Franchise Tag- A Star Players Nightmare is coming
The new owners, and there are alot of new owners, absolutely hate the current NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement including one Ted Leonsis. The one aspect that the last year has shown is that the owners do not like it when star players leave an organization, even if it is a competitors team (they are thinking- I'm next to be screwed).
99% of the NBA players are not named Lebron, Kobe, Superman, Melo and Dirk. Lebron will be the posterboy for the Franchise Tag movement among the owners. I think it is going to be a locomotive train that will not be stopped.
The NFL can put a franchise tag on one player at any one time. This guarantees the player a top 5 salary at his position but prevents the player from becoming a free agent. This is usually reserved for a very important player. The players hate it but the owners cannot live without it. The St. Louis Rams used it year after year on their starting Left Tackle Orlando Pace, who just happened to be one of the best in the business. They tried to hammer out a contract but could not. So the Rams just franchised tagged him. Pace was instrumental in blocking Kurt Warner's blindside through the glory years of "The Greatest Show on Turf." For those that remember Warner in St. Louis, if you even tapped him on the shoulder he would fumble the ball. Pace made sure that you were not touching him.
Superstar Free Agents coming up: CP3, Superman and this year Carmelo Anthony. Do you think New Orleans and Orlando is going to want their teams to look like Cleveland this year. Doubt it. I am sure those teams are scared stiff and so is their cash flow future. In 4 years Blake Griffin can change teams. In 5 years John Wall will have the same opportunity. I wonder what cheapskate Donald Sterling and Ted Leonsis think about their franchise players walking away- to another franchise that they have to compete against.
One of the reasons Denver might not be in a hurry to trade Carmelo is that Carmelo will not be able to sign a contract until AFTER a new collective bargaining agreement is hammered out. No one knows what it will contain.
Let's say the NBA owners play hardball. They give and take. They tell the NBA players association that they will raise everyone's salary who is making less than $10million a year plus other concessions. BUT in order to do this the Players Association has to agree to a Franchise Tag- One per Team per Year- at $20million for this franchise player and it will not count towards the new cap. This Franchise Tag will only affect 30 players every year. The cream of the crop. One per Team.
I think 99% of the NBA Players will be more than happy to better their own financial selves than worry about Lebron, Dwade, Dirk, Blake or Wall.
Carmelo- Welcome back to Denver!
This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's difficult for me to see this happening...
You think we see sulking stars now…just you wait, Henry Higgins.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Jan 21, 2011 4:18 PM EST reply actions
Also...
the talent pool is so much shallower in the NBA, I can’t see this happening without some significant provisos
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Jan 21, 2011 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
In the NFL a team does not need to use it
So in the NBA the Bucks or any other team with good players but no superstars will not need to use it. A team like Memphis could have used it on Rudy Gay just for this year and then renew it every year after at their choosing, instead of guaranteeing a whopping contract. If Gay underperforms then they can just choose to remove the franchise tag and he will become a free agent.
I thought so to, but SF's nose tackle
is apparently facing that situation and he is not happy about it. So I think you can do it.
by hambonejackson on Jan 22, 2011 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
I looked it up and its a maximum of 3 times
by hambonejackson on Jan 22, 2011 1:55 AM EST up reply actions
the Seahawks used to franchise OT Walter Jones every year
by John Park Williams on Jan 23, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
Most players would threaten a holdout to get the team to agree not to franchise them again
by BayAreaBullet on Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, like I said
There would have to be some serious provisos…
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Jan 26, 2011 8:33 AM EST up reply actions
shouldn't that be
‘enry ’iggins? just sayin’.
hehe
I figured I was straining credulity enough
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Jan 21, 2011 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Mike, could you do a article on the CBA
Like specific points the owners and players are upset about (other then both wanting more money), what are going to be hang ups, and what the most likely new CBA will be?
You just asked for a series, podna
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Jan 21, 2011 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Yes please
Seeing how this blog often gets me thru the day, I would love that
by HIBACHI GOLD on Jan 21, 2011 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
The difference between the NBA and the NBA is guarenteed and non guaranteed money.
The NBA locks up their best players for quite some time without the franchise tag because their money is guaranteed. They sign 5 year contracts. There is not much movement among top players. The first 4 years are of a players life are already locked up and if that players good, then the next 5 years are locked up. So thats 9 years. One more 5 year and he’s basically locked up for the majority of his NBA life. Nowitzki will be in Dallas until he is 40. The wiz locked up Blatche until he is 29. Bryant never went anywhere. Salary caps have kept players from jumping ship. Durant is locked up CP is still at NO. Where is Rondo going? All they can do is say LBJ. So there is 1. To me it seems sort of gimmicky. Maybe there are a few wealthy owners who are looking to avoid salary caps. Whats Leonsis really saying? I can sign Wall to a giant contract and avoid the salary cap? Does every team have this type of uber player? Anthony has been in Denver for 8 years. He is under contract and the money is guaranteed. Essentially, he is franchised out. What good is the franchise tag if a player is trying to force a trade and the only reason there is any trade is because Denver wants something for him. How long can you franchise a player out? At some point it may start looking like collusion by teams to freeze player movement and that has been dealt with in court already. So , there has to be some movement anyway.
