PDA

View Full Version : My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"



Kstat
02-23-2011, 08:02 AM
I've been thinking, and the idea of player basically putting together their own superteams in the exotic markets is probably bad for business, long-term. That said, I don't think teams should be able to lock players up for their entire careers. Even the NFL, which pioneered the franchise tag, doesn't allow for that. The NFL simply allows teams to raise the price of their best free agent so high that in most cases the compensation outweighs the player given up.

With that in mind, here's my submission: I call it, "the big three rule."

-The rule stipulates that any team may place a 1-year tag on its own unrestricted free agent.

-Player is guaranteed a 1-year contract worth %110 of his maximum pay raise under normal circumstances, but may negotiate an extension or sign-and-trade with his current club.

-Player may sign anywhere of his choosing.

-Should a tagged player sign elsewhere, his former club is entitled to either the next available 1st round pick from the team signing him, or any player currently under contract with the team signing him.

-Any team signing a tagged player may protect one player on its current roster.

-Teams are restricted to signing one tagged player per season. Likewise, teams are restricted to tagging one player per season.

-A player playing under a tagged contract would have the ability to veto any trade.

How did I come to this conclusion? I don't have as much of an issue with big twos as i do big threes. This rule allows for duos to join forces, but not trios. Teams can't game the system anymore by simply scheming so all their contracts to expire at the same time, and using the cap space to sign multiple superstars. It also prevents players from using free agency as leverage to force a trade.

The irony is, this rule would not have prevented Carmelo Anthony from going to New York. In fact, Denver got more compensation that it could have expected by losing him outright via free agency. Now, should the Knicks plan on signing Deron Williams or Chris Paul in the future, they will have to lose Carmelo or Amare to get the deal done.

The rule encourages teams to build solid role players around one or two stars, instead of signing a big 3 and fielding a roster of minimum-wagers. It benefits mid-level players, because there will be more money left over to give. It also does not totally prevent teams from building a team of stars via trade, as Boston did.

Likewise, only teams with actual franchise-changing stars are going to want to exercise this rule. When Roy Hibbert is up for free agency, would the Pacers opt to allow him to test the waters, or pay him Dwight Howard money every year?

This rule would specifically be in place for the Miamis and New Yorks of the NBA, and nobody else. It would encourage bad teams to get better, and discourage good teams from stockpiling superstars. Any team with more than two stars would have built through the draft or trade markets.

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 09:08 AM
You're just adding on an expensive team option to the end of every contract. It's all gain for teams with players in their first three years when the maximum salaries are extremely low.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 09:16 AM
...except players in their first three years are generally restricted. This rule would apply to unrestricted free agents only. It would go hand in hand with Bird rights.

MTM
02-23-2011, 09:43 AM
Very creative.

So explain how this works -- let's say Udonis Haslem is going to be a free agent on this current team, and Miami slaps him with the 1-year tag. Haslem then is due to make 110% of his raise on a 1-year contract, and is able to negotiate with other teams. So he decides to sign with the Lakers. That means the Heat could get Kobe Bryant?

It seems your system could be gamed the opposite way.

Aw Heck
02-23-2011, 09:48 AM
Very creative.

So explain how this works -- let's say Udonis Haslem is going to be a free agent on this current team, and Miami slaps him with the 1-year tag. Haslem then is due to make 110% of his raise on a 1-year contract, and is able to negotiate with other teams. So he decides to sign with the Lakers. That means the Heat could get Kobe Bryant?

It seems your system could be gamed the opposite way.
Yes, that's possible. But LA would never do that in Kstat's system. They would have to leave Kobe unprotected and still decide to sign Haslem even though he was tagged.

Teams with more than one good player wouldn't go after a tagged player on the level of Haslem.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 09:52 AM
Very creative.

So explain how this works -- let's say Udonis Haslem is going to be a free agent on this current team, and Miami slaps him with the 1-year tag. Haslem then is due to make 110% of his raise on a 1-year contract, and is able to negotiate with other teams. So he decides to sign with the Lakers. That means the Heat could get Kobe Bryant?

