#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

Lately, there has been a lot of discussion regarding the lack of depth in Free Agency. Some have called for the end of RFA, while others heavily oppose it. I'm in the middle and on the fence, but I think a simpler solution is in front of us: no more In-Season Resignings.

The game randomly chooses who offers to resign with a team; some teams win big and others strike out completely. Some players even give discounts to what they could be given on the open market. The biggest argument against RFA is that young players aren't hitting the market and changing teams (player movement life blood of league, yadda yadda). But let's look at some vets that resigned in season over the last few seasons.

- Penny Hardaway
- Antonio McDyess
- Jalen Rose
- Glenn Robinson
- Jerry Stackhouse
- Juwan Howard (who was declined and ended up getting a more favorable deal on the open market)
- Voshon Leonard
- Nick Van Exel
- Jamal Mashburn

... along with many other role players probably asking way too much or other role players that can pretty cheap (Austin Croshere and Vitaly Potapenko comes to mind this year).

All of these players who went threw RFA and the teams that owned their RFA rights had protection from losing them. In-season resignings essentially promotes a random chance that the game gives you exclusive rights to continue to retain a player for an additional 3-4 seasons, taking some marquee players completely off the market until their value is all but gone.

Look at what our FA would've been like without ISR: Stack, Ratliff, Robinson, Finley, Mcdyess. Those 5 alone add so much more depth to FA and could change the shape of the league. Teams that have them still would own their bird rights and could bid super maxes IF THEY WANT. But the certainty is not there, and the opportunity and hope for other GMs is there. But this would get guys in their prime (maybe end of prime, beginning of decline) back on the market and moving around and not locked up until 32-33 years old.

To me, this is a much more viable option for increasing the FA depth than removing RFA from the picture, not to mention it takes the random chance based on some computer bleep bloop logic of choosing one player (i.e. Theo Ratliff) over another to offer to resign (i.e. part deux, Tom Gugliotta). But I wanted to open it for discussion to get thoughts.

AND BEFORE I OPEN THE FLOOR... I am aware this may lead to teams just signing super maxes just to keep their guy in the hope of inevitably trading them or just hoarding. Which is why I think that something else that could be proposed is stricter luxury tax penalties to enforce hoarding talent for the sake of just keeping them. These two ideas are not dependent on one another, but I do feel the harsher tax could help enforce some of the hoarding we've seen go on in this league. But that's a sidenote to this major discussion of In-Season Resignings.

Finley was a RFA, pretty sure Theo was one too.

They were signed to maxes (or close to it) in RFA and won't touch FA til they are in their 30's.

Soundwave wrote:Finley was a RFA, pretty sure Theo was one too.

They were signed to maxes (or close to it) in RFA and won't touch FA til they are in their 30's.

My point exactly.

IamQuailman wrote:

Soundwave wrote:Finley was a RFA, pretty sure Theo was one too.

They were signed to maxes (or close to it) in RFA and won't touch FA til they are in their 30's.

My point exactly.

How so?

You listed them as vets who re-signed IN season. That is NOT TRUE.

IamQuailman wrote:

Soundwave wrote:Finley was a RFA, pretty sure Theo was one too.

They were signed to maxes (or close to it) in RFA and won't touch FA til they are in their 30's.

My point exactly.

How so, only way those players hit FA is if we removed RFA.

Soundwave wrote:

IamQuailman wrote:
My point exactly.

How so?

You listed them as vets who re-signed IN season. That is NOT TRUE.

Semantics. Theo hasn't been accepted (yet), and he may not be. Finley has (you accepted his offer to re-sign). So basically, thanks to a 010011010 you had Finley offer to stay and no make you bid on him in FA. Where as, Gugliotta, you will have to make an offer to try to keep him if you want.

IamQuailman wrote: But let's look at some vets that resigned in season over the last few seasons.

- Penny Hardaway
- Antonio McDyess
- Jalen Rose
- Michael Finley
- Glenn Robinson
- Jerry Stackhouse
- Theo Ratliff
- Juwan Howard (who was declined and ended up getting a more favorable deal on the open market)
- Voshon Leonard
- Nick Van Exel
- Jamal Mashburn

... along with many other role players probably asking way too much or other role players that can pretty cheap (Austin Croshere and Vitaly Potapenko comes to mind this year).

I think maybe you mis-stated what you intended to say? Because I am reading that you think they signed in-season.

IamQuailman wrote:

Soundwave wrote:Finley was a RFA, pretty sure Theo was one too.

They were signed to maxes (or close to it) in RFA and won't touch FA til they are in their 30's.

My point exactly.

Yeah how so

Inner_GI wrote:

IamQuailman wrote:

Soundwave wrote:Finley was a RFA, pretty sure Theo was one too.

They were signed to maxes (or close to it) in RFA and won't touch FA til they are in their 30's.

My point exactly.

How so, only way those players hit FA is if we removed RFA.

No, with no In Season Resignings, they would have hit FA at 29 or 28 or 30 or whatever.

