What's new
By:

KOC is a *****

G-O-A-T said:
Yes. My complaint is that they tendered him $400 K or whatever the minimum tender is... They should have tendered 3 years for $12 million or something like that... made a "fair" offer. Sure, Wes probably wouldn't have signed right then and there, but it would have left him with a meaningful OPTION. Giving him the minimum tender left him with no option and therefore he had no choice but to take the best money.

The Jazz did the same thing with Millsap last year and it pissed me off... signing players to contracts isn't like buying cars, you are dealing with personal relationships between players, organizations, and fans. If you treat a person like a piece of property they will respond back accordingly. Seriously, how could it possibly hurt the team to make a fair, but low-end offer as the tender instead of the bare minimum by league rules? Instead though, they chose to play hardball and got burned without giving themselves ANY chance to play on their prior relationships.
Click to expand...

Nope, I was wrong.

YOU MUST OFFER THE QO, IN MATTHEWS CASE $937,195 TO MAKE HIM A RESTRICTED FREE AGENT. OTHERWISE THE JAZZ RENOUNCE AND CAN'T EVEN SIGN HIM!!!

They can't TENDER anything else. It IS IMPOSSIBLE. They can make offers and such, but can't "tender" anything more than the worth of the QO, which is automatically determined.

I'm calling out to our banned poster Jesus Christ in exasperation.
 
G-O-A-T said:
Yes. My complaint is that they tendered him $400 K or whatever the minimum tender is... They should have tendered 3 years for $12 million or something like that... made a "fair" offer. Sure, Wes probably wouldn't have signed right then and there, but it would have left him with a meaningful OPTION. Giving him the minimum tender left him with no option and therefore he had no choice but to take the best money.

The Jazz did the same thing with Millsap last year and it pissed me off... signing players to contracts isn't like buying cars, you are dealing with personal relationships between players, organizations, and fans. If you treat a person like a piece of property they will respond back accordingly. Seriously, how could it possibly hurt the team to make a fair, but low-end offer as the tender instead of the bare minimum by league rules? Instead though, they chose to play hardball and got burned without giving themselves ANY chance to play on their prior relationships.
Click to expand...

You do understand that the Qualifying Offer is made so that the team gets the right of first refusal, right? No team is going to give as their QO anything more than required to retain restricted rights.
 
If that's the case, then so be it... I thought they could tender whatever they wanted and hope he signed immediately
 
G-O-A-T said:
Yes. My complaint is that they tendered him $400 K or whatever the minimum tender is... They should have tendered 3 years for $12 million or something like that... made a "fair" offer. Sure, Wes probably wouldn't have signed right then and there, but it would have left him with a meaningful OPTION. Giving him the minimum tender left him with no option and therefore he had no choice but to take the best money.

The Jazz did the same thing with Millsap last year and it pissed me off... signing players to contracts isn't like buying cars, you are dealing with personal relationships between players, organizations, and fans. If you treat a person like a piece of property they will respond back accordingly. Seriously, how could it possibly hurt the team to make a fair, but low-end offer as the tender instead of the bare minimum by league rules? Instead though, they chose to play hardball and got burned without giving themselves ANY chance to play on their prior relationships.
Click to expand...

The only way any of this even matters is if somehow we could have prevented the Portland offer from ever happening. Maybe you think that could have happened. I would say you're naive if you do.

Once that Portland offer is "out there" whether on paper or just a phone conversation between their FO and his agent, who cares whether we offered the QO, your 3/12, or 4/20 ... or WHATEVER. It simply wouldn't have mattered.

I don't think anything would have kept Portland's offer from becoming part of the equation. And once it did, all these lowball offers would have been rendered moot.
 
The only way any of this even matters is if somehow we could have prevented the Portland offer from ever happening. Maybe you think that could have happened. I would say you're naive if you do.

Once that Portland offer is "out there" whether on paper or just a phone conversation between their FO and his agent, who cares whether we offered the QO, your 3/12, or 4/20 ... or WHATEVER. It simply wouldn't have mattered.

