How would this NBA rule change affect free agency?

The Game Room
1

With Restricted Free Agency, the player’s current team has the power to match an offer to the player. If his current team does that, the player remains with the team. I think that’s the gist of it, if I’m wrong then someone can correct me

Its not a money issue then, and while I understand the NBA likes to promote continuity in its teams, it eliminates a certain avenue of hope for the fans and owner of another team who might want the services of Player X.

To me, it seems like there shouldn’t be that much of a restriction of movement. What if the NBA changed the rule where the player can still elect to go to the opposing team even if his own team matches the offer? That way, for the player, they get to decide independently of money where they want to go. The union won’t lose any money, so I’m sure they won’t oppose it. And while I understand why the NBA would promote continuity, at any time 29 other owners are thinking they wished they could get that restricted free agent so I don’t think it would be a totally one-sided vote if the rule came up for debate

What do you think NBA fans? Like it, don’t like it, needs tweaking?

For the record, I’d rather have the rule changed to the above. But I’m also fine with the fact that opposing teams cannot offer the player as much money as the player’s current team, because some continuity is nice. Teams employing a player, I think, should be given a bit of an advantage in resigning their own guys, so being able to go over the salary cap and Bird Rights are all ok as far as I’m concerned. I just don’t like that particular aspect of restricted free agency.

There’s one thing I don’t know, and that is during this type of free agency, can the current team offer the player more money than other teams? I think they can, right? But no team does that because they don’t want to overpay a guy if they don’t have to (though I could swear that the Knicks did something stupid like this years ago, or maybe it was the Hawks)

2

Restricted Free Agency only applies to players with 3 years or less in the league (or 4 if the team exercises their 4th year option). After that, a veteran player without a contract is always an unrestricted free agent, IIRC.

I feel this system is fairly balanced the way it is (this specific aspect of the system, that is). Teams have young players by the balls for the length of their rookie contract, but after that the power shifts to the player and the player can do whatever they want.

3

Sure it is. In many cases a player can be a restricted free agent this year or an unrestricted free agent next year, and because players generally want as much financial security as possible, that extra year is an incentive for him to sign a contract with his current team at a lesser value. And because of the way offer sheets work, they can force teams out of the market for a player: if your team offers a player a contract and he accepts, his original team typically has three days to match. That’s up to three days where your team cannot spend the money that is allocated to the player - and at the end of that time, you might lose him anyway.

I don’t think it’s about continuity so much as it is about helping the owners keep salaries down.

Then it’s unrestricted free agency. There’s not much difference at that point.

I don’t think so. Since they’re bidding against another team, they have no reason to do that anyway.

And if DCnDC is correct that this is only an option for the youngest players, then this offers teams another benefit: it reduces the risk that they’ll spend several years developing a guy and then lose him once he’s getting good.