It seems your system could be gamed the opposite way.

Ok, first, Haslem wouldn't but due just %110 of his current salary. He'd be due %110 of his MAXIMUM raise. In other words, he'd be making %110 of what he would normally make in year 1 of a max contract. He'd be making better than what Chris Bosh is making. You think Miami would be willing to pay Udonis Haslem $16 million just to keep him?

The %110 clause is to prevent teams from tagging role players, or simply tagging the same star player year after year to avoid being tied up to a long-term max contract.

Second, LA would be able to protect Kobe under the rule, but they would risk losing either Pau Gasol or Bynum. Of course, knowing the risk, why would they even consider signing him?

asmithxc
02-23-2011, 10:19 AM
At first glance at least, I like it. It would lessen the effectiveness of a player in Carmelo's situation using free agency as a weapon but still allow a player like that to go somewhere else if he wants. It would give teams an opportunity to hold on to their star players (or at least get more in return) without allowing them to completely restrict movement. Seems like a pretty good balance

TMJ31
02-23-2011, 12:48 PM
That's a very interesting proposal.

I like it. Front office chess :)

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 03:32 PM
...except players in their first three years are generally restricted. This rule would apply to unrestricted free agents only. It would go hand in hand with Bird rights.

So you'll have restricted free agency AND a franchise tag for unrestricted FA? Expect some hold outs from your star players.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 04:13 PM
So you'll have restricted free agency AND a franchise tag for unrestricted FA? Expect some hold outs from your star players.

sucks for them. Every month they hold out, they lose $3-4 million.

MTM
02-23-2011, 04:53 PM
This deserves some consideration for a post award. It is creative, without any sort of unnecessary debates about coaching preferences, and makes a lot of sense.

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 05:10 PM
sucks for them. Every month they hold out, they lose $3-4 million.

I'm not sure how well "sucks for them" would go over at a CBA bargaining table.

I like the idea of stronger incentives to help a team keep star players, but it gets tricky when you handcuff unrestricted free agents. At a certain point, you have to acknowledge that players have the right to change teams when they've finished their contracts even if fans don't like it.

Why not just make the financial incentives stronger for a player to stay with their team? LeBron and Bosh went to Miami because they only lost about $5 mil a year. What if it had been $10 mil a year?

bulldog
02-23-2011, 05:17 PM
This would be a huuuuggge concession from the Player's Union. Unrestricted free agency was one of their first key victories, now you're clawing it back with a quasi-restricted limbo arrangement tagged on to every player's contract.

And while "sucks for them" does feel good to say, I think one of the worst aspects of these franchise tag systems is that they restrict player choice, lead to hold-outs, and force us to listen to endless months of off-court drama from the the league's divas. For example, I actually much prefer the NBA's system to the NFL's.

I agree with King Tut's Tomb, it makes more sense to strengthen Bird Rights than to shackle unrestricted free agency. If guys want to take massive pay cuts to play for certain teams it makes more sense to let them than to artificially force them to play for terrible teams and terrible situations, where they'll be unhappy and fill Sportscenter with inane contract disputes.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 05:22 PM
First, the rule would only restrict %1 of the union, and benefit the other %99. It wouldn't be a huge concession at all.

Second, tagged NBA players would get even more money than tagged NFL players. It would be absurd for them to pass up the biggest paychecks of their careers.

The players' union will not be heavily against a rule that's only going t be implemented on maybe 2-3 players per summer out of 350+.




Why not just make the financial incentives stronger for a player to stay with their team? LeBron and Bosh went to Miami because they only lost about $5 mil a year. What if it had been $10 mil a year?

If the last summer has taught us anything it should have be that these players make so much money that $5-10 million makes no difference.


I think one of the worst aspects of these franchise tag systems is that they restrict player choice, lead to hold-outs, and force us to listen to endless months of off-court drama from the the league's divas. For example, I actually much prefer the NBA's system to the NFL's.
...and that's different from the LeBron and Carmelo situations...how?

