Time to Get Rid of Restricted FA?

[gswhoops]

This is a take that I've been thinking about for a while, with the Giddey/Kuminga situations and now Cam Thomas chirping at Zach Lowe for reporting a lack of interest in him, I thought it might be the time to raise it for discussion.

It feels like restricted FA is no longer being used for its intended purpose - making sure that teams can keep the guys they really want to - and is more of a cudgel to force good, but not critical, players to accept less than what they could get on the open market as UFAs. Most teams lock up their "core" guys via extensions long before they reach free agency. Accordingly most high-level player movement now happens via trade rather than free agency. Which in a lot of ways is a win-win: players get more money guaranteed sooner, and teams get something back for players instead of letting them go for nothing.

So then the FA market ends up being less "superstars" and more "good but flawed/limited/underdeveloped" players. Teams are more and more using their cap space to pursue uneven trades for assets and/or be tax/apron-driven third wheels in other teams' deals. Even more and more FAs are changing teams via S&Ts rather than outsight signings.

All that means that the core idea of RFA being "fair" to players is flawed. They can't go out and "prove" their worth on the open market because there's no cap space and no market for them. They also can't go out and choose a better situation to "prove" their worth because their original team can and is incentivized to match a below market deal, even if they don't intend to give them a real chance to be a featured guy.

TLDR: the fundamental assumptions of restricted FA are no longer accurate and the league should get rid of it.

Thoughts? If this is too far the other idea I had was keeping RFA but putting real teeth into the qualifying offer, something like 150% of the full MLE (which would be $21.1M this year) and imposing a cap hold for that amount while it's outstanding, so teams have to actually think about whether to offer a QO rather than just doing it reflexively.

[Godaddycurse]

I think OP is overreacting in a year when no team has capspace. Last year IQ got a bigger contract than expected because there were team(s) w/ capspace (orlando).

Without RFA small market teams will be forced to overpay undeserving rookie players on their extensions, and max player may bail much sooner.

[BK_2020]

The reason guys like Cam Thomas, Kuminga and Giddey are getting lower offers than they would like isn't because they weren't allowed to "prove" their worth. It's the opposite. They proved their worth too much. When a halfway decent player hits RFA they get an offer sheet. Even Ayton got a max offer sheet.

[jayjaysee]

I’d add Grimes to the list. Okoro, Sexton come to mind..

[jbk1234]

The reason guys like Cam Thomas, Kuminga and Giddey are getting lower offers than they would like isn't because they weren't allowed to "prove" their worth. It's the opposite. They proved their worth too much. When a halfway decent player hits RFA they get an offer sheet. Even Ayton got a max offer sheet.

I would add to this that even in tight markets, there are usually S&T opportunities, so long as the trade partner agrees with the player's contract expectations.

[Texas Chuck]

Like rookie scale deals its always been bad for most players. But vets went along with it to ensure more of the pie went to them rather than rookies coming in on giant contracts the way they once did.

[ChettheJet]

Part of the CBA is teams should be able to build through the draft. When they draft a player they need to have some expectation that they will be able to retain that player, they don't have the right to hold back players after their rookie contract. The players get to be RFA so that is they excel and some team thinks they're worth big money the team that drafted him don't just lose him outright, the right to match an offer if they deem it fair to them.

Yeah some here think the players deserve to do as they please and screw the owners but a league needs stability in ownership and if teams don't have a way to retain the players they draft and can't build that way, you'll have more teams being sold and the league will become weak. Grow up

[toooskies]

All of the players in RFA now are guys who should be there. None of them are sure-thing stars and their true contract value is ambiguous depending on how you expect them to develop.

I might tweak the BYC and QO rules before getting rid of RFA.

Just doing away with BYC would make facilitation a lot easier on teams in sign-and-trade scenarios. It exists primarily to be a pain when you don't need to add pain to this kind of process.

You could also tweak the QO rules so that the team is able to set whatever QO dollar amount they want, and they're able to match up to twice that number in first year salary. That makes the teams' and players' decisions a lot more interesting.

[LightTheBeam]

I think it needs some change but not entirely scrapped. It's hard to flesh it out, but here's my rough idea.

If you want to keep restricted FA status for that player, you have to meet some minimum contract threshold. Rough example is say 15% of the cap minimum. This would make it so lesser players aren't necessarily tied to it, but the max guys can't just walk to the big markets.

So using a round number, if the cap was 150 million. If the Warriors fail to offer Kuminga 15% (22.5 AAV) then he's able to decline RFA status and go sign wherever he wants.

[toooskies]

I think it needs some change but not entirely scrapped. It's hard to flesh it out, but here's my rough idea.