Jesus christ, I'm referrring to players THIS SEASON who offered to resign and they were ACCEPTED by their teams. Lord almighty, let's worry about the rabbit turds when the elephant shit piles are everywhere else.

IamQuailman wrote:

Soundwave wrote:

IamQuailman wrote:
My point exactly.

How so?

You listed them as vets who re-signed IN season. That is NOT TRUE.

Semantics. Theo hasn't been accepted (yet), and he may not be. Finley has (you accepted his offer to re-sign). So basically, thanks to a 010011010 you had Finley offer to stay and no make you bid on him in FA. Where as, Gugliotta, you will have to make an offer to try to keep him if you want.

Oh, you're talking about what they offered THIS season.

Finley was a team option from his original contract, he hasn't offered shit.

Updated OP to take out Ratliff

I think the tax is pretty strict enough. If you want to remove teams from "hoarding" players then let's go with a hard cap. Seems like that's only a move to hurt the best teams. Sounds like were trying to handicap the better gms out there.

Soundwave wrote:

IamQuailman wrote:

Soundwave wrote: How so?

You listed them as vets who re-signed IN season. That is NOT TRUE.

Semantics. Theo hasn't been accepted (yet), and he may not be. Finley has (you accepted his offer to re-sign). So basically, thanks to a 010011010 you had Finley offer to stay and no make you bid on him in FA. Where as, Gugliotta, you will have to make an offer to try to keep him if you want.

Oh, you're talking about what they offered THIS season.

Finley was a team option from his original contract, he hasn't offered shit.

Well I stand retardedly corrected. I knew you accepted him somewhere. Shit starts to blend in. I'll removed Finley from the list too.

My bad. The rest of the post stands as is.

IamQuailman wrote:Jesus christ, I'm referrring to players THIS SEASON who offered to resign and they were ACCEPTED by their teams. Lord almighty, let's worry about the rabbit turds when the elephant shit piles are everywhere else.

Given that we eliminated rookie in-season re-signings for basically the same reasons Quail laid out in the OP, I guess it's only fair to eliminate in-season resignings altogether. We didn't have in-season resignings in the old league, did we?

Xist2Inspire wrote:Given that we eliminated rookie in-season re-signings for basically the same reasons Quail laid out in the OP, I guess it's only fair to eliminate in-season resignings altogether. We didn't have in-season resignings in the old league, did we?

No we didn't.

JNR wrote:

Xist2Inspire wrote:Given that we eliminated rookie in-season re-signings for basically the same reasons Quail laid out in the OP, I guess it's only fair to eliminate in-season resignings altogether. We didn't have in-season resignings in the old league, did we?

No we didn't.

Hmm, I see. Removing in-season resignings might also stabilize the FA market a little bit. No more wasting big money on mid-tier or older guys when there are legitimate big fish in the pond.

JNR wrote:

Xist2Inspire wrote:Given that we eliminated rookie in-season re-signings for basically the same reasons Quail laid out in the OP, I guess it's only fair to eliminate in-season resignings altogether. We didn't have in-season resignings in the old league, did we?

No we didn't.

Towards the last 2-3 seasons we did (Gilbert signed for cheap and JNR sign-and-traded me Chandler). AD23 just never told us about it til the end of the 5th season. LOL

This is a good idea that balances out the league. RFA allows team to keep their star draft picks and others for two full contracts, while removing in-season eliminates the computer generated lotto where teams can get 12-13 seasons of a player with no risk of having them signed elsewhere.

Im a big supporter of harsher lux tax. If we had penalties that would deter others from handing out retarded contracts, we may actually see fair market value contracts to others that dont deserve the max.

Sent via Morse code

NOLa. wrote:This is a good idea that balances out the league. RFA allows team to keep their star draft picks and others for two full contracts, while removing in-season eliminates the computer generated lotto where teams can get 12-13 seasons of a player with no risk of having them signed elsewhere.

Im a big supporter of harsher lux tax. If we had penalties that would deter others from handing out retarded contracts, we may actually see fair market value contracts to others that dont deserve the max.

Sent via Morse code

When it is it going to end? It's been made ridiculously much more harsh than it was. Everyone can go over the cap, it's an even playing field. Making taxes even harsher only hurts a handful of teams. Which I think is what is intended anyway.

It's not intended to hurt particular teams, but when the lux tax got harsher we have seen teams dive into deeper tax brackets than ever before. To me thats a sign that it wasn't harsh enough.

Sent via Morse code

We trying to enhance FA or simply F certain gms in the A?

NOLa. wrote:It's not intended to hurt particular teams, but when the lux tax got harsher we have seen teams dive into deeper tax brackets than ever before. To me thats a sign that it wasn't harsh enough.

Sent via Morse code

Or just a sign that teams continue to feed tax bracket teams points for trash on a regular basis. People don't value points.

If people dont value points, then we should make it more valuable or find other alternatives

Sent via Morse code