The only difference is now players don't even wait until free agency to start drama. This would even the playing field and take away their leverage.

clownskull
02-23-2011, 05:50 PM
hmm, i like this idea.

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 05:58 PM
First, the rule would only restrict %1 of the union, and benefit the other %99. It wouldn't be a huge concession at all.

It's the most visible 1% at the very top, though. I doubt they'd accept giving great players less flexibility and rights than mediocre players.


Second, tagged NBA players would get even more money than tagged NFL players. It would be absurd for them to pass up the biggest paychecks of their careers.

It happens quite often in the NFL. Players HATE playing on one year contracts, even if they're well paid.


The players' union will not be heavily against a rule that's only going t be implemented on maybe 2-3 players per summer out of 350+.

Like I said above, if those 2-3 players are LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and Dwight Howard the players union will be heavily against any action that penalizes them for being great. The top 1% of players subsidize a lot of the other players in the league. It's expected that the rest of the league gives them the same rights that they enjoy.


If the last summer has taught us anything it should have be that these players make so much money that $5-10 million makes no difference.

Because Wade, Bosh and James all make around $14-$15 million. Would Bosh be so eager to play with those guys if he was making $5 million less than them? I doubt it, if only from an ego standpoint. Possibly you put in a rule that the second free agent you sign in a summer can't exceed 75% of the first one you signed.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 06:24 PM
It's the most visible 1% at the very top, though. I doubt they'd accept giving great players less flexibility and rights than mediocre players.



Absolutely they would. %90 of the players' union is tired of the LeBron James act as everyone else. There's a clear disconnect between the superstars of the NBA and the average joes. I think they'd jump at the chance to stop the highly special treatment given to the current superstars.

Carmelo and LeBron are making the entire union look bad. It's hurting the marketability of NBA players, which means a lot to the rank and file.

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 06:34 PM
Absolutely they would. %90 of the players' union is tired of the LeBron James act as everyone else. There's a clear disconnect between the superstars of the NBA and the average joes. I think they'd jump at the chance to stop the highly special treatment given to the current superstars.

Those 90% of players are being paid partly by LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. If there wasn't a union and it was strictly a free market system the superstars would make double or triple what they make now and marginal players would make less. By negotiating collectively with other players, superstars make less but are also ensured all the benefits that other players enjoy.

That's what being in a union is about. Share the burden, reap the benefits. Or, as Jack from Lost might put it: "Live together, die alone."

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 06:43 PM
Carmelo and LeBron are making the entire union look bad. It's hurting the marketability of NBA players, which means a lot to the rank and file.

The rank and file aren't being marketed, the superstars are.

I think you underrate how sympathetic most players are to superstars negotiating their contracts. Did you by chance watch "Hard Knocks" with the Jets this season? The big story in the pre-season was Darrelle Revis' hold out. The media made a big deal about the contract negotiations and fans went crazy about how selfish Revis was. By your logic, this would infuriate the rank and file players on the team, but take a look at what happened when he came back to the team after holding out for a month:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PUxcTMtPZNY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The players LOVE Revis, because they understand the game. Athletes understand that they're working together against a sports structure that wants to take away all the gains they've made in the last 50 years.

beast23
02-23-2011, 06:46 PM
I call it, "the big three rule."
-Player is guaranteed a 1-year contract worth %110 of his maximum pay raise under normal circumstances, but may negotiate an extension or sign-and-trade with his current club.

-Player may sign anywhere of his choosing.

-Should a tagged player sign elsewhere, his former club is entitled to either the next available 1st round pick from the team signing him, or any player currently under contract with the team signing him.

-Any team signing a tagged player may protect one player on its current roster.

-Teams are restricted to signing one tagged player per season. Likewise, teams are restricted to tagging one player per season.

-A player playing under a tagged contract would have the ability to veto any trade.
In considering the new CBA, I've been an advocate of some sort of "franchise tag". Kudos to you for coming up with what seems to include some very good ideas for how a franchise could work for the NBA.

