... Because in real life, there isn't a 4 year window of tradable picks, protections are easier to navigate. If I already traded my 2019 1st, decide to trade my lottery-protected 1st with increasing conveyance, and then manage to to fall in the lottery in 2018, the team I traded my LP-1st to ends up with no pick from me in the year that the protection was supposed to disappear? I think if you already traded your 2019 pick, then in this case you wouldn't be able to trade your 2017 with any conveyance. But what you should be able to do is trade (and we can make this universally implicit), instead of trading your 2019 pick, you trade your 2019 pick OR the first available pick. So, say you trade your 2019 pick to Team A. Then you then trade your 2017 pick lotto protected with increasing conveyance to Team B. You fall in the lotto, so Team B then gets your Top 8 protected 2018 pick, and Team A gets your 2020 pick. If then you fall in the Top 8, Team B gets your 2019 unprotected pick, and Team A gets your 2021 pick. That kind of seems to screw over Team A, but it also screws you over because you just lost many years of trade assets. So people would have to be wary of this when trading picks. I think if we want protections we need something like this. Maybe we should just have it two years instead of three. That is, increasing conveyance just means it becomes unrestricted in year 2, decreasing means it becomes a 2nd rounder. But as is as long as a team tanks enough the team they traded a pick to gets nothing.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Feb 27, 2017 0:23:38 GMT -5
#2 is an interesting idea, and I support it to an extent, but as of now the offseason roster limit is "there is no offseason roster limit" so I'm not sure what the point of capping that non-limit at 20 is.. There will be some teams that use the lack of a roster limit to have 5 guys on their team and try to sign star players, and there will be some teams that use the offseason to stock up on extra players and figure out which 15 to trim down to right before the season starts. I think adding "D-League" Rosters would go a lot farther than Adding 5 players to the roster limit during the offseason. No one's done it, but an unlimited roster seems easily exploitable. If I'm not a playoff team, as soon as the season ends I can just stock up up all the potential D-league/Euro guys there are. Literally all. I could have a 100 man roster as is. Then I get the pick of the litter when I need to cut down to 15. That uses up cap space, but if I'm a tanking team, I'm not really looking to spend big bucks in free agency, but rather I want to find the cheap upside guys. And I could monopolize that market. Yeah, no arguments as far as exploitability goes, but even if you did load up on 100 D-League / Euro guys to chose the 15 with the highest upside, you'd still eventually have to drop 85 of them and one offseason is hardly enough time to really fully analyze a giant group of cheap, upside guys. It's an exploit, but it's not an exceptionally good one unless 1) you absolutely nail every decision in regards to which players are kept, and 2) you successful draft/sign all 15 of them to long enough deals to really have a decent chance to evaluate. So I'm not 100% unafraid of that issue, but I'm also not willing to suggest we need a rule change to prevent the possibility of that.
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Feb 27, 2017 0:25:11 GMT -5
#9: Unnecessary, but definitely an interesting concept. How many 38 year olds do we even currently have rostered? How many of them (if any) have a contract that extends beyond 38? The idea behind this was more realistic at age 36 IMO. As is, there's an exploit that I know exists because I've taken advantage of it (though not to a huge effect because Paul Pierce dropped off a cliff). Without this, you can win a free agency auction for an old vet just by adding money in later years, money which you'd never have to pay because you know they're going to retire before that money takes effect. I think the age can put up for debate. I put 38 here because that's what it's going to be in the new CBA, mostly due to LeBron's influence.
