Post by Miege22 on May 25, 2023 11:12:05 GMT -5
We've tried to find the best way possible to do re-signs, and now I want to present a few potential changes to the group. Nothing would go into effect until summer 2025, when the new re-sign period starts, but it is imperative that we get input now. If we end up making changes, we're going to want as much lead time as possible. Here are three potential options:
OPTION 1: RESTRICTED FA
We would keep the 3 re-signs in 5 years rule, but one of those re-signs will have to go through the silent auction/restricted FA process. Let's use John Collins this year as an example. If the Jazz had designated him for the silent auction slot, every team in the league would be able to submit a contract offer to a neutral third party (likely myself or one other volunteer if I am involved in the bidding). The third party would compile the bids, then announce the winning bid at the end of the time frame. At that point, the re-signing team would have the ability to match the offer, decline the offer and relinquish the player to the winning bidder, or work out a sign-and-trade. The two teams would have an additional 72 hours to come to a sign-and-trade agreement. If no agreement is reached, the re-signing team would then have to decide to match or decline the offer sheet. There are some stipulations for any bidding team:
1. They must have the cap space and roster room to accommodate the player, should they have the winning bid. That means no conditional bidding.
2. Bids must be for a minimum of 3 years. The third year can be an option year. Bidding teams will also have the option of going up to 5 years on these players (as opposed to the max of 4 years in traditional FA).
3. The maximum salary bid is $15 million. In the event that multiple teams submit winning bids, then the re-signing team may pick which team to work out a trade with. If trade discussions stall, then the re-signing team will have to match or decline, as they normally would. If they decline, then all teams who submitted winning bids will then be asked to submit a 2nd bid. The max salary ceiling will be removed for this 2nd round. The winning bid wins the player. This will continue until a team has won said player.
4. If a re-signing team puts a player up for restricted FA, and they decline to match, they retain the restricted FA re-sign slot for future use during that 5-year window.
5. We will limit the players currently up for bidding to two per 72-hour period.
As a thought exercise, let's go back to the John Collins example. Let's say he was put up for restricted FA by the Jazz. After the three-day window, the Orlando Magic have the winning bid of $11,000,000/year for 4 years. The Jazz decide to enter trade negotiations. They would then have 72 hours to come to an agreement. No agreement is reached, and the Jazz elect to decline to match. The Magic would then "win" John Collins at $11,000,000 (2026).
Now, let's think through some of the positives/negatives.
POSITIVES: "Silent" format adds intrigue and anticipation of deadline. Artificially creating deadlines drives up activity. Only 40 players would avoid free agency, meaning an additional 20 players that otherwise wouldn't be available are suddenly available to everyone. Minimum year bids and max salary bids should limit crazy one year offers to obtain a player's re-sign rights. Trade negotiations are created by the system, rather than relying on individual owners to strike up talks (i.e. our less active owners are cajoled to talk). Helps to add another aspect to a summer period which can sometimes drag.
NEGATIVES: Could potentially stifle trade talks if restricted FA players are considered less valuable (flip side is less desirability could lead to more trades as prices are brought down). Top-40 players could see their price skyrocket. Less active owners may decide to quit rather than put in more time. Two or three team bidding wars could happen in the 2nd or 3rd rounds of bidding (if it gets to that point). Possibly some initial discontent from owners who planned far into the future. Shorter windows could disenfranchise owners without internet access for an extended period of time.
OPTION 2: INJURY DISCOUNTS
In order to smoothen the resign process for players with an injury prone label, my idea was to optionally include a "Games played" clause to resigns.
The idea behind this is that this way these injury prone players will receive a resign offer as if they'd be reasonably healthy (which would be higher than they'd get now because they are usually discounted), and only get discount when they actually miss games. That way we don't have to account for that beforehand during resigns, which makes the valuation easier.
Details need to be worked out, but it would be something like this:
Player X - 14.000.000 for 4 years with a team option on the 5th, and a "Games Played" clause of 25%/2 million.
This would mean that if in any season of the contract the player misses 25% or more of our league's games, the contract will be discounted for 2 million the next season.
The % and discount could be set numbers, or they could be variables chosen by the resigning team.
Also, there could be a condition that needs to be met in order to include the clause, so not every player gets it tagged on. Maybe this is not necessary because the resign committee could also just judge whether it's fair to include, and usually when you include this clause you're expected to up the contract number compared to a contract without this clause.
OPTION 3: OWNER STRUCTURES PAYOUT
Customizable Contracts - There would have to be a value placed on the overall contract cost. Let's use Giannis as our example. Based on league history, we can expect Giannis to get a $15M per year contract for four years and a fifth year option. Therefore, $15M x 5 years = $75M total cost. Now, let's say that $15M has to be reserved for the option year. So the fifth year costs $15M no matter what. However, we could allow owners to customize the way in which the remaining $60M is distributed (to a certain extent). For the sake of an example, let's say they have to earn at least 15% of that remaining $60M per year (min. salary per year $9M in this example).
Let's say I want to pay $30M in year 1, $12M in year 2, $9M in years 3 and 4. Year 5 would automatically be the average of the total contract ($15M) if I exercised the option. I think the annual breakdown would have to be laid out in the re-sign attempt as well.
This is a high level run down of the idea. Naturally, there is still going to be a responsibility on the owner to present evidence of the re-sign amount just like they do today. However, allowing teams to customize the manner in which the contract is distributed would allow them to pay a little more today if there is a concern that production might taper off in the future years of the contract.
We could also explore front loading and back loading contracts as well but I think this would give some good flexibility to owners while also ensuring guys are being paid in line with market value.