I only worry about one aspect of what you have proposed. And that is the part regarding the 110% of maximum contract. In many circumstances, I think that amount might be way too steep.

For example, let's take the case where you have one player becoming an FA whose current contract is 6M. He's been a good performer, draws plenty of interest and receives an offer of 10M. I think having to play 16M to retain this player is simply too steep.

Instead, I would probably propose that the player be paid 120% of the lowest year contained in his new contract offer. That way, in the example above, the player receives 12M and not 16M. Also, I promote using the lowest yearly amount in the contract, just in case the contract is front-end loaded. There could even be a clause stating that the franchise tag amount be at least X dollars above the lowest year in the accepted contract offer.

I'm just trying to come up with a practical way to avoid paying the max for lower-end or mid-level contract offers.

Sandman21
02-23-2011, 06:52 PM
Someone get this man to the negotiating table!

ballism
02-23-2011, 07:16 PM
In reality though, guys like Melo or Deron won't stay on a 1 year deal with a team they don't like. The tag will limit their options somewhat in free agency, but it won't force them to stay. They'll take long term deals elsewhere anyway. Sure, you'll be able to tag them and get a Gallinari or Favors in return. But you can evidently get more by trading them midseason.
So, these guys will still get traded and the highest bidder will get them. Big 3s will still happen, just the Boston way.

True, it will prevent Miami Heat from happening again. But the Heat isn't likely to repeat anyway, teams are clearly too scared now. So, basically this system keeps the status quo. Trade the superstars in midseason. Infinite Melodramas.

Personally, I don't mind this system. It sounds fair. It guarantees the team gets something back. But it's not a game changer. Unless tags are something more radical (like a restricted free agency with a max qualifying offer), neither side will care much about them compared to other issues like BRI shares or guaranteed years or salary rollbacks.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 07:26 PM
In considering the new CBA, I've been an advocate of some sort of "franchise tag". Kudos to you for coming up with what seems to include some very good ideas for how a franchise could work for the NBA.

I only worry about one aspect of what you have proposed. And that is the part regarding the 110% of maximum contract. In many circumstances, I think that amount might be way too steep.

For example, let's take the case where you have one player becoming an FA whose current contract is 6M. He's been a good performer, draws plenty of interest and receives an offer of 10M. I think having to play 16M to retain this player is simply too steep.

Instead, I would probably propose that the player be paid 120% of the lowest year contained in his new contract offer. That way, in the example above, the player receives 12M and not 16M. Also, I promote using the lowest yearly amount in the contract, just in case the contract is front-end loaded. There could even be a clause stating that the franchise tag amount be at least X dollars above the lowest year in the accepted contract offer.

I'm just trying to come up with a practical way to avoid paying the max for lower-end or mid-level contract offers.

On the contrary, I intended the price to be too steep. This is not meant to retain a mid-level player. This is to prevent the Clevelands and Torontos of the NBA from losing their franchise player for peanuts.

This is a "poison pill" clause. It's a drastic measure, and in ideal conditions, it's used as a threat but never implemented. It comes at a heavy cost to both the player and the owner, and is best used as a motivating tool to prevent contract extension negotiations from staling or getting out of hand.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 07:34 PM
In reality though, guys like Melo or Deron won't stay on a 1 year deal with a team they don't like. The tag will limit their options somewhat in free agency, but it won't force them to stay. They'll take long term deals elsewhere anyway. Sure, you'll be able to tag them and get a Gallinari or Favors in return. But you can evidently get more by trading them midseason.


I'm not trying to kill free agency. I'm trying to prevent one team from gobbling up all the superstar free agents.

As I said in my original post, this clause would not have prevented Carmelo from going to NY, and nor should it. It's not as if the Knicks were a super-team to begin with. All it prevents it the Knicks from getting greedy and going after Deron or Paul in the future, and trying to buy their own dynasty.



