PDA

View Full Version : What do you guys think of a franchise tag in the nba?



daboywonder2002
12-31-2010, 10:10 AM
Just following the nuggets situation. i really dont think they want any of the knicks or nets players. but its like either trade melo to the team of his choice or lose him for nothing. Im sure other teams don't wanna trade for anthony if he isn't gonna resign long term. At least with a franchise tag, either they keep him under contract for another year or they get the 1st round. draft picks im sure they would rather have. I know you have the sign and trade in the nba. but when you are a free agent, a team does not have to agree to it.

godolphins
12-31-2010, 10:56 AM
It'll make the Nba more boring, that means superstar players would never leave the team that drafted them

Statik1
12-31-2010, 11:34 AM
Hell no

PhillyFaninLA
12-31-2010, 11:55 AM
I hate the franchise tag in the NFL. It forces a player to stay some where they may not be happy with after a legal contract has expired. It forces a player to be somewhere longer then the contractual agreed to be restricting a lot of elements of life.


As for the point about Melo specifically, I don't believe he has a no trade clause. They could trade him anywhere and maybe get a player they like more and less total players or picks. They don't have to trade him to the Nets or Knicks its just those places have the ability to sign him.

I want to add one more thing, I think the franchise tag, restricted free agents, and the draft lottery should be gone and never should have been in place in the first place.

WolvesJagsOs
12-31-2010, 12:05 PM
Nah. Hate franchise tag.

HiphopRelated
12-31-2010, 12:09 PM
that would be the last straw for the union

dunedinjays
12-31-2010, 12:16 PM
Yeah, players in the nfl hate the franchise tag, so lets put it in the nba. makes a lot of sense

JWO35
12-31-2010, 12:28 PM
I don't like the franchise-tag in the NFL...if the player wants to go, go.

daboywonder2002
12-31-2010, 12:54 PM
Yeah, players in the nfl hate the franchise tag, so lets put it in the nba. makes a lot of sense

players in the nfl hate the franchise tag because they arent getting that guaranteed money. they want a long term deal and they need to make the most money they can get. to me, its not about a player not being happy. its about teams getting compensation. orlando never got anything when they lost shaq. cleveland should have gotten more than a trade exception for lebron. id much rather see the franchise tag and teams get compensated.

jetsfan28
12-31-2010, 12:57 PM
players in the nfl hate the franchise tag because they arent getting that guaranteed money. they want a long term deal and they need to make the most money they can get. to me, its not about a player not being happy. its about teams getting compensation. orlando never got anything when they lost shaq. cleveland should have gotten more than a trade exception for lebron. id much rather see the franchise tag and teams get compensated.

That's Orlando's fault. The NBA has a much later trade deadline than the NFL, and a lot more in season trading, teams have no one to blame but themselves if they get no value (just like Denver will only have themselves to blame if they let Anthony leave instead of taking what the Knicks will give them).



There's also only 12 guys on an NBA team, so being able to keep 1 guy is a much larger advantage.

Dade County
12-31-2010, 01:11 PM
Ummm............... franchise tag bad!
Owners just want to hold on to their Super stars, to make that money; and never have to really place any other star type talent around them.
Very, very, very, very bad Idea.




players in the nfl hate the franchise tag because they arent getting that guaranteed money. they want a long term deal and they need to make the most money they can get. to me, its not about a player not being happy. its about teams getting compensation. orlando never got anything when they lost shaq. cleveland should have gotten more than a trade exception for lebron. id much rather see the franchise tag and teams get compensated.

These players are free agents, the team that signs them should not have to pay any cost for that.......... have a nice day :cool:

daboywonder2002
12-31-2010, 01:14 PM
but why should denver only be allowed to trade with new york? maybe the knicks dont have the players denver wants. its basically a lose lose situation for the nuggets. you cant trade him to another team because melo probably wont resign them and most gms already know that. which is why a lot of teams arent trading for melo. they dont want a half season rental.

NYKNYGNYY
12-31-2010, 01:27 PM
no was gonna say its the stupidest thing about the nfl but i would be wrong, it is ****ing ******** though

THE MTL
12-31-2010, 01:31 PM
Just following the nuggets situation. i really dont think they want any of the knicks or nets players. but its like either trade melo to the team of his choice or lose him for nothing. Im sure other teams don't wanna trade for anthony if he isn't gonna resign long term. At least with a franchise tag, either they keep him under contract for another year or they get the 1st round. draft picks im sure they would rather have. I know you have the sign and trade in the nba. but when you are a free agent, a team does not have to agree to it.

Sign & Trades benefit everyone however. Sign&Trades are the norm and its kinda stupid to not do one.

Old team: gets some kind of compensation usually a 1st or 2nd rounder. And also they get a massive trade exception

New team: Saves money on the first couple years of the contract which brings flexibilty for other players. Also, they get the transfer of rights to that player which allows them to sign other guys (ie. Mike Miller for Heat)

Player: Gets a better contract. Higher raises and potentially more money

THE MTL
12-31-2010, 01:33 PM
Franchise tags are bad and dumb. Superstars should have the freedom to go whether they please.

Lebron gave Cleveland SEVEN YEARS!!!!! (ppl forget that). And after this season Carmelo would have given Denver EIGHT YEARS!!! Thats longer than a commitment to the army.

hgtiger32
12-31-2010, 04:00 PM
honestly I think it be a bad idea

John Walls Era
12-31-2010, 04:09 PM
Theres already a restricted FA tag, no need for a franchise tag.

faridk89
12-31-2010, 08:03 PM
It'll make the Nba more boring, that means superstar players would never leave the team that drafted them

wouldn't that be better then the current situation with a few good teams and teams under .500 that will probably make the playoffs in the east?

It would make rebuilding through the draft a better choice for teams that are from a worse market then other teams?

blacknell
12-31-2010, 08:31 PM
lebron would still be in clevland and bosh would still be in toronto

abe_froman
12-31-2010, 08:34 PM
when i heard what it was i have to say it horrible thing to do

sargon21
01-01-2011, 04:06 AM
terrible, terrible idea

xabial
01-01-2011, 04:38 AM
lebron would still be in clevland and bosh would still be in toronto

They shouldnt be slaves to their Franchises. If Lebron or Bush wants to **** over their Franchise it should be by their free will. It doesnt happen much because player's take paycuts and less guaranteed money. Although I hate the heat with a passion, i don't think Franchise tag would be the best option.

koreancabbage
01-01-2011, 04:48 AM
it would be aamazing then you would follow a tiered system where talent can be spread throughout the league. there is no parity and the teams willing to pay the money to get a super star player won't have a chance cuz their team sucks.

franchise player gets the most money (which would make others be "franchise" player and be paid the most)

and then followed by 2nd and 3rd option players with a tiered salary system. A collusion of the big 3 in Miami might have been prevented etc. cuz all three players got payed the same essentially. If all three wanted to make the same money, they would have to do it elsewhere unless they willing to take a paycut.

just an idea.

and shorter contracts