Now, it is possible to do option 1 and either options 2 or 3, though doing so would be a rather dramatic change. Only option 1 would eliminate the re-sign committee. Please share your thoughts!
OPTION 1: RESTRICTED FA
We would keep the 3 re-signs in 5 years rule, but one of those re-signs will have to go through the silent auction/restricted FA process. Let's use John Collins this year as an example. If the Jazz had designated him for the silent auction slot, every team in the league would be able to submit a contract offer to a neutral third party (likely myself or one other volunteer if I am involved in the bidding). The third party would compile the bids, then announce the winning bid at the end of the time frame. At that point, the re-signing team would have the ability to match the offer, decline the offer and relinquish the player to the winning bidder, or work out a sign-and-trade. The two teams would have an additional 72 hours to come to a sign-and-trade agreement. If no agreement is reached, the re-signing team would then have to decide to match or decline the offer sheet. There are some stipulations for any bidding team:
1. They must have the cap space and roster room to accommodate the player, should they have the winning bid. That means no conditional bidding.
2. Bids must be for a minimum of 3 years. The third year can be an option year. Bidding teams will also have the option of going up to 5 years on these players (as opposed to the max of 4 years in traditional FA).
3. The maximum salary bid is $15 million. In the event that multiple teams submit winning bids, then the re-signing team may pick which team to work out a trade with. If trade discussions stall, then the re-signing team will have to match or decline, as they normally would. If they decline, then all teams who submitted winning bids will then be asked to submit a 2nd bid. The max salary ceiling will be removed for this 2nd round. The winning bid wins the player. This will continue until a team has won said player.
4. If a re-signing team puts a player up for restricted FA, and they decline to match, they retain the restricted FA re-sign slot for future use during that 5-year window.
5. We will limit the players currently up for bidding to two per 72-hour period.
As a thought exercise, let's go back to the John Collins example. Let's say he was put up for restricted FA by the Jazz. After the three-day window, the Orlando Magic have the winning bid of $11,000,000/year for 4 years. The Jazz decide to enter trade negotiations. They would then have 72 hours to come to an agreement. No agreement is reached, and the Jazz elect to decline to match. The Magic would then "win" John Collins at $11,000,000 (2026).
Now, let's think through some of the positives/negatives.
POSITIVES: "Silent" format adds intrigue and anticipation of deadline. Artificially creating deadlines drives up activity. Only 40 players would avoid free agency, meaning an additional 20 players that otherwise wouldn't be available are suddenly available to everyone. Minimum year bids and max salary bids should limit crazy one year offers to obtain a player's re-sign rights. Trade negotiations are created by the system, rather than relying on individual owners to strike up talks (i.e. our less active owners are cajoled to talk). Helps to add another aspect to a summer period which can sometimes drag.
NEGATIVES: Could potentially stifle trade talks if restricted FA players are considered less valuable (flip side is less desirability could lead to more trades as prices are brought down). Top-40 players could see their price skyrocket. Less active owners may decide to quit rather than put in more time. Two or three team bidding wars could happen in the 2nd or 3rd rounds of bidding (if it gets to that point). Possibly some initial discontent from owners who planned far into the future. Shorter windows could disenfranchise owners without internet access for an extended period of time.
OPTION 2: INJURY DISCOUNTS
In order to smoothen the resign process for players with an injury prone label, my idea was to optionally include a "Games played" clause to resigns.
The idea behind this is that this way these injury prone players will receive a resign offer as if they'd be reasonably healthy (which would be higher than they'd get now because they are usually discounted), and only get discount when they actually miss games. That way we don't have to account for that beforehand during resigns, which makes the valuation easier.
Details need to be worked out, but it would be something like this:
Player X - 14.000.000 for 4 years with a team option on the 5th, and a "Games Played" clause of 25%/2 million.
This would mean that if in any season of the contract the player misses 25% or more of our league's games, the contract will be discounted for 2 million the next season.
The % and discount could be set numbers, or they could be variables chosen by the resigning team.
Also, there could be a condition that needs to be met in order to include the clause, so not every player gets it tagged on. Maybe this is not necessary because the resign committee could also just judge whether it's fair to include, and usually when you include this clause you're expected to up the contract number compared to a contract without this clause.
OPTION 3: OWNER STRUCTURES PAYOUT
Customizable Contracts - There would have to be a value placed on the overall contract cost. Let's use Giannis as our example. Based on league history, we can expect Giannis to get a $15M per year contract for four years and a fifth year option. Therefore, $15M x 5 years = $75M total cost. Now, let's say that $15M has to be reserved for the option year. So the fifth year costs $15M no matter what. However, we could allow owners to customize the way in which the remaining $60M is distributed (to a certain extent). For the sake of an example, let's say they have to earn at least 15% of that remaining $60M per year (min. salary per year $9M in this example).
Let's say I want to pay $30M in year 1, $12M in year 2, $9M in years 3 and 4. Year 5 would automatically be the average of the total contract ($15M) if I exercised the option. I think the annual breakdown would have to be laid out in the re-sign attempt as well.
This is a high level run down of the idea. Naturally, there is still going to be a responsibility on the owner to present evidence of the re-sign amount just like they do today. However, allowing teams to customize the manner in which the contract is distributed would allow them to pay a little more today if there is a concern that production might taper off in the future years of the contract.
We could also explore front loading and back loading contracts as well but I think this would give some good flexibility to owners while also ensuring guys are being paid in line with market value.
Now, it is possible to do option 1 and either options 2 or 3, though doing so would be a rather dramatic change. Only option 1 would eliminate the re-sign committee. Please share your thoughts!