What its more likely to do is force teams to overpay a player who normally would have stayed. The max wont be good enough anymore for a team's best player, they will all demand to be franchised and given extra incentives.
That's an interesting way to franchise a player, but they would have to agree to it first. I wonder how much extra money a team could offer their franchise player, and how would it effect their cap situation? For example, if the Thunder franchised Durant for a contract worth around 140 million over 6 years, would his 23 million and change count against the cap, and the Thunder would have less cap room? Or would only a percentage count against the cap, and the rest added on to whatever the final cap salary is? can't wait to see how this plays out in the new CBA.
Just get the thing done and don't cancel summer league. I must have my July basketball fix. I know, wishful thinking.
That's pretty interesting. I think you're right. But, if they really are franchise players, you could pay more than the max and still have a bargain on your hands. I think a crucial piece of information the article didn't touch on is what prerequisites a player would have to meet to be eligible. If a franchise player on a small market team can leave in free agency and still get his franchise tag with the new team soon after, then it won't stop anyone. If they need to be on the team for 3 seasons first, or something like that, I think it could be effective as long as the financial benefit is substantial.
It still won't work in most of the cases Lebron would've left to chase his ring no matter how much money the Cavs offered to pay him, in this particular case Lebron would have even less chance of winning a ring with this franchise tag because so much money would be tied to him on the salary cap. I think this "franchise tag" would cause small market to vastly overpay non superstars like Joe Johnson or Danny Granger.
The NBA is a business, not a recreational league. Stop trying to make things "fair". I'd rather the NBA be more free-flowing and dynamic than have like 10,000 restrictions slapped on everything.
I like both things the NBA is proposing, in particular HOW they are proposing them. Lemon Law contracts (though I'd reverse the guarantees - make it easier to kill the deal early if a guy goes Elton Brand/Gilbert Arenas on you rather than set things up for vets to be waived in their last year) Franchise Tag I love that it doesn't remove a FA's right to choose and handcuff him unwillingly to a franchise. What still kills me is, they already have this. They just washed it out by allowing S&Ts. All they have to do is kill S&Ts so FAs can't hold the original team hostage like Bosh did. If you sign a player, you can't trade him for 6 months. Period. Done. Hard Cap The more I think about it, the more I hope they go with a Hard AND Soft Cap system. Keep Bird Rights and the LLE, kill the MLE, but impose a hard cap (say the current tax line). That way, teams aren't having to cut valuable players because they crossing the cap by a couple million, teams aren't as pressed to lose their franchise guy because they're sitting near the (soft) cap line, but you remove their ability to sign outside FAs to go above the (soft) cap. Hard Cap --> Allan Houston Rule Returns If they go with a hard cap, and probably if they go to a harder cap (or what I suggested above), there has to be a return of the Allan Houston rule so that a few of the highest spending teams can get themselves back down. Lakers are already committed to $93M in salary next year (11 players). If the league is kind and sets a hard cap at $73M (rather than $65M), that's a good $20M they have to drop and only Kobe makes that much. Kobe-Bynum-Pau alone are due $59M. That's going to be VERY interesting, and would likely kill the Howard to LA chatter. You'd have to think Arenas would be cut before the ink dried on the CBA if they did this. Rashard Lewis and Elton Brand might both be able to duck it if it's only extended to over the cap squads.
I don't like it. The NBA needs to take a hard stance and humble the players. I'm fine with the league having a bunch of scrubs play for a year until these guys start running out of money and agreeing to whatever terms the NBA offers. While they're at it, they need to fire the current refs and get some good honest guys in there as well as implement instant replays. Oh, and take a hard stance on 'enforcer' type behavior like Bynum's foul the other day. In short, the NBA sucks recently and it needs a big overhaul.
I think you'll see it happen. Stern knows that a protracted lockout will harm the league far more than the NFL....but they're going to be hardline about getting a hard cap or at least something really close to it. They will shut down the season if the players don't get on board.
Maybe the league should humble their owners and make them stop giving dudes dumb contracts, as opposed to humbling free agents for choosing where to play....kinda the point of free agency.
That's not enough, it's actually nothing more than lip service. The owners can ram a franchise tag down the union's throat if they really want to, but I suspect several owners are quite happy with the current arrangement.
Wouldn't this make it even more tempting for teams to tank, because they know it'll be easier to keep homegrown players and harder to attract free agents?
I like the non-fully guaranteed contract idea and posted about something like it in an earlier thread a year or so ago. Not sure exactly what portion is guaratneed, but the union and the teams can work it out. In any case, it seems like a decent solution-- gives a player some security and a team some incentives not to sign stupid contracts, but also allows teams to get out of truly hedious deals by paying a penalty (whatever % of the contract amount it is).
Why should teams be allowed to get out of hideous deals? Should players be allowed to get out of hideous deals, such as: - when they exceed their current contract value (i.e. Pippen) - when they sign with a team that isn't doing a good job of building around them and wasting their best years (i.e. KG) - when they sign a deal with and team and are later traded (i.e. Ariza)
1. Players and teams can do whatever the final CBA allow them to do when everything is settled and whatever each player's actual conctract allows he and the team to do. So, whatever ends up being agreed upon will, presumably, be a fair enough solution considering everything that's being subject to negotiation. 2. To be clear, we are not talking about a total get out of jail free card-- the team still has to pay the guaranteed portion of a player's contract and, presumably, have that portion count against its cap, while not getting any benefit of the player's services. 3. The benefit of having, essentially, a pre-negotiated buytout amount (similar to what the Rockets have with respect to the last year of Scola and Miller's contracts, but probably set at a somewhat higher %, my guess would be something like 50% of the total salary) is as follows: having a "cancer" contract on the team really kills both fan interest and player morale even beyond just not having a good team. This is because such a contract results in a sense of hopelessness due to the fact that you can't really trade them (except for other crap contracts) and you are stuck with them on your cap figure for years. I think it's beneficial to allow teams to shift some of their inefficiently used resouces and use the same money more efficiently. Also from a players union point of view (i.e. all players collectively), the shift is not a bad thing since the salary freed up will most likely be used to pay other players. 4. If we are talking about a player walking away from a contract, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowe. However, given that a team, under this concept has to pay a player to break the contract (and getting no service in resturn), the equivalent would be to require the player to pay the team some money to break the contract also. This is, I think, essentially what a lot of European hoops contracts provide and the "player-side buyout" can be quite significant. I recall Scola's high buyout kept him in Europe for years, for example. I think it would be a good thing, actually, for the CBA to provide if the team and the player can negotiate a set amount when they signed the contract-- If a guy is truly miserable and can make more money elsewhere, it would seem a more efficient use of his talent for him to go to another team while paying his current team an agree-upon amount for their loss.
It can only be a business if it has some semblance of fairness. Otherwise, it would just be like pro wrestling where everyone knows is just a show. Player movement dilutes fan loyalty, which is a very important element in the business of pro team sports.
I think the extra money would still be within reason, plus if they're older or produce less there would be the option of terminating the contract. I do like this different tag...the football tag wouldn't work here. One question though, do the incentives transfer over to a new team if he's traded? Players may sign up and then b**** their way out their first year under the new contract. Something definitely has to be done about guaranteed deals...kills many options teams have to get better and invites players to slack off, both hurt the competitiveness of the NBA.
Those last two shouldnt apply. They get paid to play ball at a certain level, regardless of the situation. Trades are also part of the league. Only the first point would make sense. More responsibility should mean better pay. They should just stick to shorter deals to protect both sides.