True, it will prevent Miami Heat from happening again. But the Heat isn't likely to repeat anyway, teams are clearly too scared now. So, basically this system keeps the status quo. Trade the superstars in midseason. Infinite Melodramas.

I beg to differ. The Knicks and Nets are already following the Miami model.

As for the Celtics, I think they are great for the NBA. That was a big 3+1 everyone was in favor of, because they had long since paid their dues and deserved a real shot at a winner. They play team basketball instead of simply taking turns running ISO. If another blockbuster happens like the one the Celtics pulled off in 2007, I applaud it.

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 07:40 PM
This is a "poison pill" clause.

The problem with a poison pill is that someone gets poisoned. Franchise tags breed animosity between teams and players. If you thought the Melo thing was bad this year, just wait until you force players to stay on a team another year after their contract ends.

No way would the players union accept a tiny amount of benefit (a 10% salary boost wouldn't appease any max player who wants to leave) for a mountain of risk (playing high level basketball with no guarantee past one year). Why would anyone in their right mind play their hardest in that type of situation?

Kstat
02-23-2011, 07:43 PM
There's already animosity between teams and players, and players and players on this issue.

As for the players union, I think they would vote overwhelmingly in favor of letting this in, if only to pay back LeBron and Carmelo for making the rest of them look bad.

This isn't Dorrelle Revis. The players weren't behind LeBron's antics, and they've long since been fed up with Carmelo. Even upper-tier players like Durant and Granger have spoken out against recent tactics.

This is like the U-19 NBA draft rule. People thought the union would allow it, but what they didn't realize was that just because something is good for ownership doesn't necessarily mean it has to be bad for the union. Same goes for the rookie salary cap, which nobody thought would be allowed.

As I said before, this is something the owners would only have as a last resort, and something players will have to consider the next time they try to use impending free agency as leverage. It isn't meant to be fun for either side.

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 07:55 PM
That was a big 3+1 everyone was in favor of, because they had long since paid their dues and deserved a real shot at a winner.

Now your argument is getting cloudy. You're adding personal prejudice to the equation. How long does it take to properly pay your dues? LeBron and Bosh were in the league seven years before they left their teams. To any rational human I think that's paying your dues, especially when the average elite career is about 10-12 seasons.


They play team basketball instead of simply taking turns running ISO. If another blockbuster happens like the one the Celtics pulled off in 2007, I applaud it.

What does the style of play have to do with any of this? Should the Colts be favored in contract negotiations because they pass a lot? The Jets penalized because they run?

The Celtics should be allowed because...you like them.

The Heat shouldn't...because you don't.

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 07:58 PM
As for the players union, I think they would vote overwhelmingly in favor of letting this in, if only to pay back LeBron and Carmelo for making the rest of them look bad.

Whether this were true or not (and I'd bet almost anything it's not) the union lawyers and agents would NEVER allow it. Lawyers and agents don't care about payback and they're the ones doing the real negotiating.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 08:09 PM
Now your argument is getting cloudy. You're adding personal prejudice to the equation. How long does it take to properly pay your dues? LeBron and Bosh were in the league seven years before they left their teams. To any rational human I think that's paying your dues, especially when the average elite career is about 10-12 seasons.



What does the style of play have to do with any of this? Should the Colts be favored in contract negotiations because they pass a lot? The Jets penalized because they run?

The Celtics should be allowed because...you like them.

The Heat shouldn't...because you don't.

Yeah...because I'm such a big celtics fan?

I'm stating why the Heat are so roundly hated by the masses, while the celtics were well-received. Not sure that you're talking about.

The celtics were put together via trade.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 08:11 PM
Whether this were true or not (and I'd bet almost anything it's not) the union lawyers and agents would NEVER allow it. Lawyers and agents don't care about payback and they're the ones doing the real negotiating.

I wasn't aware lawyers and agents had votes in the union...

...just like the agents would NEVER allow a rookie salary cap, right?

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 08:44 PM
I wasn't aware lawyers and agents had votes in the union...


Officially, they don't. Behind the scenes they're just as powerful as the NBAPA.


