I think that the team that drafted him should be provided that benefit. They didnt draft a guy just so he can leave in 4 years and then theyre stuck with nothing and had no say in the matter. Plus the player gets his money, so at least theyre still benefiting. Its better than taking all of the power out of the teams hands. We'd have teams Drafting top 3 picks and losing them every four years.
I don't agree with that, just because you draft a player shouldn't give you anymore rights to him than the ability to sign him to a contract period. Guys wouldn't always be leaving after 4 years, the team that drafted him would still have the biggest advantage and you act like they can't offer him a contract. The team always has a say regardless if the player is restricted or unrestricted.
It ain't just about getting the money it's about having the ability to be in control of your career which is bigger. A franchise talent like AD is going to generate more money for whichever team he is playing for than they can even pay him under the salary cap so that's not even a good argument when you think about it. I think your bias because you're a fan of a small market team in the Spurs and I get that but it doesn't make restricted free agency fair at all.
Like I said, it makes no sense from a business standpoint that you should have any obligations to an employer after you've fulfilled your contract. Players already have no say in where they are drafted, that should be the first and last time they do, that's some indentured servant type ****.