I think the restricted free agent policy should be altered. All the power goes to the team retaining the player. One player can sign an offer sheet to a team he wants to play for, but the retaining team can match and the player will play for that team unwillingly. I think the NBA should alter the policy so that it matches more of what the MLB is doing. I think they should classify the players as Type A, B, C, etc. and let a team sign a restricted free agent but give compensation via draft picks, etc. to the team losing the player. If it doesn't go unaltered, players such as Stromile Swift, Eddy Curry, and Tyson Chandler will be screwed over. Who else thinks this?
I don't see anything wrong with being a restricted FA, it gives the player a chance to test the FA market w/o being totally free. As far as compensation, you can always trade the player to the team that wants him. Swift is a UFA this summer, he was restricted last year but only signed a 1 year deal with the Grizz to be unrestricted.
Oh, I didn't know that. I thought he was restricted once again and that West would match anything we offered.
I hate it too. I hate the threat of matching offers from other teams which holds the player hostage. The teams should only have rights to the players for the length of the contract, nothing longer. If the team wants to keep that player, they should have to pay the going price.
Maybe after matching an offer, the player and team could go to arbitration to find the players real worth.
Looking at it from the other point-of-view, it also gives the player a big lever in getting a good contract. IMO most players play for the money and not the love of the city or the team, especially early in their careers. Being a RFA gives marginal players the ability to go out and get a better offer than would be available from their current team. Then if his team won't or can't match it the player makes out better, but if the team does match the player also probably makes out better. The are a few greedy exceptions that get screwed (see: L. Spreewell) and a few innoccent players that get screwed (give me a few moments and I'll think of one).
Restricted free agency sucks. Why not just abolish it altogether? I understand why the owners like it, but I think its abolition should be one of the union's demands.
That's the whole point of accepting the one-year tender. Plus, lots of RFA can force S&Ts - which takes care of the compensation idea. It's not a bad system at all. Plus, it was mainly put in place for rookies - the league was otherwise heading in a direction where richer teams (think Yankees) could just buy away guys finishing their rookie deal. Smaller market teams would just develop the young guys for the large market places. RFA definitely has a place. Evan
Word is that they are talking about cutting the 15 days down to 7 days in the latest CBA deal. I think 15 days is too much anyway. I hope they cut it down.