If you want to keep restricted FA status for that player, you have to meet some minimum contract threshold. Rough example is say 15% of the cap minimum. This would make it so lesser players aren't necessarily tied to it, but the max guys can't just walk to the big markets.

So using a round number, if the cap was 150 million. If the Warriors fail to offer Kuminga 15% (22.5 AAV) then he's able to decline RFA status and go sign wherever he wants.

This is the existing QO system except it scales with where you're drafted (and can be tweaked up/down depending on whether you start more or less than your draft position expects), and it's only a 1-year deal.

[LightTheBeam]

I think it needs some change but not entirely scrapped. It's hard to flesh it out, but here's my rough idea.

If you want to keep restricted FA status for that player, you have to meet some minimum contract threshold. Rough example is say 15% of the cap minimum. This would make it so lesser players aren't necessarily tied to it, but the max guys can't just walk to the big markets.

So using a round number, if the cap was 150 million. If the Warriors fail to offer Kuminga 15% (22.5 AAV) then he's able to decline RFA status and go sign wherever he wants.

This is the existing QO system except it scales with where you're drafted (and can be tweaked up/down depending on whether you start more or less than your draft position expects), and it's only a 1-year deal.

I understand the QO, I'm talking about 2nd contract year 5 and beyond.

The QO only takes into account year 4, and it's very rarely declined on any decent player.

It would have some other stipulations like must be a 3 year deal starting at 15%.

[Mavrelous]

RFA is a must have, but I'd lessen the restriction on QO, at least don't make a trade lose bird rights.

[oldncreaky]

I think it needs some change but not entirely scrapped. It's hard to flesh it out, but here's my rough idea.

If you want to keep restricted FA status for that player, you have to meet some minimum contract threshold. Rough example is say 15% of the cap minimum. This would make it so lesser players aren't necessarily tied to it, but the max guys can't just walk to the big markets.

So using a round number, if the cap was 150 million. If the Warriors fail to offer Kuminga 15% (22.5 AAV) then he's able to decline RFA status and go sign wherever he wants.

This is the existing QO system except it scales with where you're drafted (and can be tweaked up/down depending on whether you start more or less than your draft position expects), and it's only a 1-year deal.

You are correct that the QO kind of does this already -- but where a player was drafted years ago really should not matter in terms of his free agency and negotiations on a second contract

I like LightTheBeam's tweak, although I might tie it to the MLE rather than a % of the cap i.e. a team has to offer a contract >= to a 3 year NTMLE deal to retain RFA rights

[OGSactownballer]

This is a take that I've been thinking about for a while, with the Giddey/Kuminga situations and now Cam Thomas chirping at Zach Lowe for reporting a lack of interest in him, I thought it might be the time to raise it for discussion.

It feels like restricted FA is no longer being used for its intended purpose - making sure that teams can keep the guys they really want to - and is more of a cudgel to force good, but not critical, players to accept less than what they could get on the open market as UFAs. Most teams lock up their "core" guys via extensions long before they reach free agency. Accordingly most high-level player movement now happens via trade rather than free agency. Which in a lot of ways is a win-win: players get more money guaranteed sooner, and teams get something back for players instead of letting them go for nothing.

So then the FA market ends up being less "superstars" and more "good but flawed/limited/underdeveloped" players. Teams are more and more using their cap space to pursue uneven trades for assets and/or be tax/apron-driven third wheels in other teams' deals. Even more and more FAs are changing teams via S&Ts rather than outsight signings.

All that means that the core idea of RFA being "fair" to players is flawed. They can't go out and "prove" their worth on the open market because there's no cap space and no market for them. They also can't go out and choose a better situation to "prove" their worth because their original team can and is incentivized to match a below market deal, even if they don't intend to give them a real chance to be a featured guy.

TLDR: the fundamental assumptions of restricted FA are no longer accurate and the league should get rid of it.

Thoughts? If this is too far the other idea I had was keeping RFA but putting real teeth into the qualifying offer, something like 150% of the full MLE (which would be $21.1M this year) and imposing a cap hold for that amount while it's outstanding, so teams have to actually think about whether to offer a QO rather than just doing it reflexively.

I think you’re just unhappy because your team is caught in a trap of their own making.

They should have diced everything but Curry three years ago and they would have a nice young core led by a superstar in his last couple years now.

Instead they made the standard arrogant error of trying to hold on too long and not have anything in the cupboard of value as their aging stars fade away.

[toooskies]

I think it needs some change but not entirely scrapped. It's hard to flesh it out, but here's my rough idea.

