Back in the day. A RFA is a good thing for the team. Now it is not so good. Used to be market dictates a reasonable contract. Don't know when it all got started but those 2 contracts DM did to steal Asik and Lin were in fact way over paying and sometimes it works (Asik for a good pick) and sometimes it burns (Lin cost 2 picks). Timing has a factor I know but still. Now very good to borderline stars are getting max/near max contracts as RFA because it needs to be crazy for other team to not match and in Dallas case, insure that if matched it would cripple the other team. DM gambled not for 3rd star but a stable markets and he lost because the team up north decided to mess with the Rockets much like Rockets messed with the Knicks. Hindsight is 20/20 so cannot predict the future. Wonder what Chandler will turn out to be. His contract is useless as trade asset. That is for sure. Cuban is saying now they have no plans to trade him. That's because he is not tradable with that contract plus if they bet right and he blows up they will need to do this all over again in 2 years
Hayward and Parsons were outliers (take Lance, he's probably slightly better than Parsons at everything including craziness), Bledsoe was the best rfa and he's getting boned by it. You always run the risk in rfa of being that outlier, but given that it was an extremely good wing market for a given year, even in hindsight it was the best decision (unless we consider the untenable, keep him then trade him because you know he's leaving psychic foresight).
lots of teams with cap space meant a lot of teams had a lot of money to spend this year. have a RFA in a year where only a few teams have cap space and you will find bargains.
You're over thinking things if you believe RFA is more periless than UFA. And I don't think anyone believes Asik was overpaid. $8m/yr for a defensive 7'er center grabbing second most rebounds in the league is below market, imo btw: mostly this is becoming more common because the draft is getting deeper. RFA is really only an issue with 2nd rounders and undrafted players. So, that's why it seems to be a recently development where RFAs are getting contracts above MLE.
Hindsight is always right. Asik was a big gamble on a backup center that paid off. Lin was gamble on Linsanity and it bombed. CP will either be like Asik or not in terms of value and I am betting DM is right and Cuban is wrong. As for RFA over UFA. There is that matching aspect but there is always a chance you get poison pilled and will be force to look stupid for letting "talent" walk for nothing. That is how it looks like when you don't match. Money and Cap hit is foreign language for average fan and media. And for actual max players only LBJ left his team to go home this year. Others stayed for $$$
Welcome to cfans 1234567 We lost Dragic for nothing, too, as a UFA when we could have made him a RFA. There are far more examples of teams making below value trades on players who will soon become UFAs, for fear they lose them entirely. James Harden comes to mind. And Howard to Lakers. Teams fear UFA more than RFA. The so-called poison pill is better than just flat out not being able to convince a UFA to stay, like Lebron. As an aside, pet peeve of mine, Larry Coon does not use the term poison pill in this fashion like the media does. Poison Pill is not the Arenas Rule. Asik/Lin were signed using the Arenas Rule, the final yr Cap balloon to the Knicks is all part of the Arenas Rule. At least with RFA, you have First Right of Refusal. You don't have that with UFA...and that's why Morey did not pick up Parsons' Teams Option, and ironically, also why Morey was criticized for taking the Team Option on Dragic vs going the Parsons/RFA route.
There are no SFs of Harward or Parsons' calibre available through free agency until 2016. Like Morey has said C and SF are the most overpaid positions because of the lack of elite depth.
RFA is of course better than UFA from the team's POV. Teams can always overpay to pry a player away, whether it's UFA or RFA. But in RFA, at least you have the option to match. in UFA, when a player doesn't want to stay, there's no way you can keep him. Again, Morey declined Parsons' team option not because (at least mostly not because) he is kind to Parsons, letting him get paid a year earlier. Both Morey and Parsons knew it.
The other pick was an ultra-restricted 2nd rounder from the Clips. Very unlikely to ever amount to anything
At this point .. .what are Bledsoe's options If he decides not to sign . . .does he sit out a year or . .. is he held indefinitely to the Suns Rocket River
He can sign the qualifying offer (which is a one-yr contract) and play for one yr, then he becomes a UFA. If he doesn't sign any contract, PHO still maintains RFA rights over him.
It wasn't the fact that Lin was overpaid that made the contract hard to deal. It was the poison pill that backloaded the last year for 15 million that other teams didn't like. If it was 8.5 million, I don't think it would've taken as long to deal him.
The "poison pill" was only an issue for the Knicks. The rockets cap it was $8m and so is the Lakers. No? Btw. That is only an issue for a rare set of RFAs. That is only an issue with Early Bird players on treams over the cap, strapped by the MLE limit That is not the case with Parson and Bledsoe. They are Full Birds
right. I agree. I was just saying his cap hit is $8m. I was saying the cap-hit poison pill only affected the Knicks, not the Rockets or any other team, later in trade. So in context of "The perils of RFA" in the OP, the poison pill only affects the team with RFA rights, and ONLY if they don't have Full Bird (which Parsons, Bledsoe have), and the current team can only pay Early Bird MLE, and don't have cap space to match, and *AND* the second yr player is good enough to warrant more than the MLE. In the context of this thread, it is very rare an RFA will involve a poison pill.
I find it interesting that the term "poison pill contract" is so commonly used for Lin and Asik's contracts, when I don't think they really are. For example, there were a couple of contracts in the NFL that for example, if player X didn't play X number of games in this state, then his contract would increase by X amount. When the contract terms for the Rockets is the same as the Bulls/Knicks in terms of counting against the cap and actual spend, I don't think there's an actual poison pill in there.
Larry Coon does not use the "Poison Pill" term to refer to Lin and Asik, only the media does. The "Poison Pill" detailed by Coon that started with the new CBA has nothing to do with Lin and Asik. That said, sure it's a poison pill. It's just that the use of this popular definition was always in the CBA dating back the Arenas Rule. This is nothing new. The "poison pill" as used to describe Lin and Asik is the Arenas Rule. But make no mistake, the Bulls and Knicks had a completely different cap hit than the Rockets on Lin and Asik. That is the Arenas Rule. Don't cite any NFL rule. The Knicks and Bulls would be facing $15m cap hits this year on Lin and Asik had they matched.