Should NBA teams be compensated when they lose a player to RFA?

[He Who Posts Well]

Anyone else think team that doesn't match should be compensated with a second round pick by the offering team?

Sure the team has the right to match any deal but, with the way these deals are structured, you lose either lose a starter/rotational player or deal with the luxury tax consequences down the road. For some middle of the road teams, it can set your building plans back a few years.

So if you are a team that can't match for whatever reason, you should be at least compensated with a future second round pick.

What do you guys think?

 

[FTBS]

Restricted FA and franchise tags are stupid. Hell no the team shouldn't be compensated. Either you can reach a deal with him or you can't. I honestly don't see the point of RFA. It's an oxymoron, literally. You are free to sign where you want, unless of course your team decides to match . Why even bother?

 

[CJ]

Agreed, there should only be UFA. RFA is basically handicapping the inital team from even negotiating a deal because if the player is not feeling it, they'll sign an offer sheet elsewhere anyway. You end up having to let another team set the bar and match.

 

[triplehate]

The home team could always offer more years money and raises, if you dont thats your own fault