PDA

View Full Version : Idea: Legends Clause



Tymathee
07-16-2014, 02:46 PM
Just heard this on my local radio and i think it actually would work well. I've modified it to make it make sense.

If you're a player that has been on your team for consecutive years 8 years, either by draft or trade, you have the option of resigning that player to a legends clause if he's a free agent.

You are restricted to only one legend on your team. (Or call it the Franchise Player/Clause)

When you resign him, his contract only counts to a percentage of the cap, let's say 50% to start. So someone like Kobe who is getting 28, he'd only count as 14. Dirk could've signed for 16 instead of 8 mil. So they get paid that money but the team is only capped half

If that player is traded, the new team is capped the full price.

this would allow teams to pay those hometown players more money but be able to keep them on the team, which would lower movement and make a player want to stay and also allow the team to build around them.

InRoseWeTrust
07-16-2014, 02:47 PM
Mark Willard :facepalm:

Hellcrooner
07-16-2014, 02:48 PM
no thanks.

Kobe should have not been selfish.

I hope he does not dare to complain bout lakers not being competitive, because His greed has been one of the top reasons that the team is a failure, and im not only talking bout the mamouth contract.

alexander_37
07-16-2014, 02:52 PM
Lol no we don't need a Kobe clause. If he is too greedy and puts his team in a ****** position between paying him way too much for little to no production or losing him it's the players/teams fault.

abe_froman
07-16-2014, 02:53 PM
nope,the lakers should have to live with their mistake

Chronz
07-16-2014, 02:54 PM
It makes sense. Almost too much sense

mRc08
07-16-2014, 03:04 PM
Not sure how much I like it tbh. look at this summer for example, all of these teams couldn't offer carmello as much, this only makes it more difficult to pry players away/attract them to your team.

This could be a good thing or a bad thing.

If you believe players should stay with an organization throughout there career, and that this is better for the league, then yeah it makes sense.

If you believe that players should be able to move around and "do whats best for their situation", then this makes this more difficult.

I guess I think it is ultimately better for players to stick around with their organizations, but this makes the decision to leave that much harder. Again, not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Look at lebron joining the heat. He could have stayed with the cavs and perhaps had enough cap space to attract a good free agent with the extra money. However, would the league really be better off if the heat didn't come together? I sure as hell enjoyed rooting against them and i know the revenue during their time together was big for the league.

alexander_37
07-16-2014, 03:08 PM
Not sure how much I like it tbh. look at this summer for example, all of these teams couldn't offer carmello as much, this only makes it more difficult to pry players away/attract them to your team.

This could be a good thing or a bad thing.

If you believe players should stay with an organization throughout there career, and that this is better for the league, then yeah it makes sense.

If you believe that players should be able to move around and "do whats best for their situation", then this makes this more difficult.

I guess I think it is ultimately better for players to stick around with their organizations, but this makes the decision to leave that much harder. Again, not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Look at lebron joining the heat. He could have stayed with the cavs and perhaps had enough cap space to attract a good free agent with the extra money. However, would the league really be better off if the heat didn't come together? I sure as hell enjoyed rooting against them and i know the revenue during their time together was big for the league.

I don't think he was 8 years in at that point.

Plus imagine all the short term contracts that would happen just so players could get to that 8 year mark. I think this idea is not a good one at all.

DODGERS&LAKERS
07-16-2014, 08:09 PM
no thanks.

Kobe should have not been selfish.

I hope he does not dare to complain bout lakers not being competitive, because His greed has been one of the top reasons that the team is a failure, and im not only talking bout the mamouth contract.


Lol no we don't need a Kobe clause. If he is too greedy and puts his team in a ****** position between paying him way too much for little to no production or losing him it's the players/teams fault.


nope,the lakers should have to live with their mistake



You guys are thinking about Kobe and the Lakers for no reason at all. By the time the next CBA is drafted and this rule could be implemented, Kobe will be retired. So stop with the Kobe jealousy and think rationally.

This is a good idea especially for small market teams that want to keep their players. And its good for the players as well. Dirk should not be guilted into a salary that is almost equal to Jodie Meeks. The Mavs should be able to pay Dirk what he is worth and not be punished for it. Same with Duncan, and yes same with Kobe.

I think that OKC would like to franchise tag KD when his time is up. They should be able to pay him the money he deserves with the option of being able to build around him.

Lebron has already played 7 seasons with the Cavs and should be eligible for the "legends clause" he should get his max money and the Cavs should be able to have room under the cap to put other players around him.

I really think this should be put in place in the next CBA.

Cal827
07-16-2014, 08:33 PM
It's gonna be real fun, when some players want HUUUGGGEE contracts when they know that they will be halved on the cap hit.

Side note, I don't think this is a horrible idea, but I think it would probably have to come along with a removal of the Salary Cap. Cause it kinda opens up the idea of trying to reward players for their loyalty... soon enough the Players Union will make arguments that guys like Lebron (obviously he didn't spend 8 years in one spot, but if he had), or Durant has had a huge impact on their team and market, and they should reward them for ALL of their efforts.

IgglesFanInCO
07-16-2014, 08:46 PM
It makes some amount of sense, but just the basic idea, not what you laid out in the slightest

something like only 75-90% counts towards the cap if they stay with the same team for 8 years and have already received at least 5-7 contract years of max pay FROM THAT TEAM, just might be fair. If it was as low as 75% there would probably also need to be a stipulation of the new contract being a max as well

anything more lenient than that would be completely stupid plain and simple,, but something along those lines might be an ok idea

hugepatsfan
07-16-2014, 09:39 PM
I actually like the basic idea. I say that if a player has played 8 years with a team consecutively then no matter what he makes, the maximum he counts salary cap wise and luxury tax calculation wise is $15 mil. That makes it easier for teams to keep their stars because it's easier to build around them at that reduced rate.