So I think its a group of owners like Leonsis who want more money to spend on more players. The NFL pays a franchised player as a top 5 player at their respective positions. That means in the NBA 5 positions X 5 players is 25 players and there are 32 teams. Somebody is losing out. And Miami has 3 top players.
If the whole game is to allow a team to exempt a player from the salary cap, well gee, I guess Washington knows which player that will be next season. How nice for Leonsis if he dump Lewis’ contract from the cap next season. Every owner in the league gets to forgive themselves for one bad contract or one expensive player. So, I suppose I see Leonsis as appearing self serving. Trade Hinrich and that almost 30 mil more to work with. Put that in the rainy fund and watch the rich owners splurge in the market place.Then one day every owner is allowed “2” franchise players to exempt from the salary cap. Maybe right around the time Wall signs a giant contract with Washington.
by hambonejackson on Jan 22, 2011 3:16 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
this is a great and well-articulated rant
the funny thing is that most bad contracts are created by teams extending their own players out of fear of free agency, but the truth is they would get overpaid in free agency anyway, so you are better off never extending them.
The 76ers didn’t want to lose Iguodala, so they extended him, and now they suck. Same with the Warrios and Biedrins. The Pistons and Hamilton.
I hate lEbron, but you gotta hand it to him. Most players sign the massive extensions as soon as they are offered, because they know that 1) they can relax and not fret about money, 2) anything can happen, injuries, jail, etc. and 3) they could suck, and get less money in free agency than they would have gotten otherwise. But lEbron and his cronies were so confident in their abilities that they turned down the extensions.
by John Park Williams on Jan 23, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
While I would hate to see John Wall ever leave I think franchise tags are BS.
Maybe I just empathize with players too much but I would hate to be trapped against my will in someplace like Minny or Cleveland. Or stuck to work for some crappy FO. I think it’s cool that players can eventually pick to live/work somewhere else if they chose. But thats just me.
I wouldn't mind making $20milion for one year in Minnesota
Buy a 20 room mansion. A Butler. Servants.
Fly anywhere in the world in the summer.
Didn't you hear?
“It’s not about the money”
[pause]
“Ok, it’s a little about the money.”
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Jan 22, 2011 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
I don't see a franchise tag allowing anyone to make $20 million a year and raising salaries of players earning under $10 million
The CBA has huge disagreements because many teams can’t afford to give their current salaries to players without losing money not to mention the dollar for dollar luxury tax. Doing this would exacerbate the problem.
I can see a franchise tag added to a player of players in a basketball league. The WNBA CBA does that already, what they call “coring” a player, and it has been effective in keeping top talent at home and preventing them from being free agents. Core players then get a one year contract for the max salary. The NBA probably shouldn’t guarantee a max salary (whatever that’s determined to be), but I do think that the franchise tag does help teams remain competitive which could help them stay profitable and ultimately, in business.
Another issue on the CBA that should be addressed is guaranteed money and making clear conditions when contracts can be terminated due to gross misconduct, like criminal activity, PED use, etc.. Gilbert Arenas unfortunately is the poster child for this due to gungate. I personally think the Wizards would have terminated him if the CBA gave much clearer language for them to do so successfully. With another player who got his contract voided and then reinstated after assaulting his coach, there was basically no way the Wizards were getting out of that contract, unless perhaps if Arenas were sentenced to prison for a long time. Don’t wanna re-open old wounds, but that is another CBA topic that should be addressed though it isn’t as big as the franchise tag, draft eligibility, and the amount of max salaries.
Unlike bayareabullet - I side with the owners on this one...
or more accurately, I side with the fans….
I don’t want the NBA to end up like MLB – where there are only a handful of teams in the East that can win the pennant – and two of them are New York and Boston. If you are the fan of one of the other teams, all you have to look forward to is some nice days sitting in the sun at the ball park.
If you want to destroy the NBA – the simplest way to do it is to allow unfettered free agency for the NBA’s star players – then allow the teams with the most money to grab up all the best players (like in MLB) . Just watch as fans in Cleveland, Washington, Minnesota, New Orleans, Charlotte and Toronto and the other small-to-medium market teams flock to watching hockey or soap operas or anything else that doesn’t already have a pre-determined ending.
