EwingSweatsALot wrote:Rookie Draft
I think it is an important part of keeping this league unique. It puts in a new wrinkle into trying to build a team. I do get though that guys don't value the picks, just like actual real NBA teams (Dallas for instance), while others do value them a lot. Also I do get that the rookies in here might not be worth their rookie contracts, just like in real life, but you aren't drafting them for their rookie year, but to hold on to them and to keep them as they build up and become worth what you pay them. To have that right to have an All Star if he pans out.
I think there are issues that can be resolved to help both situations. One year guaranteed contracts with a team option after year one(if you exercise that team option the contract is guaranteed for that year). If you choose to keep the player through year 2 then you can restrict them on top of the 1 player you get to restrict that year. This allows you to not have to have a rookie for year 2 if you don't want, but it also allows guys to build through the draft if they so choose. A guy like LP this year doesn't have to worry about only keeping one of the guys he drafted this year and losing them. He has the ability if he so chooses to keep them. Also, I know people just don't want picks, well it's not hard to get rid of them. People will take them. Pooty took 2 this year, I was wanting to take Blackout's because I really wanted the Zinger, but I didn't have another pick to give him like he wanted. Picks are out there to give away if you really feel that the $1 you save is more important than that player. I truly believe that if you really want to, you can get rid of the pick.
I like the solution that you guys came up with. Rookies can still be waived penalty free after one season, but the team option after year two for two years can be incentive to gamble on pick picks 1-3. I'm not sure how I feel about the extra restriction but I'm not necessarily opposed to it.
EwingSweatsALot wrote:Contract Lengths
I prefer somewhat where the contracts are at. I think longer contracts punish owners for the mistakes they make. I'll use myself as an example. I gave D. Rose a 4 year deal and I have paying for it mightily. I **** up, and I deserve to be punished for it. Shorter contracts don't do that. It makes it easier for players to get out of issues they caused themselves.
I do like the idea though of staggering the lengths of contracts based on something, RFA, FA, etc. So maybe we do a 1-4 year for some players, a 1-3 for others, and the the rookie contract deal.
Blackout can probably answer it best, but at it's simplest form how do the lengths work? Isn't it if a player stays with his original team he can be offered a longer deal than if he leaves? Maybe we handle it that way no matter RFA or FA. If you keep a guy in RFA or FA, you can do a 1-4, if another player wins him then they can only offer up to 3? I'm not sure how to handle this part, I do know though that I prefer being able to offer up to 4 years in some capacity because it magnifies both mistakes and good decisions.
I agree the longer contracts punish owners for mistakes. My thoughts of only being able to restrict a player once, staggering RFA/FA and shorter contracts in general came more so out of concerns of stagnation in movement with the top players. It will not happen 100% of the time but conceivably a team could lock a player up for the majority of his career. If everyone is OK with that then I'm fine as well. I just thought it would be good to ponder and review each year and gauge how everyone is feeling. The ideas I had above obviously would work against myself with Lebron and Anthony Davis currently on my squad, although who knows what will happen, but I also don't want anyone to feel like they never have a legit shot at a top player.
