Looking for Input on Rule Change

[Laimbeer40]

Current Rule: Sign player to 1 yr deal, then they become UFA next year.

Proposed Change: Sign player to 1 yr deal, then they become UFA next year OR you would be given an opportunity to extend the player under the following terms...

1 yr extension at the higher value of 
a) 3x their current salary
b) Their re-sign value in the final rankings that year * 0.85x


Example:

I have Jae'Sean Tate. Current Salary is 1.6, UFA. If I wanted to re-sign him I could do so at
a) 1.6 x 3 = 4.8m
b) Ranked 98th (so we will pretend this is his YE rank)... 7m x 0.85 = 5.95m

Thus I would have the option to extend him to 6.0, UFA.

Example 2:

Pacers have Kenrich Williams at 1.0, UFA
a) 1.0 x 3 = 3.0m
b) Ranked 199th... 2m x 0.85 = 1.7m

So IND could extend him to 3.0m, UFA. 


I don't believe this change would be a huge impact but I did want to give people a little more benefit for finding those diamonds in the rough. Would either guy in this example get re-signed at the new value? Not sure. But it would be nice to have the option. Obviously too late to implement for this year but if we like it, then it could be added for next season.

Thoughts?

[Andrewmott]

I think I like the way it is now. It potentially boots the FA pool. And gives a little more strategy into wether you sign a guy for one or two years, especially without having free drops, makes it more interesting. But like you said, it won’t be a big impact either way. So, I’m fine with either.

[tomviolence]

Also fine either way. I kind of like it for the reasons you mention Laim, but also like the current rules that ensure a more robust FA market.

[Goldie]

I like the effect the new rule has had on the league. I think it's a good thing for fewer players to re-sign for more players to hit the open market. These one-year deals are clearly prove it contracts, the player deserves the right to see what's out there if they do well.

[Laimbeer40]

Ok I think I have my answer. If it isn’t broken I won’t fix it.