Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards

Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/)
-   NBA Talk (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f6/)
-   -   Should the NBA Implement a "Franchise Tag"? (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f6/should-nba-implement-franchise-tag-3163.html)

Dr. J. Naismith 09-09-2008 09:52 AM

Should the NBA Implement a "Franchise Tag"?
 
Good read from Scott Carefoot at RaptorBlog. Scott's wondering if Stern and the NBA should work in a "franchise tag" the next time they negotiate a new CBA. I think the NFL is the only one that does this now and it seems to work for them. Maybe its time the NBA does something similiar so it doesn't risk losing some of their biggest stars to league's overseas.

Thoughts? :confused2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Carefoot
Josh Childress' defection to Greece and the return of ex-Raptors Jorge Garbajosa and Carlos Delfino to Europe have a lot of people concerned that bigger stars like Kobe Bryant and LeBron James might follow suit. Theoretically, some super-rich owner of foreign team in a league with no salary cap might make a ridiculous offer to an NBA superstar and lure him away from the best basketball league in the world.

As NBA commissioner, I would try to work in a "franchise tag" into the next Collective Bargaining Agreement when the current one expires after the 2010-11 season. This tag would enable every NBA team to name one player on its roster who could earn a salary greater than the established cap which applies to every other player in the league. This player's salary would not count against the team's salary cap and would not be used in luxury tax calculations.

The "franchise player salary" would naturally have its own set of rules. For the main points, let's say that a franchise-tagged player must have played in the NBA for at least the previous four consecutive seasons and his annual salary can't exceed $25 million US which is more than $5 million more than a player with 10 or more seasons of NBA experience can make in the first season of a contract under the current agreement.

While every team would have the ability to apply this tag to its best player, there would probably only be around 10-15 players in the league at one time who would actually merit this level of compensation so I would be surprised if more than half the teams in the league actually used this new rule in a given season. And super-rich NBA owners couldn't stack their rosters by signing multiple franchise players over different seasons because no team would be allowed to have more than one "franchise contract" on their books at any one time.

There will undoubtedly be some owners who will oppose this rule because their small market status supposedly prevents them from being able to afford this kind of contract. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have the financial wherewithal to spend an extra $25 million per season for the kind of player who can elevate your team to legitimate championship contention, you aren't rich enough to be owning a professional NBA team. Would MLSE be willing to fork out that kind of dough to, say, keep Chris Bosh in the fold? That's another discussion altogether and that discussion would have to include the question of whether or not Bosh is a true franchise player.

The NBA is a league of stars and I think this rule would be a step towards keeping those stars on this side of the ocean. It's not without its downside, but have you got a better idea? Of course you do so let's hear it.

Source - Click here

Ugo Ferst 09-09-2008 09:55 AM

Players in the NFL depise being the franchise player, i dont think the NBA players would go for it in a deal.

Dr. J. Naismith 09-09-2008 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ugo Ferst (Post 54467)
Players in the NFL depise being the franchise player, i dont think the NBA players would go for it in a deal.

Care to elaborate? .... why do players in the NFL hate the tag? Not that I've done alot or research myself, but I haven't anyone complaining. I could be wrong though. :confused2:

Ugo Ferst 09-09-2008 10:08 AM

Even tho you get an average of the top 5 players at your position, which is definately not terrible, often it is just a one or two year deal, so if you happen to have a terrible year, your stock plummets, along with the fact that many players feel they can do better as an FA or just want to get the hell out of certain cities. At the beginning NFL players wanted this, but now most dont want to be the franchise player. Just like Randy Moss this off season, New England didnt make him the franchise player as to not insult him and force his hand, he ended up taking less $ to stay anyways.

In the NBA tho, the average of the top 5 players at your position would be a max contract or close to anyways, all you would be doing is forcing players to stay in a city they perhaps dont want to. Also you have to remember that NFL contracts arent 100% guaranteed, so to be signed for 1 year, get hurt or w/e, it can kill you longterm instead of signing a huge multi year deal.

Ugo Ferst 09-09-2008 10:13 AM

Sorry, let me add, franchise tags in the NFL are always 1 year deals.

Also, the reason the NFLPA accepted it, is because it was the same time the league was going to allow all out free agency but many teams feared losing their best player to free agency so they implemented this to quell those fears.

rapsfan087 09-09-2008 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ugo Ferst (Post 54477)
Sorry, let me add, franchise tags in the NFL are always 1 year deals.

Now I'm understanding why they don't want to be franchise tags.

This is gold:
Quote:

There will undoubtedly be some owners who will oppose this rule because their small market status supposedly prevents them from being able to afford this kind of contract. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have the financial wherewithal to spend an extra $25 million per season for the kind of player who can elevate your team to legitimate championship contention, you aren't rich enough to be owning a professional NBA team.
Someone has to tell this guy that this is a business and that the owners paid for it .. or just send him to Russia or Greece. :)

Scott Carefoot 09-12-2008 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rapsfan087 (Post 54504)
Someone has to tell this guy that this is a business and that the owners paid for it .. or just send him to Russia or Greece. :)

I can't even begin to understand what you're getting at here. Please elaborate.

rapsfan087 09-13-2008 08:16 AM

If you have the money to buy something, you have all the rights to run it. To say that because they don't run their business as we would like they should sell their franchises is wrong.

NBA is a business, and franchises have their limits. Of course I would like that all the owners could pay what is needed to improve his team, but it isn't fair to ask it to all the teams.

About Russia or Greece, I put those countries there because some of the bball teams' owners have the needed money to do what you say. I'm not gonna lie: I would like to have those owners at the leagues I use to watch, but it is impossible.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24