Sitting Rookies for One Season

[NOLa.]

I'm not sure how the league will feel about this suggestion, and maybe we've had too many suggestions voted in and the change is becoming too much, but I want to throw out the idea of sitting a rookie for one season without losing any years of his contract to help with developing rookies out of the college file.

The idea is simple:

*After the draft, you are allowed to sit just one 1st round draft pick per team that was selected in the current draft.

*Commisioner then goes into the player file and adjusts the contract to extend the contract to 5 years, instead of 4. The year in which the player is sitting has a salary amount of $0 if possible.

* The player is on IR and cannot be removed from IR for any reason during the whole season including playoffs. Player still counts towards roster spot of max 15, but not counted as an active player.

* The team must designate one of their three free training camp insurances for this player.


This gives just one extra training camp for all rookies before they hit RFA. It's not needed, but the college guys are coming in very raw and there's not much we can do to adjust that besides manually bumping them up after we import the prospects from the college index.

Like? Dislike?

[false9]

The sim players Union will REVOLT

[Inner_GI]

I don't like this. A GM gets 5 years of a player and the protection of RFA (which also can be 5 years). This puts player movement even later into a player's development. We already have a huge amount of 28-32 years olds being shopped every year.

[Darth Vegito]

I don't like this. A GM gets 5 years of a player and the protection of RFA (which also can be 5 years). This puts player movement even later into a player's development. We already have a huge amount of 28-32 years olds being shopped every year.

+1

[IamQuailman]

I don't like this. A GM gets 5 years of a player and the protection of RFA (which also can be 5 years). This puts player movement even later into a player's development. We already have a huge amount of 28-32 years olds being shopped every year.

+1

+2

[NOLa.]

I don't like this. A GM gets 5 years of a player and the protection of RFA (which also can be 5 years). This puts player movement even later into a player's development. We already have a huge amount of 28-32 years olds being shopped every year.

I agree about the age issue, but a GM doesn't get 5 years of the player because they wouldn't be allowed to play. It's still the 4 years.

[IamQuailman]

But you get the right to TC insure for 5 seasons on a rookie deal and protect the investment longer. it also could have downstream impact on RFA cap holds. If #1 is held out one season, what cap hold does he get? #1 player cap hold for the draft class he was drafted, or #1 player cap hold for year he's an RFA?

[Darth Vegito]

I don't like this. A GM gets 5 years of a player and the protection of RFA (which also can be 5 years). This puts player movement even later into a player's development. We already have a huge amount of 28-32 years olds being shopped every year.

I agree about the age issue, but a GM doesn't get 5 years of the player because they wouldn't be allowed to play. It's still the 4 years.

Does time stop though? Is he placed in a cryogenic hyperbolic time chamber?

[NOLa.]

But you get the right to TC insure for 5 seasons on a rookie deal and protect the investment longer. it also could have downstream impact on RFA cap holds. If #1 is held out one season, what cap hold does he get? #1 player cap hold for the draft class he was drafted, or #1 player cap hold for year he's an RFA?

The idea is that the general consensus thinks the college players come in too undeveloped. With only manual bumps to current ratings which no one likes, we left the idea alone. The suggestion is exactly as you said, you would have to insure a player and the player would sit on IR for one season, then he would become active the following and you can choose whether to insure him. I don't think it matters much if a player is 19 and receives 9 insurances and didn't sit his first season, vs a player aged 19 who received 9 insurances who did sit his first season.

I would think you put the cap hold on the class he becomes an RFA. It doesn't make sense to put a cap hold on a team that still has a player under rookie contract for one more season.

[NOLa.]

I don't like this. A GM gets 5 years of a player and the protection of RFA (which also can be 5 years). This puts player movement even later into a player's development. We already have a huge amount of 28-32 years olds being shopped every year.

I agree about the age issue, but a GM doesn't get 5 years of the player because they wouldn't be allowed to play. It's still the 4 years.

Does time stop though? Is he placed in a cryogenic hyperbolic time chamber?

His experience at the end of his rookie contract would be 4 years if he plays in each of the following seasons, so yes.

[Darth Vegito]

I agree about the age issue, but a GM doesn't get 5 years of the player because they wouldn't be allowed to play. It's still the 4 years.

Does time stop though? Is he placed in a cryogenic hyperbolic time chamber?

His experience at the end of his rookie contract would be 4 years if he plays in each of the following seasons, so yes.

His age though bro. Players decline at 30 generally. You're cutting an entire year off of a player's age so that when they hit UFA after 8-9 years they'll be a year older than they normally would be. This is enough for me to not be crazy about this.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[NOLa.]

