PDA

View Full Version : NBA proposes unique ‘franchise tag’ to union



PC
05-11-2011, 04:50 PM
NBA proposes unique ‘franchise tag’ to union


The NBA proposed to the players’ union last month a version of the “franchise tag” that it wants to include in the next collective bargaining agreement, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The tag, however, would be very different from the NFL’s version, which allows a team to essentially block one of its free agents from entering the market by binding him to his incumbent team with a one-year contract that carries a high salary based on various parameters.

The system the league has presented would not work this way, according to sources. Instead, a team would be allowed to designate one player for preferential contractual treatment, including more overall money, more guaranteed money and at least one extra year on his contract. A player would have to agree to such a designation. It is designed to work as an incentive to get a player to remain with his team rather than as a roadblock to free agency, the sources said.

Take the situation between the Cavaliers and LeBron James one year ago. Under the league’s proposal, the Cavaliers would not have been able to unilaterally “tag” James a franchise player and bind him to the team for one more season. The Cavaliers would have been able to offer James various enticements he may not have been able to get from other teams, the sources said.

The NBA’s current collective bargaining agreement already gives incumbent teams such advantages when it comes to re-signing their own players. James and Chris Bosh both took less money to sign with the Heat than they could have received from the Cavs and Raptors, respectively. The idea behind the league’s new proposal would be to increase the gap between what teams can offer a “designated player” and what non-designated players can get on the open market.

Two caveats here:

1) Though the CBA expires on June 30, negotiations are really only starting to pick up. SI.com’s Sam Amick confirmed a report that commissioner David Stern and union executive director Billy Hunter have been meeting in person recently, and added that the two have future meetings scheduled over the next couple of weeks. That is a good sign, but we’re early in the process, and there are still many details to work out on how the “designated player” system would work.

2) The designated player is one small part of a larger proposal and must be considered as such, sources said. It exists within an overall plan that key members of the players’ union have said they do not like. It has been widely reported that the league wants to reduce the amount of revenue players receive (currently 57 percent of all basketball-related income); trim player salaries by as much as $800 million per year; cut the length and maximum value of player contracts; and slash the amount of money guaranteed to players in each contract.

Sources also said the league’s proposal would ban fully guaranteed contracts. All contracts would have limits on the amount of money a player would be guaranteed to receive, and those guarantees would decline during the life of each contract. In other words, a player making, say, $5 million per season over four years would actually be guaranteed less than $5 million in each of those four seasons — and the amount guaranteed would drop each season. The idea is for teams to be able to get out of undesirable contacts more easily and avoid ugly, Eddy Curry-style buyout talks.

It is within that kind of system in which you have to consider the league’s designated player idea. By cutting guaranteed money and contract lengths leaguewide, the overall proposal would make the benefits the designated player would receive more meaningful.

Would that be enough to keep free agents tied to small-market teams? It’s too early to say, just as it’s too early to say exactly what sort of “franchise tag”-style system, if any, the league will adopt. But this is the starting point, at least on paper, and it’s different in one crucial way from the NFL’s well-known system.
Source (http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/05/11/nba-proposes-unique-franchise-tag-to-union/)

Hellcrooner
05-11-2011, 05:11 PM
NO.

Enough **** already.

Owners have to realize that its PLAYERS who fill their seats.

Enough playing scrooge with them.

gotoHcarolina52
05-11-2011, 05:18 PM
Excellent idea.

JordansBulls
05-11-2011, 05:20 PM
Excellent idea.

:clap:

Would balance the league out some.

IBleedPurple
05-11-2011, 05:22 PM
This is stupid. It makes the star players have more money. Not a good idea. I like the option of a longer contract, but the NBA should have a franchise tag like the NFL

RaiderLakersA's
05-11-2011, 05:22 PM
No! No! No!

I hate what the franchise tag has done to the NFL. I'd hate to see any form of it in the NBA. And I don't care that it gives the chosen player right of first refusal.

allSUAVE
05-11-2011, 05:28 PM
blah blah blah

gwrighter
05-11-2011, 05:29 PM
sounds good to me. BARGNANI FRANCHISE TAG YEA BOY!

Hawkeye15
05-11-2011, 05:31 PM
of course many fans from large markets will be opposed to this. But small market fans are in favor of it, including me. May help balance the league out a bit.

bosox3431
05-11-2011, 05:34 PM
NO.

Enough **** already.

Owners have to realize that its PLAYERS who fill their seats.

Enough playing scrooge with them.

And players should realize without the owners the majority would be working at mcdonalds, not making enough money to own one

NYman15
05-11-2011, 05:34 PM
it just sounds like the bird rights rules they have now. It doesn't seem any different. Thats why Melo had the extend and trade and Lebron did a sign and trade. It doesn't sound any different.

jockrider
05-11-2011, 05:35 PM
sounds good to me. BARGNANI FRANCHISE TAG YEA BOY!

lol:facepalm:

Sportfan
05-11-2011, 05:39 PM
Wait, so the player has to agree to it? How does this help in the situation of a Lebron or Dwight who clearly would want to leave.

ne3xchamps
05-11-2011, 05:42 PM
This franchise tag would make it alot more interesting come free agent time. And I do agree with the fact it would balance out the league, and stop from the players conspiring on where to play together when it comes to free agency.

ne3xchamps
05-11-2011, 05:44 PM
I didn't notice if it said about the players having the right to decline the franchise tag. I do believe the NFL franchise, the player has to sign it. unless I'm wrong. anyone know for sure?

ne3xchamps
05-11-2011, 05:47 PM
it just sounds like the bird rights rules they have now. It doesn't seem any different. Thats why Melo had the extend and trade and Lebron did a sign and trade. It doesn't sound any different.

