Should each team be allowed to keep one player for atleast 2 max contracts length ?

I'd say let it happen. It still won't help small market teams attract a true max player.

 

Uh... what?

Do you mean like a 10 year contract?

What exactly are you asking here?

 

A 10 year contract? Lol.
Players association would love this. Go down with a career ending injury? Still get paid for the next 9 years... max money!

 

I'm not completely sure what you're asking, OP. There's a space between "at" and "least," by the way. -

 

The best 1st round players are already practically bound to the team for at least 7-9 years-- 4 years from the rookie scale contract, plus either an extension of up to 5 years, or the right to match all outside offers under restricted free agency.

The earliest that a player can force his way out unilaterally is after 5 years, by taking the 1 year qualifying offer, but guys rarely pass on long term big $ security coming off their rookie deals.

Why should we force human beings to be attached to organizations and owners for whom they don't want to work for even longer?

If you tank/luck into one of those players and do not manage to build an attractive enough situation given 7-9 years with him, why should we help you even more? Why should we force a human being to lose his freedom?

 

I still don't fully understand the question.

 

No. 5 years is long enough. You also have to think about the players. 10 years of job security would be nice, but some of them would rather have flexibility. It would suck to be locked up in Charlotte/Milwaukee/insert crappy team you're whole career...

 

Yeah; I don't either. Is it double the length; the salary, or both?

 

I'm sure the OP means double the length. Like, if Miami just signed Bosh for 10 years instead of just the 5.

 

I think the OP has some good point to make but 2 max contract is too bad.

 

Like an NFL franchise tag like system?

 

Do they no longer teach about slavery and the Civil War in high school now?

 

I was all for lifetime contracts, but Mauri already got rid of Lin :*(

 

They don't make leaving crippling enough, a team should be able to have 2 max players only with a big drop to non max players, than I bet you guys would stay put.

But forcing a player to stay with one team, that's not gonna happen.

 

I would say the main reason would be because the glamor franchises continue to control the nba championships to a large degree simply because they have more to offer.

Additionally, if we use MJ as a model, it takes about 7 years to build a championship team around the best player in the league, in the best of circumstances.

There are probably 20 teams in the league that will never have a prayer of winning anything because free agents aren't willing to sign with them.

 

I assume he means a franchise tag. The designated player wouldn't be able to ditch his sorry team to go play for the Lakers when his first big money contract is up. I think the motivation is right, but the method isn't. Yeah, it sucks when the Timberwolves and Bucks are bleeding talent all the time because the best players want to go to the glamor teams, but forcing players to stay isn't the solution, imo.

 

San Antonio just won the title. OKC and IND were conference finalists. Cleveland just signed LeBron and Love now would not mind joining them.

Meanwhile, the Lakers with max cap room didn't manage to snag any of their top targets. This after losing Dwight Howard.

Teams being good and desirable is often less about "glamor" location and more about providing a players a good environment in which to work and win.

A team may not win a title in 7 years, but at the very least it should make enough progress towards contending to convince a guy to stay when it can already offer more $ and years than outside teams can.

 

NBA FRANCHISE TAG?

Rocket River