Franchise tags: A better system

[HMFFL]

The most important function of franchise tagging is keeping a league’s teams balanced, preventing teams from perennial bottom-dwelling. In order to keep the league balanced, the NBA’s draft grants the earliest picks to the league’s worst teams.

The balancing effected through the draft is seriously undermined when high draft picks leave the teams that drafted and developed them just as they arrive at their playing prime. While sign-and-trades (or extend-and-trades) are possible, teams losing high draft picks to free agency often receive minimal value in return, possibly as little as a trade exception (which often expires unused).

So, when budding or bona fide superstars leave the teams that draft them for bigger and better markets, the league’s balancing suffers dramatically. Obvious recent examples include Cleveland and Toronto, who lost their superstars for trade exceptions and picks.

In the NFL’s system, teams are guaranteed to be able to hold onto their franchise players for up to three years after their rookie contracts expire by virtue of the exclusive franchise tag.

http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/tolnic ... er-system/

Do you like the idea of teams having the ability to franchise players?

[Ruhiel]

It would not be fair if it kicks in immediately @HMFFL, especially with all the movement that went on last offseason. ATL personally could make a run at Dwight but a franchise tag right now would kill it.

[Geaux_Hawks]

Franchise tags sucks. Yeah, it keeps a balance, but why should a guy be forced to play for a losing team or a bad situation?!?!? or what about the guy who is carrying his team and isn't getting any help to make a contender. Maybe a team is one essential piece away and sees a potential FA coming up soon. Or maybe a team just didn't have good luck in the draft, and needs some kind of FA boost.

Honestly, their isn't enough "Super Star" players in the league to have a Franchise Tag. The NFL has enough players to validate having a Tag. For those teams that are being threatened to lose the "Big Name" players on their team, should go ahead and cash in on what they have developed for a some nice assets. Utah & Denver did the right thing, but sadly Toronto and Cleveland were the idiots who didn't especially Toronto, who really wasn't much of a team anyway and should have gotten Bosh some where else for some assets. If players are going to bail out after their contract is up, then GM's need to get smart and make teams pay more than just big dollars for a "Super Star" product.

[evildallas]

From an ownership point of view the franchise tag would be a greater way of controlling costs. Having said that players will hate it.

Truthfully though the franchise tag from the NFL doesn't work in the NBA without an overhaul of the system. The point of the franchise tag is that it guarantees a large payday for 1 season while providing an extended negotiation period. The NBA has a max salary so what exactly is the extended negotiation period for? And the large payday (average of top 5 salaries at the position) doesn't really work either since there is a max salary limiting the calculation. Also what would be the point of a negotiated ETO if it can be trumped with a tag. The NBA already has the rookie cap and RFA rules, so a team can almost always lock up a player for 7 years before they get true free agency. Adding a franchise tag system on top of that seems really unfair.

I have an idea of a system that includes a franchise tag, but it is too owner-friendly for me to post right now.

[killbuckner]

I think that if you offer a player a full max contract then you can make a player a restricted free agent. But then the player has the option of taking a 1 year contract at 10% more than the max contract and becoming an unrestricted free agent at the end of the next season. This is mostly how it works at the end of a rookie scale contract- the player is a restricted free agent but if he BADLY wants out then he can take a 1 year contract and get his freedom. To me this is pretty balanced all the way around.

In a situation like Denver this would have helped the Nuggets get some extra leverage while not totally screwing Carmelo.

[Harry10]

it might work, but it is not a great idea.

they should just have a hard cap of $65 million (that can be adjusted to inflation) and increase the minimum wage of an NBA player to $3 million (which can also be adjusted to inflation), but also increase the number of games to qualify for pension. at the same teams should be allowed to offer a player a max of $32 million a year. in addition, every year a player is under contract, it should be the player's option, so a player can terminate their contract when ever they want to try to get a higher salary. so a player like player like Blake Griffin could opt out and ask the Clippers for a pay raise.

....... so lets say that Miami tries to do the same thing again and clears out their cap and tries to sign 3 all stars, but since their is a hard cap and $3 million minimum wage, they have to allocate $27 million to fill out a roster. so that only leaves $38 million for Wade, Lebron, and Bosh (which is $12 million each)

with the system above, i don't think you would even need to have a draft, teams would just recruit players out of school, like what colleges do now. so the good teams won't have the available cap space because they already invested in guys like Kobe, Lebron, Durrant, Wade, Dwight, Rose, KG, Duncan, Nash, etc. so the Lakers could only offer $3 million to a rookie, but the bad teams would be able to offer $5-$6 million to rookies, and the rookie would also be discouraged from signing with the Lakers because if he did well, he couldn't get a raise the following year, because Kobe and Gasol consume too much of the cap.

in years that the draft is weak, teams aren't forced to overpay high mediocre draft picks. in addition, since their is no more draft, and just recruiting, that should solve the problem of tanking in the NBA.

the system also helps the David Stern and the NBA, because it easily allows the the two best players to go to NY and LA.

[parson]

I think that if you offer a player a full max contract then you can make a player a restricted free agent. But then the player has the option of taking a 1 year contract at 10% more than the max contract and becoming an unrestricted free agent at the end of the next season.

Not sure I'm getting that. Where's the benefit to management? You'd have to play MORE for a player who wants the option to leave? Why wouldn't most players take the extra money, even if they weren't considering leaving?

I'm sure you know what you're talking about; I'm just confused.

[killbuckner]

Parson. The quick version: Do you think that this past offseason Joe Johnson would have preferred a 1 year 19 million dollar contract or a 6 year 124 million dollar contract?

The guaranteed money is what the players are looking for when they hit free agency. Under the current system the Cavs had no real way of forcing the heat to give up anything in a sign and trade with the Heat because the difference between a 6 year contract and a 5 year contract isn't that much to someone like Lebron. The cavs had no leverage. Under my system- the Cavs could make Lebron pick between Signing a 6 year contract with the Cavs for the max or giving up 100 million dollars in guaranteed money to sign a 1 year contract hit unrestricted free agency again. There would be no big 3, who knows what teams would have caproom, Lebron would have to worry about injury. Thats just a huge gamble for Lebron on total uncertainty. Lebron wouldn't exactly be screwed by taking the 1 year contract- he would actually get a bit of a raise. But it would still be something that players only did if they REALLY wanted out.

Personally I do think that if a player really wants out of an organization (clippers) then the player should be able to get out. But I do think that if a team is willing to MAX OUT a guy then I have no problem with doing somethings to give them some more leverage.