I'm pretty sure lebron just straight up left to free agency. maybe I'm wrong.:shrug:

allSUAVE
05-11-2011, 05:48 PM
teams need to start they own super team to compete with Miami

rabzouz 96
05-11-2011, 05:49 PM
totally against it. i dont even like the bird rights. if the gm makes it visible over the years that hes unable to construct a competing roster, the player should be able to sign with a team that seems able to do so for the same amount of money

ne3xchamps
05-11-2011, 05:50 PM
teams need to start they own super team to compete with Miami

true. Too bad there wasn't a new CBA with this tag LAST year. :laugh2:

DMasta718
05-11-2011, 05:50 PM
And the way that I'm reading it now how it's proposed, it wouldn't change a damn thing.

allSUAVE
05-11-2011, 05:54 PM
well the tag could be a good situation for the knicks anyways

gotoHcarolina52
05-11-2011, 05:56 PM
true. Too bad there wasn't a new CBA with this tag LAST year. :laugh2:

Each of the three took less money, so I doubt a soft-tag like the one proposed--one centered around the deterrent effect of a longer contract and more money--would have motivated LeBron or Bosh to remain with their former teams.

CeeDub15
05-11-2011, 05:57 PM
Im on board with this. Would love this too happen, not sure if this will happen tho.

blastmasta26
05-11-2011, 06:05 PM
Each of the three took less money, so I doubt a soft-tag like the one proposed--one centered around the deterrent effect of a longer contract and more money--would have motivated LeBron or Bosh to remain with their former teams.
Exactly. And can't players just sign extensions and then demand a trade like Melo just did? Just seems like an amendment to bird rights to me.

Geargo Wallace
05-11-2011, 06:05 PM
NO.

Enough **** already.

Owners have to realize that its PLAYERS who fill their seats.

Enough playing scrooge with them.

we're not in Europe anymore Toto.

Tony_Starks
05-11-2011, 06:06 PM
Not going to happen. No way the union agrees with that. Then they want to cut out the gauranteed contracts? Get real! The owners have to take responsibility and do their jobs with some kind of common sense, nobody is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to sign the Eddy Curry's and Darko's of the world to stupid contracts.

They give all these bums and "questionable" players all this money, realize they screwed up, and want the league to bail them out? What part of the game is that?

They keep crying about evening it out for the small markets but I don't hear OKC and Memphis complaining......

gotoHcarolina52
05-11-2011, 06:15 PM
Remove the guaranteed contract and you'll expose the NBA to the world of the Whining Athlete Holdout (WAH!!!!!!!!!!!).

bmd1101
05-11-2011, 06:40 PM
I didn't notice if it said about the players having the right to decline the franchise tag. I do believe the NFL franchise, the player has to sign it. unless I'm wrong. anyone know for sure?

With the NFL franchise tag the player doesnt have to agree or sign ****, they are stuck no matter what if they get tagged for the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag

They also have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_tag

Cal827
05-11-2011, 06:57 PM
I'm surprised they didn't suggest something similar to the NHL. In the NHL, the players remain with the team that signed with them for 7 years before technically becoming UFAs. After their 3 year entry lvl contract, they are restricted for the next 4.. as in they get an offer and the team could match it in order to acquire him.

Really if they should be to allow the former team to mark" the players. Keep the first year the same (as in they are restricted free agents, and an offer could be matched). But after that, just allow teams to mark them, ensuring that there would be compensation to the team losing someone. Since we are talking about stars, I think we can agree that a team that loses one would likely go into rebuilding almost automatically. They should just set ranges of salary that would require a team signing a star to give to the team losing one. This would mean that a bidding war over one guy could end up in the benefit of the team losing the player in question. In the NHL, offering a max contract to a restricted free agent requires a team to give up 4 first rounders (1 per year for 4 straight years) to the other team. Since this is the NBA (where there are only 2 rounds), maybe make a team have to give up 2 consecutive unprotected firsts and then 2 second round picks. This would prevent teams from going from contenders to a bad team with a ton of bad contracts and (At least we saw a little of that with Bosh/Lebron as Miami gave Toronto/Cleveland two future 1st round picks.)

This could help prevent the amount of max deals around as some teams might decide over spending the max on a guy who they aren't 100% confident in and don't want to relinquish so many picks for them. IMO right now, the only guys who should be making around max are Kobe, Lebron, Amar'e, Rose (I know he's in Rookie contract), and Dwight. The owners (who are whining because they were dumb enough to set some some bad contracts up), will be able to think twice before offering too much.

This could also prevent attempts at collusion (as some of these GMs whined about, but did nothing to try and prevent their allegations lol), at least if all of their contracts run out at the same time. For example (I say example, I'm not trying to bait or anything :D) suppose Dwight Howard and Chris Paul decide that they want to play together in LA (Assume they just basically cleared cap room all season). As I mentioned before, I believe that Dwight is a Max player, therefore if the Lakers were to sign him, they would have to send 2 consecutive firsts to Orlando. When they attempt to sign Paul, they would run into problems as Paul's contract would require at least one first to go to the Hornets, and they might have problems since they sent 2 consecutive first to the Magic. They could get another team involved in order to get the first needed (E.g. Bynum to Clippers for their First), but if the other GMs suspect that there was collusion between the players/organization, they would likely do anything in their power to block it.