Does time stop though? Is he placed in a cryogenic hyperbolic time chamber?

His experience at the end of his rookie contract would be 4 years if he plays in each of the following seasons, so yes.

His age though bro. Players decline at 30 generally. You're cutting an entire year off of a player's age so that when they hit UFA after 8-9 years they'll be a year older than they normally would be. This is enough for me to not be crazy about this.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

It's definitely a drawback and understandable if that's where the line is drawn, but I see more benefits for the team getting an extra year than another team would having a year-older third contract guy. It's probably just me though, as the rest don't like the idea which is fine. My thoughts were this would be an easy way to help with the concerns of raw players and even add a little bit of strategy, but if everyone is hung up about 30 year old UFAs then I guess that's it.

[IamQuailman]

But you get the right to TC insure for 5 seasons on a rookie deal and protect the investment longer. it also could have downstream impact on RFA cap holds. If #1 is held out one season, what cap hold does he get? #1 player cap hold for the draft class he was drafted, or #1 player cap hold for year he's an RFA?

The idea is that the general consensus thinks the college players come in too undeveloped. With only manual bumps to current ratings which no one likes, we left the idea alone. The suggestion is exactly as you said, you would have to insure a player and the player would sit on IR for one season, then he would become active the following and you can choose whether to insure him. I don't think it matters much if a player is 19 and receives 9 insurances and didn't sit his first season, vs a player aged 19 who received 9 insurances who did sit his first season.

I would think you put the cap hold on the class he becomes an RFA. It doesn't make sense to put a cap hold on a team that still has a player under rookie contract for one more season.

What number would you use, i mean? i didn't mean when to apply the cap hold. I honestly think you should still have them take up capspace during the IR year. There are too many ways to game the system if you do it otherwise.

[NOLa.]

But you get the right to TC insure for 5 seasons on a rookie deal and protect the investment longer. it also could have downstream impact on RFA cap holds. If #1 is held out one season, what cap hold does he get? #1 player cap hold for the draft class he was drafted, or #1 player cap hold for year he's an RFA?

The idea is that the general consensus thinks the college players come in too undeveloped. With only manual bumps to current ratings which no one likes, we left the idea alone. The suggestion is exactly as you said, you would have to insure a player and the player would sit on IR for one season, then he would become active the following and you can choose whether to insure him. I don't think it matters much if a player is 19 and receives 9 insurances and didn't sit his first season, vs a player aged 19 who received 9 insurances who did sit his first season.

I would think you put the cap hold on the class he becomes an RFA. It doesn't make sense to put a cap hold on a team that still has a player under rookie contract for one more season.

What number would you use, i mean? i didn't mean when to apply the cap hold. I honestly think you should still have them take up capspace during the IR year. There are too many ways to game the system if you do it otherwise.

Oh, I would use the original pick. If he's #1, then the cap hold for that pick # (25% of max if I'm remembering right). If a player needed to take up capspace during the IR year then what amount would it need to be?

[IamQuailman]

The idea is that the general consensus thinks the college players come in too undeveloped. With only manual bumps to current ratings which no one likes, we left the idea alone. The suggestion is exactly as you said, you would have to insure a player and the player would sit on IR for one season, then he would become active the following and you can choose whether to insure him. I don't think it matters much if a player is 19 and receives 9 insurances and didn't sit his first season, vs a player aged 19 who received 9 insurances who did sit his first season.

I would think you put the cap hold on the class he becomes an RFA. It doesn't make sense to put a cap hold on a team that still has a player under rookie contract for one more season.

What number would you use, i mean? i didn't mean when to apply the cap hold. I honestly think you should still have them take up capspace during the IR year. There are too many ways to game the system if you do it otherwise.

Oh, I would use the original pick. If he's #1, then the cap hold for that pick # (25% of max if I'm remembering right). If a player needed to take up capspace during the IR year then what amount would it need to be?

keep years 1-4 the same, just increment the 5th year to be the same percentage increase

[Inner_GI]

I just think teams already have enough protection on their draft picks. Free Insurance, affordable training system, RFA, super maxes. Why would we want a player to stay on their drafted team for an additional year?

[Darth Vegito]

I just think teams already have enough protection on their draft picks. Free Insurance, affordable training system, RFA, super maxes. Why would we want a player to stay on their drafted team for an additional year?

+1

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[Bowtothebill23]

I just think teams already have enough protection on their draft picks. Free Insurance, affordable training system, RFA, super maxes. Why would we want a player to stay on their drafted team for an additional year?