Teams like New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Dallas, etc…. will simply snap up every available big name Free Agent. The mid-market and small-market teams will become a pseudo development league – with teams like the Wizards drafting high draft picks ; developing the players – and then watching them leave just when they’re coming into their prime for the gold and limelight in New York or Los Angeles.
The New York Yankees have proven, time and again, that you CAN buy a championship. You just have to out-bid Boston. And if anyone thinks that the Orioles, Tigers or A’s have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the American League pennant in the next 15 years – you’re sorely mistaken.
So – excuse me if I don’t shed a tear for the likes of LeBron, Kobe and Dwyane – Those players, that over the course of their careers will make over $100 MILLION DOLLARS - I’m sorry that they’ll just have to SETTLE for a top 5 salary and suffer through playing in Minnesota or Charlotte or Memphis – rather than collude with other Super Star players to create a Super team in New York or Chicago (or Miami, “Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink – know what I mean ….. …. say no more” )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc
I , for one, do not want to have to become a Laker or Knicks fan…..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Agreed
One question though, is Dallas really a bigger market than DC. I always thought we were the 5th largest or something.
Start the rebuilding process, FIRE GRUNFELD!
by forthepeople on Jan 22, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
If you're talking about television markets
Dallas is 5th largest television market – Washington is 9th…
But a big difference is also in ownership…. Although both the Lakers and Clippers play in the second largest market – The Owner of the Lakers doesn’t mind spending money to make money – hence the Lakers are one of the most profitable franchises in the NBA, even though they’re near the top in player spending. The Clippers, on the other hand, have an owner that doesn’t spend money.
Dallas has Mark Cuban – who, as everyone knows, spends a lot on salaries…
The NBA should have a better revenue sharing system than the “Luxury tax”… There should be REAL revenue sharing – with ONE pot of money divided equally between the teams.. and a salary structure that ensures one team can’t spend too much more or less than another. In other words, run the NBA like one big business ; instead of 30 separate businesses. ALL the teams would benefit. The players would benefit. And most of all, the fans would benefit.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Another thing I'm in favor of on top of what you said about revenue sharing is
a hard minimum salary cap along with the hard maximum cap. That way teams can’t try to buy championships but at the same time, the minimum salary cap acts as a “membership fee” to better ensure that teams are financially solvent. Look at the Hornets as a team that is in ruin right now financially.
Millionaires vs. Billionaires
Please, please no lockouts…
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Jan 22, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
I am all for it
It definitely stands for some provisions, compared to the NFL franchise tag. But it would help this new NBA and the evolving mindset of today’s “star player.” Limit it to one year. Make the player’s salary a max. contract— or even above it, a “franchise tag” salary(maybe add some scale for a mid-level player who might get tagged, but you can’t have teams tagging their 6th man who is trying to go off and play a bigger role somewhere).
The current system is killing the NBA. I remember last year I got into a debate over at FTS(Cavs SB site, about whether or not the NBA was dying. Those fans could not grasp the idea that the small teams are becoming more insignificant, almost like farm systems for the Lakers, Knicks, etc… I am sure that now they have a taste of the real NBA, they have a completely different view, and they are the perfect example. Next will be Denver fans, the NO, later Clippers fans, and even maybe us WIz fans. This system is not going to lead to a growing NBA. If it takes a lockout, fine. I want some change.
I am going to keep cheering Gil, like it is 2005. Lets see some of that swag return, because that is why we loved you to begin with.
by returnofswagger on Jan 24, 2011 11:43 AM EST reply actions
Player contracts are with the league and not the team
Although John Wall plays for the Washington Wizards I believe his contract is with the NBA through the players association.
I believe all 4 major sports Players Association do not really care where a player is playing, but only that the player is getting paid.
MLB did not care where Alex Rodriguez was playing about 7 years ago. He wanted to take less money from to go to the Yankees but the Players Association told he he could not. He had to stay a Texas Ranger. They eventually worked out a trade where A-Rod did not take a pay cut to play for the Yankees.
I believe this is what the Owners are going to emphasize at the New CBA.
“It does not matter where a player is making $20million dollars. It only matters that the player is making $20million.” (my quote)
That's incorrect
Although John Wall plays for the Washington Wizards I believe his contract is with the NBA through the players association.
Nope. Teams pay him, not the league. Player salaries are expenses on a team’s balance sheet.
What I am trying to say is that the Players Association is not going to care who pays the player.
Or where he plays. Just that the player gets paid.
That is the way the MLB Players Association works.
Even though the Wizards will pay John Wall. It will not affect the Players Association if he gets traded because in the end the bottom line is that John Wall is getting paid by somebody.

by 

























