Post by Boston Celtics on Jan 20, 2008 18:42:30 GMT
I've been thinking about whether or not to implement a rule similar to 'Bird Rights' in real life in our league which would state:
Specifics:
The player must not have been lost to free agency and then re-signed during the three years.
A hard cap of 80 or 85 million would exist for players re-signed using 'Bird Rights'.
Pros:
It would allow certain players to become the 'face of the franchise' on some teams, which adds a sense of realism in a roleplaying sense (like Reggie Miller in Indiana, Patrick Ewing in New York, Tim Duncan in San Antonio etc.)
It would make the skill of recognizing talent a more important factor. At the moment you can acquire all the young talent you like but lose it all in a couple of years when you can't re-sign them all because they'll demand salaries too large to keep them. (To prevent this becoming too extreme, since the gap between knowledgable GMs and ignorant GMs is greater in our league than in real life, a hard cap of 80 or 85 million would exist on 'Bird Rights' re-signings).
It would allow successful 'dynasties' to re-sign their core players. Otherwise I'm uncertain whether any dynasties will happen in D5 because of re-signing problems.
Cons:
If you've re-signed a player using this rule and exceeded the salary cap, your team still wont be able to sign free agents for any more than the minimum 500k.
Off Season Free Agency may slow down a bit, but with the current rate of trading I doubt it will make a significant impact.
Extras:
The rule wouldn't even come into effect until the end of next season for our league, since we began in 2006/07.
Enforcing the rule shouldn't be too difficult. If a GM wishes to use the 'Bird rights' on one of their players, we have all teams' transactions stored on the forums for reference. If a GM doesn't wish to use their Bird Rights, or they just forget to use them, then that doesn't really matter either.
Let me know what you think guys.
"If you have kept one of your players for more than three seasons you may exceed the salary cap to re-sign them."
Specifics:
The player must not have been lost to free agency and then re-signed during the three years.
A hard cap of 80 or 85 million would exist for players re-signed using 'Bird Rights'.
Pros:
It would allow certain players to become the 'face of the franchise' on some teams, which adds a sense of realism in a roleplaying sense (like Reggie Miller in Indiana, Patrick Ewing in New York, Tim Duncan in San Antonio etc.)
It would make the skill of recognizing talent a more important factor. At the moment you can acquire all the young talent you like but lose it all in a couple of years when you can't re-sign them all because they'll demand salaries too large to keep them. (To prevent this becoming too extreme, since the gap between knowledgable GMs and ignorant GMs is greater in our league than in real life, a hard cap of 80 or 85 million would exist on 'Bird Rights' re-signings).
It would allow successful 'dynasties' to re-sign their core players. Otherwise I'm uncertain whether any dynasties will happen in D5 because of re-signing problems.
Cons:
If you've re-signed a player using this rule and exceeded the salary cap, your team still wont be able to sign free agents for any more than the minimum 500k.
Off Season Free Agency may slow down a bit, but with the current rate of trading I doubt it will make a significant impact.
Extras:
The rule wouldn't even come into effect until the end of next season for our league, since we began in 2006/07.
Enforcing the rule shouldn't be too difficult. If a GM wishes to use the 'Bird rights' on one of their players, we have all teams' transactions stored on the forums for reference. If a GM doesn't wish to use their Bird Rights, or they just forget to use them, then that doesn't really matter either.
Let me know what you think guys.