I don't think anything would have kept Portland's offer from becoming part of the equation. And once it did, all these lowball offers would have been rendered moot.
Click to expand...

this does nothing to help me see why not giving Matthews an OPTION was in the best interest of the Jazz. Making a fair offer probably wouldn't have helped, but it certainly wouldn't have hurt either... unless he got injured in during his courting process with the rest of the league.

However, I am done complaining about this anymore because of this tidbit of information:

Darkwing Duck said:
Nope, I was wrong.

YOU MUST OFFER THE QO, IN MATTHEWS CASE $937,195 TO MAKE HIM A RESTRICTED FREE AGENT. OTHERWISE THE JAZZ RENOUNCE AND CAN'T EVEN SIGN HIM!!!

They can't TENDER anything else. It IS IMPOSSIBLE. They can make offers and such, but can't "tender" anything more than the worth of the QO, which is automatically determined.
Click to expand...

Sort of kills my argument when I proposed a legal impossibility...
 
Restricting tendering offers to a single minimal amount seems like a stupid rule to me. I'm sort of curious which side (players or owners) wanted it to be that way.
 
Of course the official QO is a fixed amount. I figured you were talking about verbal offers anyway. Anyway, it's the same difference either way. Any room for negotiation pretty much ended when Matthews' agent said that he believed they could get max MLE. What could the Jazz even say if they were expecting to be able to pay half that amount? If you want to talk about insulting your player, seems like telling them you think they're worth only half what they think they're worth would be a good one.

Anyway, regardless of the fact that it really couldn't have ended any other way, I'm still sad to lose Wesley. One of my faves from last season and I hate to see him go where he's not needed when I would love to see him play here. But I'm guessing he'll have $34 million things to think about while sitting on that bench.
 
Yeah, your right. Realistically it was going to end this way no matter what. I just thought there could have been a better way to handle it when apparently there wasn't.
 
G-O-A-T said:
Restricting tendering offers to a single minimal amount seems like a stupid rule to me. I'm sort of curious which side (players or owners) wanted it to be that way.
Click to expand...

Restricted Free Agency seems like an owner's want. It does help the players, too, though, but the league always likes having players stay put. That's why the Bird exceptions exist. I believe RFAs are almost strictly relegated to the domain of the time between first and second contracts players sign. It's designed to keep players from bolting to the big money teams after their rookie contracts are up. Portland gets around it somewhat by front loading contracts trying to discourage matching, but the original team always has the final say.

As for the QO, it's basically the same as any other cap hold every free agent/retiree has. It's the minimum the player can make the next season. For RFAs, they can take the offer and become unrestricted the next year, since it would be their second contract.

In the end, it really does make sense for both teams and players, and I'd imagine it wouldn't be eliminated in the next CBA.
 
On another note, I am kind of bothered because of Wesley Matthew's unique situation here. Because he went undrafted, he wasn't part of the rookie scale. And because he was only offered a 1-year contract by the Jazz, he is now eligible to make more than the #1 draft pick from the draft where he went undrafted. Seems like something is wrong with this scenario. I'm not suggesting I know the solution to the problem, but it just seems wrong that we have teams fighting to pay so much for an unproven player. There's a reason they came up with rookie contracts and also a reason they made them for 3 years before they either get their big payday or get cast off into obscurity.

Wesley Matthews sidestepped this process and was able to land a contract that does not even approach reasonable. There should have been something in place to allow us to retain his services and further test his ability for a couple more years before having to make an all or nothing decision about him being worth that much money.

Not blaming Wesley, just the rules that allow that to happen.
 
Yeah, I'd blame the Blazers for that, not the system.

2nd round picks have the same advantage. No rookie scale. It had become more advantageous to be the 31st pick rather than the 30th. Rookie scale isn't going anywhere, and signing second round/undrafted players to their second contract for up to the MLE isn't going to change, so the small bit of unfairness for the overall good won't change.
 
