Dumb question

[Hemingway]

Can we, or any team with room offer RFA a 1 year max deal(maybe with a player option)? The idea being that if guys like Butler are unbeatable, you could give yourself another shot next year. The players would probably sign the offer so they can try again next summer when the cap goes up.

Is there a minimum term to sign free agents?

[GratefulCs]

Good question. But if you could offer a one year max money deal, wouldn't the other team just match?

[Hemingway]

Yeah, sorry I wan't clear. They would match, and that would be the point. Chi would want to lock Butler up before the new cap increases. If someone gives him a 1 year or 2 year deal they will match but they they have to deal with his free agency again. And it give everyone else another shot at him.

[GetLucky]

I had a similar thought to yours where I was asking, "Why not sign a guy to a 1-year max, get him paid, have the offer matched, then go after him the next year when he's an UFA with a pleasant disposition towards your team?"

A cap expert here may correct me, but I remember reading in that thread that offers to RFAs must be at least 2 years (not including options) in length.

If contracts given to restricted free agents had no minimum length, it would make qualifying offers useless, thus eliminating pressure for the player to sign (or have matched) a long-term deal to stay with their current team, and players would have all the power. Then, you would see situations like the Greg Monroe one multiple times a year.

[BornReady]

Also I don't think any player as good as butler would want a 1 year deal

Players deal with injuries and regressing from previous seasons
Like if butler signs a 1 year max but then has a severe injury or declines in his play - he will then have to accept a lower offer for his next contact
Losing money that would otherwise be guaranteed

So they are more likely to accept a longer contract because of the financial security

[GratefulCs]

Yeah, sorry I wan't clear. They would match, and that would be the point. Chi would want to lock Butler up before the new cap increases. If someone gives him a 1 year or 2 year deal they will match but they they have to deal with his free agency again. And it give everyone else another shot at him.

oh!


I got ya


But i think chicago would just offer him more years at that point

[Hemingway]

I think I remember reading it was 2 years as well somewhere. That stil works as the cap is set to go up by like 30 mil for two summers in a row. If I was a star I would consider signing an offer sheet for a max for 2 years (maybe with a payer optoin for a 3rd year.) This way they can get a huge pay day in 2 years instead of 5.

[biggs]

Not a dumb question. TP in fact

[LarBrd33]

Yeah, sorry I wan't clear. They would match, and that would be the point. Chi would want to lock Butler up before the new cap increases. If someone gives him a 1 year or 2 year deal they will match but they they have to deal with his free agency again. And it give everyone else another shot at him.

Yeah I guess in that scenario they'd match, but probably consider trading the player a few months later if they feared they wouldn't be able to re-sign him. 

I imagine the players would push to have a multi-year deal, though.

[D.o.s.]

Yeah, sorry I wan't clear. They would match, and that would be the point. Chi would want to lock Butler up before the new cap increases. If someone gives him a 1 year or 2 year deal they will match but they they have to deal with his free agency again. And it give everyone else another shot at him.

Unless that player signs a longer deal, which would seem to be a sticking point here. Signing a contract is a two-way street.

[Celtics4ever]

Also I don't think any player as good as butler would want a 1 year deal

I think they would be a fool not to do it.   The cap is going up most likely.

[GzUP617]

   Remember a player has to sign an offer sheet,  ton's of offers are made in principal that are than giving to the players agent.(most unreported)   

The Bull would offer more years and he'd just sign that. 

Now if he takes the Qualifying offer to play for another year to than become a UFA that's a different story. 

 

[Roy H.]

   Remember a player has to sign an offer sheet,  ton's of offers are made in principal that are than giving to the players agent.(most unreported)   

The Bull would offer more years and he'd just sign that. 

Now if he takes the Qualifying offer to play for another year to than become a UFA that's a different story.

I think Hemingway's point was that in an ideal world, a free agent who was entertaining taking a QO would instead be offered a one year max deal.  It has all the benefits of a qualifying offer, with the added bonus of a lot more money.

The problem, as noted, is that offer sheets have to be at least two (and sometimes at least three) years in length, so it makes the possibility moot.

Yeah I guess in that scenario they'd match, but probably consider trading the player a few months later if they feared they wouldn't be able to re-sign him. 

As an aside, players whose teams match an offer sheet can't trade that player for one year without his consent, and can't trade him to the team who gave him the offer sheet even with consent.

[nickagneta]

I think with RFAs the best thing is to just do what Dallas did with Chandler Parsons, max him out and see if the team holding the RFA's rights will commit the big money to the player. Other than that, if you want that player you have to look at sign and trade possibilities.

Problem is that teams holding the rights to exceptionally good RFAs this year are doing themselves a disservice if they just don't max that play out for 4 years because in two years that contract is going to be a major bargain.

[saltlover]

As Roy said, the rule for an RFA who's been given a qualifying offer is 2 years minimum, unless that player has been given a maximum qualifying offer, in which case the minimum another team could offer is three years.  Furthermore, a player option does not count as a year on the deal, so you can't offer a 1+1 sort of deal.  You can offer a 2+1.

If there's an RFA that you want to sign to a large deal that his old team won't accept, the best offer you can make is the 2+1 Dallas gave Parsons.  Remember that the cap is projected to spike in both 2016 and again in 2017, so a player with such an offer this year could dip his toes into free agency for an even bigger offer in 2017 than he could get in 2016.

Still the best choice, especially with the impending cap spike, is to negotiate a sign-and-trade with the player's original team, if you really want him.

The one exception of note is KJ McDaniels.  The Rockets will have very limited ability to match an offer for him, since he's a 1-year RFA, and so the Gilbert Arenas rule does not apply.  This is the same situation that cost us Stiemsma a few years back.