Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Cellar-door wrote:

Oregon Ownage wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:I like the principle, but I have some issues with the actual execution....
Bird rights is my issue. I don't think Bird rights should get an advantage over the market on one year deals. We should encourage player movement vs. teams playing year to year (or more often using Birds to sign a deal nobody else can then immediately putting the guy on the block). If you don't want a player poached offer him more than 1 year.

Then whats the point of bird years? Teams should have an advantage when it comes to bird players. For the players that would be offered a high 1 year amount with bird, they would be middle tier players and if a team overpays to keep them then so be it b/c it hurts them to overpay.

The point of bird rights is that you can go over the cap to re-sign them, just like it should be, and that it gives you a chance to pay more on multi-year deals for guys rather than lose them. 1 year deals never hurt to overpay, they have no downside, because it's 1 year. And for attractive players being able to offer just a tiny bit more lets you re-sign and then trade guys, which is stupid.

What is the positive to the league of allowing teams with Bird rights a major advantage that applies ONLY to 1 year deals? It's fundamentally stupid, and encourages unrealistic chaining of 1 year deals.

Edit- I would be for either eliminating the bird rights exception on 1 year deals OR saying that if you use the Bird right exception you cannot trade that player.

UOducksTK1 wrote:Years of Experience 7 or more:
-1 year max is okay

Years of Experience 6 and below:
-Max 1st year is max if offered 3 years or more
-Max 1st year is 10 mil if offered 2 years
-Max 1st year is 9 mil if offered 1 year

If you have bird rights, you can offer whatever amount or years regardless of experience.

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

Oregon Ownage wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:I like the principle, but I have some issues with the actual execution....
Bird rights is my issue. I don't think Bird rights should get an advantage over the market on one year deals. We should encourage player movement vs. teams playing year to year (or more often using Birds to sign a deal nobody else can then immediately putting the guy on the block). If you don't want a player poached offer him more than 1 year.

Then whats the point of bird years? Teams should have an advantage when it comes to bird players. For the players that would be offered a high 1 year amount with bird, they would be middle tier players and if a team overpays to keep them then so be it b/c it hurts them to overpay.

The point of bird rights is that you can go over the cap to re-sign them, just like it should be, and that it gives you a chance to pay more on multi-year deals for guys rather than lose them. 1 year deals never hurt to overpay, they have no downside, because it's 1 year. And for attractive players being able to offer just a tiny bit more lets you re-sign and then trade guys, which is stupid.

What is the positive to the league of allowing teams with Bird rights a major advantage that applies ONLY to 1 year deals? It's fundamentally stupid, and encourages unrealistic chaining of 1 year deals.

Edit- I would be for either eliminating the bird rights exception on 1 year deals OR saying that if you use the Bird right exception you cannot trade that player.

If we didn’t have a strict hard cap, this would make sense. But teams can’t just hog 1 year contracts. And observationally, we see teams with cap space abusing the 1 year deals the most.

Cellar-door wrote:

Oregon Ownage wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:I like the principle, but I have some issues with the actual execution....
Bird rights is my issue. I don't think Bird rights should get an advantage over the market on one year deals. We should encourage player movement vs. teams playing year to year (or more often using Birds to sign a deal nobody else can then immediately putting the guy on the block). If you don't want a player poached offer him more than 1 year.

Then whats the point of bird years? Teams should have an advantage when it comes to bird players. For the players that would be offered a high 1 year amount with bird, they would be middle tier players and if a team overpays to keep them then so be it b/c it hurts them to overpay.

The point of bird rights is that you can go over the cap to re-sign them, just like it should be, and that it gives you a chance to pay more on multi-year deals for guys rather than lose them. 1 year deals never hurt to overpay, they have no downside, because it's 1 year. And for attractive players being able to offer just a tiny bit more lets you re-sign and then trade guys, which is stupid.

What is the positive to the league of allowing teams with Bird rights a major advantage that applies ONLY to 1 year deals? It's fundamentally stupid, and encourages unrealistic chaining of 1 year deals.

Edit- I would be for either eliminating the bird rights exception on 1 year deals OR saying that if you use the Bird right exception you cannot trade that player, I still think the idea that Bird rights which are supposed to be about keeping teams together long term being used for 1 year advantages are dumb, but I'd compromise to you have to keep the player if you go over the normal 1 year deal max.

offtheheezy wrote:Maybe the "not allowed to trade guys on one year deals until Day 90" or something may be effective. If a team is tanking and signs a good player, it'll ruin their tanking and hurt their chances of a better pick. Similar to real life where teams can't "sign and trade" immediately.

Oregon Ownage wrote:Proposed Rule:

Years of Experience 7 or more, 1 year max is okay

Years of Experience 6 and below, 3 year min for max

If you have bird rights, you can offer whatever amount

If you do not have bird rights:
Players with 6 or less years experience:
-Max 1st year is max if offered 3 years or more
-Max 1st year is 10 mil if offered 2 years
-Max 1st year is 9 mil if offered 1 year