So it protects the owners from having the players hedge their bets that they can get a better offer the following season? Like, if Fes got a 3 year 4 mill offer, but thought he could get 3 years 10 mill next season, he would be smart to turn down the offer and sign the QO... even though he would only get 900K the following season? Now, of course that would never happen... Fess will be lucky if someone offers him the QO salary for 2 years guaranteed!

This doesn't seem very player friendly. If I thought my value would drastically improve after one more season, I would much rather play my one remaining year out at a reasonably tendered offer, than the current QO. I guess maybe the QO restriction is just part of the package of getting the RFA option...
 
mrob said:
On another note, I am kind of bothered because of Wesley Matthew's unique situation here. Because he went undrafted, he wasn't part of the rookie scale. And because he was only offered a 1-year contract by the Jazz, he is now eligible to make more than the #1 draft pick from the draft where he went undrafted. Seems like something is wrong with this scenario. I'm not suggesting I know the solution to the problem, but it just seems wrong that we have teams fighting to pay so much for an unproven player. There's a reason they came up with rookie contracts and also a reason they made them for 3 years before they either get their big payday or get cast off into obscurity.

Wesley Matthews sidestepped this process and was able to land a contract that does not even approach reasonable. There should have been something in place to allow us to retain his services and further test his ability for a couple more years before having to make an all or nothing decision about him being worth that much money.

Not blaming Wesley, just the rules that allow that to happen.
Click to expand...

I'm sort of surprised we have never seen a player forgo the draft and sign a one year deal like Matthews did... then go for the big bucks the following season. Just imagine if John Wall pulled this off (and turned out to live up to the hype). He would get to pick the city he played in and make a ton more money after the first year... only downside is the potential money loss if he sucked or got injured... but there is always insurance to mitigate that risk.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Yeah, I'd blame the Blazers for that, not the system.

2nd round picks have the same advantage. No rookie scale. It had become more advantageous to be the 31st pick rather than the 30th. Rookie scale isn't going anywhere, and signing second round/undrafted players to their second contract for up to the MLE isn't going to change, so the small bit of unfairness for the overall good won't change.
Click to expand...

I guess that I have to agree with that. A lot of gambling goes on here. I suppose that if the Jazz really thought highly enough about Matthews when they signed him to that one-year contract, they always could have have made it 2 or 3 years. You're at risk if you offer too little or if you agree to pay too much. Would have been nice to at least have another year to evaluate his value before having to lose him over that ridiculous contract. And, I agree that Blazers have a lot of blame here too. Still don't see how this doesn't blow up in their face.
 
write4u said:
Read the interview. You heard what Matthews said. He would've taken less and his father said he was expecting 3-5 million per year. What does that tell you? Yeah, we could've gotten him for maybe a million more than what we're paying Bell. Stupid ploy if you ask me. It'll be okay next year, but look down the road. Wes has a long career ahead, and Raja maybe a couple good years left. This is not how to build a championship team.
Click to expand...

Didn't his dad leave his mom and him when he was young?
 
G-O-A-T said:
So it protects the owners from having the players hedge their bets that they can get a better offer the following season? Like, if Fes got a 3 year 4 mill offer, but thought he could get 3 years 10 mill next season, he would be smart to turn down the offer and sign the QO... even though he would only get 900K the following season? Now, of course that would never happen... Fess will be lucky if someone offers him the QO salary for 2 years guaranteed!

This doesn't seem very player friendly. If I thought my value would drastically improve after one more season, I would much rather play my one remaining year out at a reasonably tendered offer, than the current QO. I guess maybe the QO restriction is just part of the package of getting the RFA option...
Click to expand...

Well, on the flip side, teams will overpay to try to pry players away. Matthews is the big apt example.

As for your example, yes, if Fes knew he'd get a 3/10 the next season, it would be smart to take the QO and forgo the 3/4 offer. I believe some players have gone that route since they felt lowballed at offers from teams. I can't think of any examples, though. It's rare to to do that, since there are no guarantees.
 
Write's incessant bitching is a bit much. That said, he's right. We should have made him a 3-5 year deal at about 3.8M per. Maybe 5 years, 19M, or something like that. Is there really a downside?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top