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Feb 27, 2017 1:03:41 GMT -5
No one's done it, but an unlimited roster seems easily exploitable. If I'm not a playoff team, as soon as the season ends I can just stock up up all the potential D-league/Euro guys there are. Literally all. I could have a 100 man roster as is. Then I get the pick of the litter when I need to cut down to 15. That uses up cap space, but if I'm a tanking team, I'm not really looking to spend big bucks in free agency, but rather I want to find the cheap upside guys. And I could monopolize that market. Yeah, no arguments as far as exploitability goes, but even if you did load up on 100 D-League / Euro guys to chose the 15 with the highest upside, you'd still eventually have to drop 85 of them and one offseason is hardly enough time to really fully analyze a giant group of cheap, upside guys. It's an exploit, but it's not an exceptionally good one unless 1) you absolutely nail every decision in regards to which players are kept, and 2) you successful draft/sign all 15 of them to long enough deals to really have a decent chance to evaluate. So I'm not 100% unafraid of that issue, but I'm also not willing to suggest we need a rule change to prevent the possibility of that. It's not super urgent. But in response, your not going to be ultimately signing 15 Euro/D-league guys, since you'll certainly already have some guys under contract. You'll only be looking for a handful of seemingly useful guys (i.e. guys that get NBA contracts), and if you get a handful+1, then you get a trade asset which maybe could be flipped for a future 2nd round pick. That seems unfair to me. And while I don't really imagine someone doing that, why not nip it in the bud.
|
|
|
Post by Yao Ming on Feb 27, 2017 1:23:46 GMT -5
1. No leaving a team with no consecutive 1st round picks - What if there are championship contending teams, with multiple second round picks in the future, willing to give up their next two first round picks? I think our current trade committee system provides plenty of regulation for trades and that the Stepien rule may just be too much
2. Off-season roster limit to 20 players - this would impact the league a lot, haven't thought about the pros and cons yet. Salaries should keep this rule in check, though I think we should all have a discussion on this one if we were to make it a rule
3. Designated Player Veteran Extension - great idea, i think the new real-life CBA has something like this
4-6. Mid level exception, tax-payer and room mid-level exceptions - cool ideas, would incentivize more gm's to maybe get close to these figures, and reward those with good salary management
7. Draft pick conveyance - good rule. Allows for quicker materialization of draft picks
8. Birds Rights Player Cap Hold - I like this rule too, makes it a bit tougher to retain a player with bird rights. Many players will have bird rights activate these upcoming off seasons
9. Over 38 rule - Isn't this discriminating against those at/over the age of 38?
|
|
|
Post by Donkey Kong on Feb 27, 2017 2:42:06 GMT -5
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Feb 27, 2017 3:01:54 GMT -5
I second this. GMs should be able to give pitches to their PO players. (If that's not the case already. I forget.)
|
|
|
Post by Donkey Kong on Feb 27, 2017 9:59:02 GMT -5
About that thread I started, I think it mostly interesting the idea of being able to offer a new contract as an option for the player to decide on. Think that it would lower the load on regular fa a little and would turn POs into something cooler. And you would really need to think that offer hard enough because there would be no negotiation involved as I specify in my thread.
Plus, I think declining a PO for a established new contract is something that actually happens in real life. Don't ask me if it is legal or not because I don't know but I have seen it happen. for instances, there are teams that in order to get instant cap space offer a veteran with a big last year PO a 2 years contract or so for less money in the first year but more money overall and probably more money than what the player could get if he combines the money of the PO and what he could get as a FA in the following season.
|
|
|
Post by Donkey Kong on Feb 27, 2017 10:48:38 GMT -5
have a good example. Take Toronto Raptors for instance. Next off-season: Tyson Chandler $21,000,000 (PO) $22,750,000 (PO) $24,500,000 (TO) $92,242,631 total salary counting Chandler's PO.
And say the salary cap is set at $100M (can't remember the projected cap - it is just an example) and that the max Chandler can gets start at over $30M.
Then, if Raptors decide they don't want to use all the cap elsewhere because they are tanking they could offer Chandler the following.
"Chandler. In case, you are thinking about picking your PO I would like to present you an alternative that would give more overall money." counter offer: Year 1 / $23M, Year 2 / $21.5M (PO).
in that case, it would be a win win scenario because Chandler gets more money overall and Raptors get to save more money in the following season when it matter most to them (following the example off-course, not actually saying what Raptors should or shouldn't do).
|
|
Theodore Duncan
Portland Trail Blazers
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 1,414
Total Bank: 57,500
|
Post by Theodore Duncan on Feb 27, 2017 12:59:19 GMT -5
I'm cool with all the suggestions from Allan and Kong.