JEDean89
07-16-2014, 09:45 PM
i like this idea and had thought of something similar but i don't think 50% makes sense. IMO every team should have one player who only the first 20 mil of his salary counts against the cap. in melo's case he wouldn't have had to take a paycut to keep the flexibility and this way you wouldn't have 4 superstars on one team still. the player's cap would still be at a max, but if he provides that much value to his team, he shouldn't have to choose between being compensated and staying competitive.

Kevj77
07-16-2014, 10:28 PM
A much better idea than a franchise tag. This would help keep players like Durant in OKC. Imagine if they could cut his salary in half for cap and luxury tax purposes. Perhaps they wouldn't have traded Harden. The Harden trade was obviously made with luxury tax in the back of the owners mind.

I know the first thing that jumps to many peoples' mind is Kobe, but it could help small market teams keep homegrown talent as well.

HouRealCoach
07-16-2014, 10:51 PM
I like it

Shammyguy3
07-17-2014, 01:58 AM
It makes sense. Almost too much sense


I actually like the basic idea. I say that if a player has played 8 years with a team consecutively then no matter what he makes, the maximum he counts salary cap wise and luxury tax calculation wise is $15 mil. That makes it easier for teams to keep their stars because it's easier to build around them at that reduced rate.

Agree with these gents. This rewards not just the players and the team in terms of financial flexibility, but it rewards the fans the chance to capitalize on a FO/Team's decision that led to the player maintaining on the team for 8 years.

This is a rare feat. These types of clauses wouldn't happen that often, but it would happen enough to make it make total sense. I'm not sure about the 50% rule for the player's contract though. I like the idea of capping it at $15M or a nearby arbitrary number (like $17.5M or even $20M)

rhymeratic
07-17-2014, 07:23 AM
Just heard this on my local radio and i think it actually would work well. I've modified it to make it make sense.

If you're a player that has been on your team for consecutive years 8 years, either by draft or trade, you have the option of resigning that player to a legends clause if he's a free agent.

You are restricted to only one legend on your team. (Or call it the Franchise Player/Clause)

When you resign him, his contract only counts to a percentage of the cap, let's say 50% to start. So someone like Kobe who is getting 28, he'd only count as 14. Dirk could've signed for 16 instead of 8 mil. So they get paid that money but the team is only capped half

If that player is traded, the new team is capped the full price.

this would allow teams to pay those hometown players more money but be able to keep them on the team, which would lower movement and make a player want to stay and also allow the team to build around them.

I like this but to be a true legend i would attach additional stipulations to qualify:

1. 1 MVP trophy
2. Selected to minimum 4 All-star games
3. minimum 2 All-Nba 1st team or some combination of 1 All-Nba 1st team + 3 All-Nba 2nd/3rd team
4. 1 NBA Finals Appearance

To me THAT is a legends clause. Even though I love him for being on my team, we don't want the likes of Melo qualifying for this or some other guy who just put up stats.

Crackadalic
07-17-2014, 07:43 AM
I actually like the basis of this idea tbh.

Tymathee
07-17-2014, 04:42 PM
A much better idea than a franchise tag. This would help keep players like Durant in OKC. Imagine if they could cut his salary in half for cap and luxury tax purposes. Perhaps they wouldn't have traded Harden. The Harden trade was obviously made with luxury tax in the back of the owners mind.

I know the first thing that jumps to many peoples' mind is Kobe, but it could help small market teams keep homegrown talent as well.

This is my main thought.

I only put 50% down as a starting point, I get ideas all the time and I just throw them out there to get feedback, this is a message board...

I mainly liked this idea because it rewards not only the player but the team and it restricts teams to only one so it may not always use it, it'll be reserved for special players.

There are only a few guys eligible atm. I think Dirk and Kobe mainly, but lets just throw it into the current system and go with my 50% as an arbitrary number, not a final number but just because 50 is easy to do mathematically (i always start with easy math then adjust for stuff like this)

You have a team, you draft a great player, 4th year comes, you offer him qualifying, he rejects it and now he could become unrestricted i.e. Kevin Love next year. Now, K-love may not be a franchise type of player but is really good, easy to 15 in the NBA, if I'm k-love do I want to stick around for 4 more years and hope the team builds around me, get more money, which allows the team to get someone in FA or in a trade. Probably not, Wolves suck, he's nto going to say but it will be a thought.

When lebron left miami, with 7 yeras in, maybe he opts in for that final year knowing his team will have free agent money the next season and be able to sign him to max money and not get hurt by the entirity of it.

this off-season, you can give dirk 20 mil, but it only counts as 10. He gets paid what hes deserved whlie the team can get more money

kobe, hes only getting 15 against the cap, which people think he should've gotten (i agree, way overpay, bah).

So again, it would basically be a reward to both the team (they can avoid the luxury tax and add) and the player can get their money without having to stress getting a paycut, it's a win win.

The thing is, that player would have to be into their 2nd FA contract and a lot of guys may leave then.

Also another interesting tactic would be this.

Year 4, QA extended, decline. player is RFA. Player signs offer sheet for 3 years, does the original team match? that would make it difficult...so much fun could be had with something like ths.

Do it Silver! We need Salary reform, this crap ain't working.

Jeffy25
07-17-2014, 04:47 PM
I like it because I want aging veterans to stay with their teams.

So I'd be down with it

CELTICS4LYFE
07-17-2014, 08:56 PM
I like the concept of a franchise tag in the NBA... Would really help small market teams and teams build around those stars.

Think 8 years is a little long tho, maybe like 4 or at the end of their rookie deal.

A lot of ideas stem of this tho, I like the concept.