I think it's worth discussing at least. The game now is at a point where it takes top 5 picks 2-3 years to even become playable. Most guys drafted don't come close to hitting their potentials until their second contract. Look at a guy like Phil Milburn. He came out as O/G, and, even though he got boosted in TC, is still yellow current. So even though he got traded, even if he would've stayed on his team, his team that drafted him got no value out of his rookie contract other than the right to pay him for his second contract.

Ronald Small is the #3 pick and hasn't been playable in his first 2 years. He might not be playable this year either. Another guy who will finish his rookie contract as a yellow.

You could limit this to only orange current players post-TC if you'd like. I think it's worth keeping around because if a guy is orange after his first TC, he's not going to get anywhere near his potentials for at least 3-4 years.

I don't think it's some massive advantage you get by red-shirting a guy. You get to keep him an extra year on his rookie contract, but he wasn't going to play much on his rookie contract anyway.

Again, I think you can protect against this being abused by putting in limitations where a guy can only apply if he's orange current in rating and make his salary still count against the cap in the current year. This just lets teams that draft extra raw guys with high potentials not get screwed because they only get to actually play that player after RFA.

[Conroy]

I just think teams already have enough protection on their draft picks. Free Insurance, affordable training system, RFA, super maxes. Why would we want a player to stay on their drafted team for an additional year?

I think it's worth discussing at least. The game now is at a point where it takes top 5 picks 2-3 years to even become playable. Most guys drafted don't come close to hitting their potentials until their second contract. Look at a guy like Phil Milburn. He came out as O/G, and, even though he got boosted in TC, is still yellow current. So even though he got traded, even if he would've stayed on his team, his team that drafted him got no value out of his rookie contract other than the right to pay him for his second contract.

Ronald Small is the #3 pick and hasn't been playable in his first 2 years. He might not be playable this year either. Another guy who will finish his rookie contract as a yellow.

You could limit this to only orange current players post-TC if you'd like. I think it's worth keeping around because if a guy is orange after his first TC, he's not going to get anywhere near his potentials for at least 3-4 years.

I don't think it's some massive advantage you get by red-shirting a guy. You get to keep him an extra year on his rookie contract, but he wasn't going to play much on his rookie contract anyway.

Again, I think you can protect against this being abused by putting in limitations where a guy can only apply if he's orange current in rating and make his salary still count against the cap in the current year. This just lets teams that draft extra raw guys with high potentials not get screwed because they only get to actually play that player after RFA.

Phil Milburn was taken #11 should he really be g/b? Sometimes it takes guys years to develop and every year there are more nba ready prospects and more potential prospects, you have a choice of who to take. I’ve dabbled with both. And don’t get too caught up with colors and orange current just won ROTY and averaged more ppg than many of the stud rookies in the past. Just because some GMs are choosing not to play rookies (not knocking it btw) doesn’t mean they are unplayable.

And before you say good stats bad team. My team wasnt playing for anything I could afford to start a orange rookie on my terrible team....that’s what bottom 5 teams should be doing playing young bad rookies and learning how to use them. If a contender gets a top 5 pick take an older more complete player...trade the pick. I just don’t see how it improves the league to not play rookies.

[Darth Vegito]

Yeah, I definitely lean towards Conroy's view here. I don't want every player to be playable in his 1st and 2nd year. Ya'll trying to take away the randomness if you want every guy drafted to be useful right away. Also as far as Milburn goes, he could have EASILY traded Milburn for some good value before RFA if he knew he wouldn't be overpaying for him...(which in RFA you must assume someone will overpay for a blue potential guy since that's the only way you can snatch a player in RFA period). So I would argue it had nothing to do with Milburn still being yellow after 4 years that he got nothing from him. You make that choice to draft an orange current player and know that he will take some significant time. Also let me point out that this has ALWAYS been the case. Zach Randolph came into the league as an orange and I know there have been others.

I don't think that this is a problem anymore. We have free insurance so that they don't get killed while growing. We have VERY friendly training system and a VERY GM friendly points system especially considering all the points one can earn by being uber active in the league.

And Tani this is directly to you...you are someone who is one of the most active, therefore you get a significant amount of points. If you chose to, you could EASILY build a guy up who was pretty raw rather quickly, no? I just don't see the problem where we need to give more help to GMs in training their players up. I think the process is great right where it is and there is always guys in the draft that can play sooner than others and you can look at the players and know that. So this is a choice when you draft a particular player that you are making and knowing the time it will take to get that guy ready to play.