Obviously we can't mimic the luxury tax structure from real NBA, but I think we should make some changes to the hard cap to punish team that go multiple years way over the cap. For realism and stuff.
Just idea that popped into my head. I didn't think this through yet, but please comment.
Hard cap: 150% of salary cap "luxury tax cap": 125%
Team that is over the luxury tax gets in first year additional 5% of the salary cap as "penalty" salary. Second year would be 12,5% penalty salary. And third year 25%. Basically this would mean that latest in the third year of being over the luxury tax, team would go over the hard cap and would have to reduce team salary again under 125% luxury tax limit to reset the penalty. This would sort of works as a real life repeater tax payer rule, which makes it very expensive to stay above the luxury tax for many years.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Feb 27, 2017 13:34:15 GMT -5
Obviously we can't mimic the luxury tax structure from real NBA, but I think we should make some changes to the hard cap to punish team that go multiple years way over the cap. For realism and stuff. Just idea that popped into my head. I didn't think this through yet, but please comment. Hard cap: 150% of salary cap "luxury tax cap": 125% Team that is over the luxury tax gets in first year additional 5% of the salary cap as "penalty" salary. Second year would be 12,5% penalty salary. And third year 25%. Basically this would mean that latest in the third year of being over the luxury tax, team would go over the hard cap and would have to reduce team salary again under 125% luxury tax limit to reset the penalty. This would sort of works as a real life repeater tax payer rule, which makes it very expensive to stay above the luxury tax for many years. Maybe something like:
|
|
Theodore Duncan
Portland Trail Blazers
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 1,414
Total Bank: 57,500
|
Post by Theodore Duncan on Feb 27, 2017 15:30:35 GMT -5
I like that. It's simple and should work nicely.
|
|
Yeezy
Dallas Mavericks
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 737
Total Bank: 63,648
|
Post by Yeezy on Feb 27, 2017 17:18:15 GMT -5
I would like to suggest contract buy outs. So for example Player A has 3 years at 14M left, but you want to buy out the whole thing at once so you take 3 x 14 = $42M * 80% = $33.6M cap hit for current year.
|
|
Paul Pierce
Chicago Bulls
Posts: 2,818
Likes: 1,143
Total Bank: 6,050
|
Post by Paul Pierce on Feb 27, 2017 17:26:17 GMT -5
I would like to suggest contract buy outs. So for example Player A has 3 years at 14M left, but you want to buy out the whole thing at once so you take 3 x 14 = $42M * 80% = $33.6M cap hit for current year. yes
|
|
|
Post by Gregg Popovich on Feb 28, 2017 12:36:02 GMT -5
I didn't know we didn't have contract buyouts yet. I guess it wasn't an issue
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Jun 29, 2017 22:11:40 GMT -5
I'm keeping up my own rule ideas thread in my Knicks board. But one has caught some love, so I figured I'd throw it out here:
RFA period:
Split into three tiers like UFA. Then alternate RFA-UFA periods like this:
64+ RFAs 64+ UFAs 58-63 RFAs 58-63 UFAs other RFAs other UFAs
|
|
Pete Maravich
Washington Wizards
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 772
Total Bank: 55,000
|
Post by Pete Maravich on Aug 7, 2017 9:55:14 GMT -5
Luxury Tax idea.
