CBA Suggestion: Exception to allow Teams to Replace Players who Leave via Free Agency

[tidho]

If the concern is overpaying role players, I'd go the other way and suggest only four, or even three, players on any roster in any particular season could be eligible for full Bird rights.

I like this idea.

The OP's exception idea is interesting too. I don't dislike it, but I think it would become a lot less popular the moment a really good team used it. Look at Cleveland last off season, Mozgov and Delly both landed pretty big deals. Anyone outside Cleveland really want them to be able to spend that?

[Edrees]

I really like this idea a lot. Rare to see a great CBA suggestion like this usually it's some radical idea that would never happen like having a hard cap.

[jpengland]

I would limit it to guys who joined their current team on their rookie deals, or perhaps guys with a minimum of 3 years with their current team. But in essence, I like it.

[jbk1234]

If the concern is overpaying role players, I'd go the other way and suggest only four, or even three, players on any roster in any particular season could be eligible for full Bird rights.

I like this idea.

The OP's exception idea is interesting too. I don't dislike it, but I think it would become a lot less popular the moment a really good team used it. Look at Cleveland last off season, Mozgov and Delly both landed pretty big deals. Anyone outside Cleveland really want them to be able to spend that?

Exactly. That would be an additional $27 million in cap space for the team with the highest payroll in the league. Competing owners would never agree to that.

[cthunshammer]

I don't like this idea. The idea behind the Bird exception is to allow teams to keep players that they draft and have grown with the team.

Applying it to an example, you go the Hayward route- throw the peace sign to the fans out the door on the last game and turn down more money (albeit not a large amount more) to go follow his dreams with boytoy Brad Stevens.



Yeah, no. I like this idea a lot.

[Golabki]

Way too many times; we've seen teams in the same precarious position -- not wanting to hand over the big bucks requested by a role player; but unable to replace him if he leaves due to being capped out (i.e. Otto Porter, Tristan Thompson, J. R. Smith, etc.). With all the changes that we've seen I would love to see Adam Silver and the players union discuss this; as there simply has to be a mechanism that allows teams some modicum of flexibility while still allowing the player the opportunity to receive his true value on the free market.

My suggestion you ask? Allow a team an exception worth 50% of the starting salary received by the departing free agent. This gives team an additional avenue instead of the 2 that are referenced above. That would allow a team like Washington to replace Otto Porter with a decent vet (i.e. Rudy Gay or Johnathon Simmons) while still remaining fiscally responsible.

Two questions for you guys: 1) Could you see this happening? and 2) Should it?

This makes sense and seems plausible... unlike 99% of the rule change suggestions on this board. Congrats!

I can't see any reason for the players to oppose it.
The concern would be owners blocking it because they want to limit the market for mid-tier free agents, but you could imagine enough owners who've been burned whining loudly enough to get it through.

[Golabki]

I don't like this idea. The idea behind the Bird exception is to allow teams to keep players that they draft and have grown with the team.

Applying it to an example, you go the Hayward route- throw the peace sign to the fans out the door on the last game and turn down more money (albeit not a large amount more) to go follow his dreams with boytoy Brad Stevens.



Yeah, no. I like this idea a lot.

Agreed. People should be 100% devoted to my pleasure, 100% of the time. Otherwise they are obviously selfish.

[dorkestra]

I think it's a great suggestion that would further liberalize labor movement in the NBA.

[cthunshammer]

I don't like this idea. The idea behind the Bird exception is to allow teams to keep players that they draft and have grown with the team.

Applying it to an example, you go the Hayward route- throw the peace sign to the fans out the door on the last game and turn down more money (albeit not a large amount more) to go follow his dreams with boytoy Brad Stevens.



Yeah, no. I like this idea a lot.

Agreed. People should be 100% devoted to my pleasure, 100% of the time. Otherwise they are obviously selfish.

You don't get it, obviously. The player can go wherever they want. This is a provision that would benefit both the player, and helps the team from being reverted back to shadow realm in terms of development while having a fighting chance to replace them.

[Warriorfan]

Teams who are from a big market would gain another advantage. The warriors would probably take the exemption over co mmitting to a player long term.

[YogurtProducer]

I don't mind the idea. One little addition I would make to it is that if a team uses it 50% exception (or whatever you want to call it) they then forfeit their MLE and bi-annual exceptions.

But at the same time a rule like this only helps keep the rich rich and gives some poorly managed teams an easy out. Free agency doesn't just sneak on teams, the Wizards are a prime example of this. They knew Porter was going to be restricted this summer and due for a big raise yet they went out and spent like drunken sailors last summer. That was their choice and it was their choice to match on Porter and pay the tax this year (unless they dump someone). They could of been smarter with their money last summer and set themselves up to be a better cap situation this summer but they didn't and I don't think teams that put themselves in situations like this should get an out.

I think it should be kind of an addition to the MLE. You could use it in addition to the MLE. Instead of only 6 million, you would have say 18 million to use

[MeestR]

I like the premise of the idea provided that the team the player left offered a deal to re-sign said player. This is to avoid team's taking advantage of the provision and letting a player walk to create a sizeable exception to sign another FA. For example GS let's Klay walk in free agency and are able to offer a contract to another quality player and don't skip a beat while trimming salary and luxury tax.

Allow incumbent team an Exception up to the amount they formally offered their departing Free Agent. Provided the departing free agent played a minimum of 3 years with incumbent team? or was drafted by incumbent team?

Either way, count me with those who really like this.

[DoItALL9]

This sounds similar to compensation in the NFL. I dislike the idea. Pay or develop other talent. These situations don't come up in surprise. Plan ahead

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

[phraoh]

I think its a great idea, but wonder if it would help add $$$ to the Players. My thoughts are that overall $$ would go up since there is an extra exception. Right now, players just collude or move teams, and the existing team who may have drafted and groomed a player lose him for really no fault of their own, because they are not in a warm climate, major market, non state tax city, etc. If Lebron leaves Cavs after the season, you know he isn't going to give them warning, and they will be stuck with nothing for a generational player. At least give them the opportunity to sign a free agent for half (15+ mill) to partially replace him.

[DBoys]

I think its a great idea, but wonder if it would help add $$$ to the Players. My thoughts are that overall $$ would go up since there is an extra exception. Right now, players just collude or move teams, and the existing team who may have drafted and groomed a player lose him for really no fault of their own, because they are not in a warm climate, major market, non state tax city, etc. If Lebron leaves Cavs after the season, you know he isn't going to give them warning, and they will be stuck with nothing for a generational player. At least give them the opportunity to sign a free agent for half (15+ mill) to partially replace him.

It would not add $$$ to the players. But the dirty little secret of the Players Assoc is that NO provision in the cap structure actually adds to or reduces $$$ to the players overall. All the various things like MLE and max individual player salary and the like are to allow a certain set of players to get a bigger $$$ slice of the players pie. But with them or without them, the owners as a group end up paying the same to the players as a group.