Raven mentioned it in the Riley thread and I think it's a fantastic idea. You can Franchise tag one player, which guarantees him a max contract. However, to keep some one like Sterling from holding Blake Griffin hostage without signing good players around him or without giving a multi-year max contract, I think the following rules should be proposed. When you Franchise tag a player, they are guaranteed the max number of years for the max contract. During the course of that Franchise tag, if at ANY point the team failed to field a team maxing out the salary cap, the player gains a player option the next year and can not be franchised tagged. This will force owners to at least spend money when they Franchise a player. Franchise players can block trades. The concession is that if a team needs to keep their superstar, they can. However, it will also keep owners from blowing up a team because the management made bad decisions. Lebron would still be in Cleveland. Hopefully this will go back to time when a super star stays with a team in their most productive years (Ewing in NY, MJ in Bulls, Hakeem in Houston, DRob in San Antonio, Dominque Wilkins in Atlanta, Reggie in Indiana, I can go on but it's definitely much more different today).
Intriguing. But in the case with Miami, couldn't you franchise tag one of the 3 superfriends and give the other 2 almost max money?
Raven? Who's that? Check your facts, son. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5566743&postcount=35
But if a "Franchise-Tagged" player forces a trade by deliberately under-performing during games, there is still nothing a team can do about it. Short of threatening personal harm, how could you ever force a player to be devoted to your team if he doesn't want to? No law or rules can do that.
Maybe if a tagged player doesn't get his team to the playoffs or at least above 500 (depending on the conference), the team has the rights to take away that tag. But I guess that takes away from the "guaranteed the max number of years for the max contract" clause. There has to be more to the franchise tag rule or else players or the organization will definitely find some loopholes.
If you franchise a player the other team has to give up 1st round picks. I think every team would give up two first round picks for lebron, bosh, wade etc.
I think the franchise tag is a stupid idea. We can solve this problem by putting in a hard cap preventing teams from being able to afford 3 max players and then some other players.
the OP proposed that the franchised player will have the right to veto any trade he's involved in. so if he really wanted to be traded he could demand a trade, then veto any trade which doesnt put him on the team he wants to play for... kind of a loophole in the whole "franchise tag" theory, since the player could basically hold the team hostage to get what he wants. my idea: if he refuses to play for his team, he should have to officially request a trade in writing. by doing that he would waive the option to veto any trade. his team can now look for a trade that best helps them. since the player is locked up long term, teams will be willing to pay a lot with no risk of a "one year rental."
some very good ideas here. the goal is ultimately to promote better competitive balance in the league. and indirectly avoid a team in Cleveland's situation getting Lebron'd if you are going to enable a franchise tag, then you had better reevaluate profit sharing within the league too... its one thing for a franchise to be able to go out and spend stupid money on players... for one thing spending more money does not necessarilly guarantee success (i.e. Knicks last decade). secondly, to handcuff a franchise willing to put a competitive product out on the court sends the wrong message, and ultimately hurts the fans. but if a smaller market can't afford to put any talent around their tagged star...that is something the league needs to address. the pacers and cavaliers are legacy franchises, and I would hate for them to go the way of the zombie sonics...
Max contract + 25%, counts as max contract for salary cap. Grants team option for additional year on top of current contract. A franchise player leaving during free agency (as either a FA or a S&T) can never receive the tag outside their original team,the receiving team's salary counts as the actual franchise player salary (ie the +25%), this 25% penalty does not apply after the players 10th season or if the player turns 30 before the trade deadline of the upcoming season, whichever is first.
What's going to prevent the guy from turning around and refusing to play for the team that just traded for him?
I don't see why one is needed. The point of "free agency" is that a player can choose where he wants to play/live. If the NBA really wants to prevent a "super team" from happening, just remove the cap on individual player salaries while keeping cap on team salaries. This way, guys like Lebron will have to choose between being paid his true worth (probably like $30 mil a year) and taking a HUGE paycut to get other superstars on his team. But they'll never do it, because most of the NBPA are made out of scrubs, and the team owners and the scrubs will sacrifice the best players' earning for their own goal. This, by the way, is why the stars have been showing up to CBA negotiations. Not to support the NBPA, but to prevent scrubs from screwing their asses.
I say institute a lowered hard salary cap. Maybe $50 mil. Maybe this way we'll see even more players flock to the Euroleague. I'm rooting for them to get stronger to rival the NBA. That way we could have something like a champions league between different leagues.
I don't like the franchise tag, because what if the franchise player is injury prone. You are prevented from adding another high quality player. If your franchise tagged player is Yao Ming, then the Rockets will be screwed until he retires. We can't trade our rookies and draft picks for another guy like Carmelo or CP3. It also screws teams that drafted well, and a drafted player turns into a star by his 2nd or 3rd season. If a team already has a franchise player, they will have to trade their rookies in the middle of their contracts. For Example, the Kings would have to break up Tyreke and Cousins after only 1 or 2 seasons together, if both players turn into franchise tagged players. If they kept Cousins and he develops foot injuries like Yao, then they would have lost Tyreke to trade and Cousins to injury. Their roster would be depleted.
Not that it matters, but I've been mentioning the franchise tag for weeks and in multiple threads. I am glad, however, to see others do the same. I honestly believe the NBA is doomed without it.
I don't think it is needed. Just allow a bigger difference between a home team contract and another team's contract (say 2 extra years, allow double the inflation) if you want to stilt things more to the drafter/home team. Everybody is way overreacting to this offseason. It is very rare for players to take less money to play for a better team. Free agency has been around a long time, and this is the 1st year something like this has happened. I personally think it will be great for league ratings and profits as well, you watch. And it is much better now than it was when owners had all the power and great players would have no choice but to rot on the same team if they had a d*ckhead owner with a Napoleon complex. (ask the greats of the 60s and early 70s how nice that was).
We have been talking about this for years......and all the rumors are that the owners are looking at it for the new CBA. I think it is a good thing.....if it has limitations etc.... DD
Either Carl Herrera's idea, or limit a team to signing only 1 player above 20M and 2 players above 10M. The money figures can be adjusted according to the market. The idea is to limit a team's ability from getting more than two stars (a Batman and a Robin). If a star is willing to take a role player's money to play for a team already with two stars, good for him.
There would be no better time. I think the public would be favorable to it, and side with the owners, which means it's all about which side runs out of cash first, and that will be the players.