What if all teams in the luxury tax zone have some kind of expansion draft style player protection rules. The worst teams would be able to select from that pool similar to the draft. Each team can protect up to 8 players, at least one player has to be made available that is in the tax zone, & only 1 player can be selected from each luxury tax team. There could even be a correlation between a luxury tax tier & how many players can be protected.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Aug 7, 2017 16:48:51 GMT -5
Two-way contracts idea
Each team gets two roster spots for two way contracts. For logistical reasons, they can only play if injuries bring the team's roster to below fifteen players. However, at the end of the first year, teams have the option to extend the contract another year (or let the player go). If the player gets extended into the second year, at the end of the second year he becomes an RFA. This way, teams can still hold onto and develop second rounders who can't break into a roster yet.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Aug 7, 2017 18:37:39 GMT -5
Tier 3 UFA becomes "Open Auction" ---
One of the most alarming things about the way this season played out was all the low tier RFAs that grabbed their QO when in real life they would most likely have not had the QO offered to them and/or their team would have rescinded the QO. I think a good way to fix this issue is to dress up what is currently "Tier 3 UFA" as an "Open Auction" period for free agents. This basically does not affect the UFAs at all, but what it allows us to do is put RFAs in a position to reap the benefits of an open auction the same way UFAs who haven't received quality offers can.
------
Logistics:
One of the problems here is the current free agent system necessarily restricts this possibility because of the way that RFAs are currently handled. Here are my suggestions:
After Tier 2 UFA, QOs for RFAs are automatically rescinded (unless the incumbent team's GM specifically re-extends the offer) and henceforth become untradeable the same way UFAs are. In essence, the QO being re-extended would basically never happen because there is no benefit for a GM that wants to keep their RFA to allow that RFA to enter open auction.
With the automatically rescinded QO, RFAs that didn't not receive valid offers would become UFAs and be able to rejoin the pool of available players that have a chance at maximizing their offers. If a GM DID re-extend the QO, the player would remain an RFA but continue to be untradeable. Whatever offer won the open auction for the player would be matchable by the incumbent team, and the player would be subject to the same UFA rules about when they are eligible to be traded again.
The basic reasoning behind this type of idea is that it would basically eliminate the potential for players to sign QOs who 1) shouldn't be capable of accepting a QO from a team that probably wouldn't have extended it, or 2) would be capable of making a lot more money if they could get open auction offers.
There might be other issues, but I think they should be pretty easy to iron out. The biggest benefit for this would be that it becomes the most like real life free agency. As it is now, an RFA being limited to two or three periods where they receive blind offers and then accepting a QO severely limits their potential for maximizing their offers. If the threat of a dropped QO or an open auction period sits at the end of the tiers, it will both light a fire under incumbent GMs and suitor GMs alike to make better offers earlier, as well as putting any restricted free agents that make it past the tiers in a period where they can get open auction offers that drive up their contracts a bit. I think it clears up some current issues without really bringing up many new ones.
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Aug 7, 2017 18:45:13 GMT -5
Easier solution: just make GMs explicitly extend all QOs to their RFAs, like irl and like how we do for Bird Rights. Really, how we do Bird Rights and QOs should be reversed. QOs have to be explicitly extended, BRs are automatically extended until renounced.
That would take care of the Sergey Karasevs who wouldn't get the QO in the first place.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Aug 7, 2017 18:59:14 GMT -5
Easier solution: just make GMs explicitly extend all QOs to their RFAs, like irl and like how we do for Bird Rights. Really, how we do Bird Rights and QOs should be reversed. QOs have to be explicitly extended, BRs are automatically extended until renounced. That would take care of the Sergey Karasevs who wouldn't get the QO in the first place. Problem is that I love the way RFAs are handled in such a way that they can be traded at all times during free agency... because ostensibly it doesn't make sense for a RFA to be untradeable when a GM should have 100% unhindered control to that player so long as they don't actively want to drop them. If we had to intentionally extend QOs then there would be more ways to skirt those rules and I would feel like the players shouldn't be tradeable.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 22, 2017 8:59:43 GMT -5
Remember (I think it was billy 's idea) the proposed draft order reform, of it being based off of guessing who has the worst team? I still think that's a great idea. Then, even rebuilding teams don't want to lose on purpose, because they have an incentive to be better than the team they guessed would be worst. Was the reason we didn't do this because of future picks being traded, or...?
|
|