If you want to keep restricted FA status for that player, you have to meet some minimum contract threshold. Rough example is say 15% of the cap minimum. This would make it so lesser players aren't necessarily tied to it, but the max guys can't just walk to the big markets.

So using a round number, if the cap was 150 million. If the Warriors fail to offer Kuminga 15% (22.5 AAV) then he's able to decline RFA status and go sign wherever he wants.

This is the existing QO system except it scales with where you're drafted (and can be tweaked up/down depending on whether you start more or less than your draft position expects), and it's only a 1-year deal.

You are correct that the QO kind of does this already -- but where a player was drafted years ago really should not matter in terms of his free agency and negotiations on a second contract

I like LightTheBeam's tweak, although I might tie it to the MLE rather than a % of the cap i.e. a team has to offer a contract >= to a 3 year NTMLE deal to retain RFA rights

None of the RFAs who aren’t signed would take that deal.

[djFan71]

All of the players in RFA now are guys who should be there. None of them are sure-thing stars and their true contract value is ambiguous depending on how you expect them to develop.

I might tweak the BYC and QO rules before getting rid of RFA.

Just doing away with BYC would make facilitation a lot easier on teams in sign-and-trade scenarios. It exists primarily to be a pain when you don't need to add pain to this kind of process.

You could also tweak the QO rules so that the team is able to set whatever QO dollar amount they want, and they're able to match up to twice that number in first year salary. That makes the teams' and players' decisions a lot more interesting.

I like all of this. BYC is dumb and apron restrictions make those type of moves to big spenders harder/illegal now anyways. QO with match based on the tendered contract is great. Should be a lower percentage though, maybe only 50% more. But, either way, cool idea.

Tangentially related, but a player should be able to waive any of the "wait X days" before moving them in re-aggregation or just signed this extension/etc type limits.

[BK_2020]

Can't get rid of RFA without also getting rid of the draft. The whole point of the draft is to allow worse teams to get better, but if team control is limited to age 20-24 of a blue chip prospect the Hornets and the Wizards of the league will forever be relegated to being farm systems for the higher profile teams. So either rework the entire player distribution system or give up on the idea that every team has a chance to compete and the smaller market fans will have to celebrate their teams not getting relegated or something like in Europe.

[Rand10]

Removing salary matching in trades is an easy way to make RFA movement through sign and trade more feasible (and all other trades as well). I see no real purpose for it anymore with the aprons there to limit how much salary can be added.

But if you want to create a better market for RFA's in general it may take an overhaul to the system. Give teams who are over the cap but under the 1st apron a way to offer contracts above the MLE. The salary cap itself seems kind of outdated if almost no team ever gets below it and the aprons are where you really want to limit payroll.

[gswhoops]

I think it needs some change but not entirely scrapped. It's hard to flesh it out, but here's my rough idea.

If you want to keep restricted FA status for that player, you have to meet some minimum contract threshold. Rough example is say 15% of the cap minimum. This would make it so lesser players aren't necessarily tied to it, but the max guys can't just walk to the big markets.

So using a round number, if the cap was 150 million. If the Warriors fail to offer Kuminga 15% (22.5 AAV) then he's able to decline RFA status and go sign wherever he wants.

This is the existing QO system except it scales with where you're drafted (and can be tweaked up/down depending on whether you start more or less than your draft position expects), and it's only a 1-year deal.

You are correct that the QO kind of does this already -- but where a player was drafted years ago really should not matter in terms of his free agency and negotiations on a second contract

I like LightTheBeam's tweak, although I might tie it to the MLE rather than a % of the cap i.e. a team has to offer a contract >= to a 3 year NTMLE deal to retain RFA rights

Yeah I think regardless of how exactly you operationalize it, the core concept here is that the QO isn't a meaningful decision for teams - basically all of them offer it as a matter of course because there's very little chance a desirable FA actually takes the QO. Tweaking it to make it so that the requirement to extend the QO to get RFA status is actually a meaningful decision seems like a good first step at least.

I think that means (1) tying it to a % of the salary cap rather than the player's draft position and (2) making it a much higher number overall

[shrink]

Now that new CBA rules have shrunk the waiting time for home teams to decide to match offers for their RFAs, I don’t think there is as much of penalty for other bidders to make offers on RFA’s and get their cap space frozen. I don’t mind agents being able to go out into the market and find the best deal, and the original team still gets to decide whether to match.

I also think the lack of cap space this year is likely temporary. If teams discover they can use their cap space to nab decent rotation players on valuable, under-market contracts, whether to keep or trade them, you will see teams saving their space for that strategy.