OT Bucher: NBA Owners Will Look To Add NFL-Style Franchise Tag To Next CBA

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
BonesJones

BonesJones

https://www.youtube.com/c/blazersuprise
Joined
May 7, 2015
Messages
44,580
Likes
38,679
Points
113
BonesJones said:
http://m.bleacherreport.com/article...ok-to-add-nfl-style-franchise-tag-to-next-cba

An interesting idea to say the least. Wouldve helped us out, as we could've franchise-tagged Aldridge and then traded him. Would help teams get return for a player who wants out.

Couldn't be more than a year of control, and the salary would probably be the players cap hold.
Click to expand...
I like the idea. The ought to have it be 1 time in every 3-4 years though. Also, I think they ought to have it be max salary + 10% extra.
 
Yeah good idea. Then if you can't agree to a long term deal you can just trade the guy.
 
if its the NFL style then i'm pretty sure you can't trade the guy you franchised.
 
BonesJones said:
I figure it would be tweaked.
Click to expand...
I like the thought of not being able to trade a guy, vince carter pouting like a child in toronto would never have worked if he knew he couldn't be traded.
 
Rhal said:
I like the thought of not being able to trade a guy, vince carter pouting like a child in toronto would never have worked if he knew he couldn't be traded.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that screws over the team as they can't get anything in return for the player that will likely leave in the following offseason.
 
Last edited:
BonesJones said:
Yeah, but that screws over the team as they can't get anything in return for the player that will likely leave in the following offseason.
Click to expand...

That would be the risk of franchising a player imo. It's a good tradeoff.
 
Definitely need to be able to trade a franchised player. Thats half the point of the tag.
 
You know what they should do; is when a team invokes the franchise tag it prevents the team from using any cap space, salary cap exemptions, or adding salary in trades. They can only sign current players or veteran minimum players. It would provide an incentive to work out a long term contract with teams and players. But at the same time it prevents a franchise player leaving a team unexpectedly with zero compensation.

I like the idea of having the tag be bi-annual, or once every 3 years; so if you use it this summer you can't use it next summer. We would've used it on LMA and if he doesn't sign a deal trade his ass. It would force the Thunder to make a brutual choice, franchise Durant and you can keep him for a year; but then they wouldn't have the tag for Westbrook.
 
Rhal said:
I like the thought of not being able to trade a guy, vince carter pouting like a child in toronto would never have worked if he knew he couldn't be traded.
Click to expand...

If he couldn't be traded he would've pouted for the year then walked for nothing. If you can't trade the franchise player the tag's kind of pointless. Just makes an awkward year where the player hates the team, the team and fans hate the player, and nobody can move on.
 
Players are gonna shit their pants when this is proposed. I agree it should be implemented, I just think it will be hard for the players to accept it.
 
JFizzleRaider said:
Players are gonna shit their pants when this is proposed. I agree it should be implemented, I just think it will be hard for the players to accept it.
Click to expand...

If it's something like they get paid the max +15% I dunno how upset the players will really be. Talking maybe two or three players a summer it will apply to out of a union of 400 and those guys who get it will earn ridiculous huge amounts the other members are jealous of. As a group I think the players will care about other stuff far more.
 
Draco said:
If it's something like they get paid the max +15% I dunno how upset the players will really be. Talking maybe two or three players a summer it will apply to out of a union of 400 and those guys who get it will earn ridiculous huge amounts the other members are jealous of. As a group I think the players will care about other stuff far more.
Click to expand...

The problem would be that it would prevent big-time players from being able to sign multi-year contracts with other teams. If such a rule were in effect, even with the kicker, Aldridge would have received, what, $23 million last summer from us, as opposed to a guaranteed $80 million from San Antonio? I don't think the union would be in favor of a rule that both limits players' mobility and their guaranteed earnings.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
The problem would be that it would prevent big-time players from being able to sign multi-year contracts with other teams. If such a rule were in effect, even with the kicker, Aldridge would have received, what, $23 million last summer from us, as opposed to a guaranteed $80 million from San Antonio? I don't think the union would be in favor of a rule that both limits players' mobility and their guaranteed earnings.
Click to expand...

Well if LMA knew we were keeping him a year he likely agrees to the 5 year $110 million deal we could offer. If not we trade him to a new team and they agree to him on that 4 year $80 million deal. So the player likely ends up with just as big a contract or bigger, teams have a chance to acquire these players in trade. The difference is the old team doesn't lose their all star for nothing in return.

I agree the union won't be in favor of it. But when there's 100 issues they're negotiating on this is probably #93 on their list.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
The problem would be that it would prevent big-time players from being able to sign multi-year contracts with other teams. If such a rule were in effect, even with the kicker, Aldridge would have received, what, $23 million last summer from us, as opposed to a guaranteed $80 million from San Antonio? I don't think the union would be in favor of a rule that both limits players' mobility and their guaranteed earnings.
Click to expand...
He would've just signed with them next year
 
that may have had a lot to do with how bad Cuban felt he NEEDED to sign SOMEONE after the whole DJ debacle
 
selloutking said:
that may have had a lot to do with how bad Cuban felt he NEEDED to sign SOMEONE after the whole DJ debacle
Click to expand...

Didn't technically the DJ debacle happen after Wes was signed... It all happened so fast.
 
Strenuus said:
Didn't technically the DJ debacle happen after Wes was signed... It all happened so fast.
Click to expand...

Wes got the Kings to trade draft picks for cap space so they could offer him ~$60 million. The Mavs then upped their offer to Wes and said they'd give him whatever they had left after signing DeAndre, and the max without DeAndre. It was projected to be ~$55 million so Wes technically took less money to sign with Dallas. But then when DeAndre left it opened up cap room so Wes got the full ~$70 million max. Cuban offered Wes the chance to back out of his contract when DeAndre left, pretending Wes might not be interested in signing with a worse team. But Cuban really had no intention of giving Wes the full max and was now stuck where he couldn't back out. If Dallas backed out with Wes they'd destroy their chances of future free agents.

It was all quite the fiasco. Glad Wes got paid; Cuban got screwed, DeAndre showed himself to be a fraud, and the Kings botched a huge trade which could potentially give the 6ers 3 top draft picks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top