Yeah...because I'm such a big celtics fan?

I'm stating why the Heat are so roundly hated by the masses, while the celtics were well-received. Not sure that you're talking about.

The celtics were put together via trade.

You brought up playing style as an indicator of why they're acceptable. In the realm of collective bargaining, playing style doesn't matter.

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 08:47 PM
...just like the agents would NEVER allow a rookie salary cap, right?

The rookie scale allowed more money to go to veterans. It was the same money just being moved to other clients that the agents also represented. Your scheme eliminates enormous sums of potential money for the agents, which they won't accept.

ballism
02-23-2011, 09:07 PM
I'm not trying to kill free agency. I'm trying to prevent one team from gobbling up all the superstar free agents.

As I said in my original post, this clause would not have prevented Carmelo from going to NY, and nor should it. It's not as if the Knicks were a super-team to begin with. All it prevents it the Knicks from getting greedy and going after Deron or Paul in the future, and trying to buy their own dynasty.

I beg to differ. The Knicks and Nets are already following the Miami model.

As for the Celtics, I think they are great for the NBA. That was a big 3+1 everyone was in favor of, because they had long since paid their dues and deserved a real shot at a winner. They play team basketball instead of simply taking turns running ISO. If another blockbuster happens like the one the Celtics pulled off in 2007, I applaud it.

Personal team preferences aside, the only substantial difference between building the Celtics and Miami was that Celtics gave away significant value in return, while Miami forced teams into sign and trades. As we see with Denver and Utah, teams are too scared to get into that position now.

And that's what your system does. It makes any suitors to pay up, which is happening already. Now, I'm not against this system. I'm fine with it. It's not a significant change, but it's not a bad change, it fortifies current realities. Stars will get traded at midseason like Melo, mostly in extend-and-trades, to highest bidders. Whether NY digs up more Feltons and Landries and pulls off another trade, yet to be seen.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 09:26 PM
The rookie scale allowed more money to go to veterans. It was the same money just being moved to other clients that the agents also represented. Your scheme eliminates enormous sums of potential money for the agents, which they won't accept.

...so did a rookie salary cap.

Once again, the money will always go elsewhere.

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 09:35 PM
The rookie scale was still structured to allow more money to come over more years. Your scheme would make the very upper echelon superstars play for one year contracts. It just plain wouldn't happen.

shags
02-23-2011, 10:17 PM
KStat,

One thing I don't like about the NFL franchise tag is that a player can be tagged in back-to-back years. Theoretically, under your proposal, that could happen here as well. Is that the intent?

Overall, I like the proposal. I would like to add, if it isn't already there, that a player can only be tagged by the same team once, and the player can only be tagged twice in their careers.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 11:02 PM
KStat,

One thing I don't like about the NFL franchise tag is that a player can be tagged in back-to-back years. Theoretically, under your proposal, that could happen here as well. Is that the intent?

Overall, I like the proposal. I would like to add, if it isn't already there, that a player can only be tagged by the same team once, and the player can only be tagged twice in their careers.

I'd like to allow for that, but at escalating salaries. Make it so ridiculously expensive to repeatedly tag a player that his team would be better off cutting him loose.

Kstat
02-23-2011, 11:03 PM
The rookie scale was still structured to allow more money to come over more years. Your scheme would make the very upper echelon superstars play for one year contracts. It just plain wouldn't happen.

Only if they absolutely refused to sign a max extensions, or work out sign and trades with their current clubs. It would be a rarely used rule put in place simply to give leverage back to the clubs and not the players.

You assume every franchise would tag all of their star free agents. It would be a terrible business move on their part to tag a player out of anything but desperation.

King Tuts Tomb
02-23-2011, 11:28 PM
Put in place simply to give leverage back to the clubs and not the players.

Which is why the NBAPA would never agree to it.


It would be a terrible business move on their part to tag a player out of anything but desperation.

NBA owners aren't known for their restraint. Everything they do is in desperation. If you give them an option like that they'll exploit it relentlessly.

Scot Pollard
02-23-2011, 11:32 PM
i like your idea a lot

the nba really needs to get a good look at itself

no wonder why people go all crazy over freakin college basketball than nba basketball these days

no one is competitive like they used to be in the nba

i really love a player like kevin durant. hes dedicated to his city and his team and works his *** off to help them out and doesnt care what anyone thinks or who hes playing in front of

i love where we're heading too

actually maybe 4 years or so the league was very competitive and every team had their leading player

the league is becoming a joke and divisions of all stars teams trying to get their bandwagon fans to join them in other teams arenas

****in pissing me off

King Tuts Tomb
02-24-2011, 04:46 AM
KStat, the Denver columnists, Mark Kiszla and Rick Reilly at least, are floating the franchise tag in reaction to the Melo trade. I don't know if they've got insider information or whether it's just baseless NFL envy but you're not the only one on that track.

Here's Reilly (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6150136). The sad part is that you make a far better case for it than the guy who makes $2 million a year writing about sports for ESPN.

rm1369
02-24-2011, 01:21 PM
Interesting proposal. Ultimately I think the best solution would be a hard cap - no exceptions and no set max contract. The top 5% of the players should make a majority of the money. What is Lebron worth? Half of a teams cap? More? IMO it would be much harder for stars to team up if they are turning down significantly more money to be together. If a true star is worth over half your cap space, how do more than two of them get together and still field a team? Getting rid of max contracts and working with a hard cap will, IMO, lead to a better dispersal of talent. Big markets will still have a small advantage, but I dont believe that can be completly stopped - just minimized.

In addition to the cap system I'd add a franchise tag as well. Contract would be for one year at average of top 5 players at their position. The first year a player is tagged they can't negotiate or sign with another team - unless part of a team sponsored trade proposal. Conversely, a team cant trade a tagged player without their approval. If nothing is resolved and they are again tagged, a player is then allowed to negotiate and sign with anyone they wish. Their old team would receive compensation from the new team - two first round picks. The idea being to allow teams one year of knowing a player wants out to try to resolve the situation to the best of their ability. Two first round picks from a top team is just no where near enough for a top player. Your suggestion of a choice between a player and a draft pick is interesting, but I dont think it works as well with a hard cap - which is what I believe is most important.

I believe one of the best things the NFL does is sell hope. The current NBA system keeps teams in cap hell for far to long. The gaurenteed contracts and soft cap allows teams to get themselves into long term financial problems. I understand that teams should pay some price for making bad moves, but the punishment is to harsh and ultimately hurts the fans the most. That, IMO, is not good for the league. I've known since the GS trade that this team was doomed and we've had to wait years for any hope to show up. Coincedentaly the hope arrived at the end of those contracts. In the NFL a team can be rebuilt much more quickly. A hard cap and non-gaurenteed contracts should be the goal on the NBA. And yes I realize that means holdouts will occur. If it means that players are more closely paid to their actual contributions, then I'll deal with it. Its no worse than watching 3/4 of the trades in the NBA be more about cap space and luxury taxes than actual baseketball.

BillS
02-24-2011, 02:28 PM
I believe one of the best things the NFL does is sell hope.

That's a great way of putting it.

I think the NBA sells "You can watch great players on TV and, if you're nice to us, go see them play 3-4 times a year."

Kstat
02-24-2011, 02:31 PM
KStat, the Denver columnists, Mark Kiszla and Rick Reilly at least, are floating the franchise tag in reaction to the Melo trade. I don't know if they've got insider information or whether it's just baseless NFL envy but you're not the only one on that track.

Here's Reilly (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6150136). The sad part is that you make a far better case for it than the guy who makes $2 million a year writing about sports for ESPN.

no, the sad thing is I was drunk off my *** that night and wrote it down on a napkin before I passed out.

King Tuts Tomb
02-24-2011, 05:23 PM
no, the sad thing is I was drunk off my *** that night and wrote it down on a napkin before I passed out.

Looks like you and Rick Reilly have the same writing process.