CBA: Franchise tag?

[magnifier661]

If you were negotiating the "Franchise Tag" in the CBA; how would you draw it up?

 

[julius]

If you see a player you want, you can go up to that team, yell "TAG" and take the player. but you must, you MUST say "no touch backs" before they can respond, or they get to take any TWO of your players in addition to their own player back!

 

[magnifier661]

If you see a player you want, you can go up to that team, yell "TAG" and take the player. but you must, you MUST say "no touch backs" before they can respond, or they get to take any TWO of your players in addition to their own player back!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Thanks man! Best idea yet!

 

[THE HCP]

How does it work in other sports? Just curious.

 

[magnifier661]

How does it work in other sports? Just curious.

I am asking the question cause I honestly have no idea. I saw a poster bringing it up and thought it would be a great idea. It sucks that some teams get hosed when the superstar wants to leave, but in some cases, I think bolting is the only way. It would probably have to be something air tight. This "Tag" could easily be abused by teams and that would seriously suck.

 

[Shapecity]

If you see a player you want, you can go up to that team, yell "TAG" and take the player. but you must, you MUST say "no touch backs" before they can respond, or they get to take any TWO of your players in addition to their own player back!

LMAO .. Repped!

 

[RR7]

I think you keep the system similar to how it is now. You draft a player and have him at your discretion for up to 5 years, total. After 4 years, you can offer him more than anyone else, and, if someone else offers him a deal, you have the right to match that deal. If it's a max deal, that's the potential for having a guy for close to 10 years. I don't think a franchise tag is necessary if you are allowed to go over the cap for your own players, can offer moer than other teams for your own players, and have the right on their first deal to match any offer to your players.
I know people have said they want it to, in a way, keep players away from the major markets, so that, say, Dwight Howard can't just leave to Brooklyn, they can keep on franchising him, and keep him on one year deals forever, but I think that's pretty crummy. You have a guy for a pretty decent length of time, with the ability to pay him more money than anyone else. if you can't build around him in that time, and he wants to go, let him go. Teams should just be smarter about it, like Utah was, and act at the right time to get a good return, as opposed to being complete idiots about it, like Toronto.

 

[B-Roy]

If you see a player you want, you can go up to that team, yell "TAG" and take the player. but you must, you MUST say "no touch backs" before they can respond, or they get to take any TWO of your players in addition to their own player back!

That would make a nice ESPN special....

I can imagine now the "expert" analysis on the team tag strategies.

 

[Run BJM]

I know people have said they want it to, in a way, keep players away from the major markets, so that, say, Dwight Howard can't just leave to Brooklyn, they can keep on franchising him, and keep him on one year deals forever, but I think that's pretty crummy. You have a guy for a pretty decent length of time, with the ability to pay him more money than anyone else. if you can't build around him in that time, and he wants to go, let him go. Teams should just be smarter about it, like Utah was, and act at the right time to get a good return, as opposed to being complete idiots about it, like Toronto.

In the NFL (only sport I know of with a "franchise tag" though MLB's arbitration is sort of similar), a player can only be franchised by their team twice. They receive a one year deal at a salary that is determined by the average of the 5 highest salaries for players at their position. So they do get compensated like an elite player. They have to stay on their team but at most for only two seasons beyond their rookie deal.

The thing with the NFL franchise tag is that it seems like the issue is virtually always that the player wants a long term deal (i.e. 5+ years) but the team is weary of locking itself into that kind of long term money for that player for whatever reason. My point being that NFL players hate the tag because they want a long term deal from ANYONE- their team, another team, whoever they can get it from. In the NBA, however, the tag is being brought up primarily as a measure to protect teams from losing star talent and/or from star players colluding to get onto the same team. In the NBA they give out max deals to borderline star/allstars like hotcakes and they're fully guaranteed. Players know they'll get paid so their next order of business is influencing who/where will be paying them. In the NFL its so godamn hard to get a contract and even when you do you could just as easily get cut and only receive a portion of that money that guys just want the contract.

 

[Draco]

I would like to see contracts only be 1/3rd to 1/2 guaranteed. It's not entirely bad for the players either, if teams are able to cut some of the salary of grossly overpaid guys then there will be more money to spread around to the players who can play and actually deserve it.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think if there is a franchise tag, Blazers should use it on Batum.

Not really but how can you not love a kid who is in Paris enjoying 85 degree weather and tweets to his fellow Blazers fans in Ptd:


Nicolas Batum™
Enjoyin Paris with 85F outside...good morning PDX



That is the kind of player I enjoy cheering for . . .

 

[magnifier661]

I think if there is a franchise tag, Blazers should use it on Batum.

Not really but how can you not love a kid who is in Paris enjoying 85 degree weather and tweets to his fellow Blazers fans in Ptd:


Nicolas Batum™
Enjoyin Paris with 85F outside...good morning PDX



That is the kind of player I enjoy cheering for . . .

If Batum is ever traded, it better be packaged for a huge star. Definitely one of my favorite Blazers.

 

[Draco]

His 8ppg were huge in the last two playoffs!

 

[BlazerCaravan]

His 8ppg were huge in the last two playoffs!

Without his huge 3pt shot in the 4th quarter of Game 4 we lose it by 1 point...

 

[Draco]

Without his huge 3pt shot in the 4th quarter of Game 4 we lose it by 1 point...

HAHA yes. And if you replace him with a player who can score on Steve Nash maybe we'd have won a series or two.

 

[maxiep]

The important part of the NFL franchise tag is that if a player is allowed to leave after being franchised, the existing team is awarded two first round draft picks. If the NBA does something similar, that would be a powerful disincentive. There's no way MIA would have been able to assign four first round picks to CLE and TOR.

 

[Minstrel]

HAHA yes. And if you replace him with a player who can score on Steve Nash maybe we'd have won a series or two.

While I agree with your implied position that Batum's current impact is overrated, he did have a shoulder injury for that series, so it's a bit of a distortion to imply that Batum is unable to score on Nash. As I recall, he had some good games when the Suns attempted that again early in the following (last) season, since he was healthy.

 

[Ed O]

Any ideas we have will seem, at some level, unfair to players. Franchise tags restrict player movement to the benefit of owners (and, hopefully, fans and the NBA as a whole). I'm frustrated for Magic fans who might lose Dwight Howard, and I think that the NBA will be better in the long run if players are well-compensated but teams have more say over which players go where.

A couple of ideas...

I think that the maximum salary should be based on just on the number of years in the NBA, but the number of years on a team. If the max salary is $10m/year for signing a free agent, maybe make it so it's $1m/year more for every year a player's been on that team. This encourages a player to re-sign with his own teams. A downside is dealing with how players would be treated if they're traded... it seems like they shouldn't be penalized, but they shouldn't be able to force their way out, either.

Another idea is that a player could make more than the maximum salary ONLY if he's designated as the "franchise" player for the team. The designation is set by each team at one point in the year, and so if a team acquires another team's franchise player mid-year, they will have to make a determination of which is more valuable to them. That puts teams in a tough spot when they have two very similar players (or two very good ones) but it would reward players for being the most valuable to their franchise and it would deter players from congregating because they want to form super-teams.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

While I agree with your implied position that Batum's current impact is overrated, he did have a shoulder injury for that series, so it's a bit of a distortion to imply that Batum is unable to score on Nash. As I recall, he had some good games when the Suns attempted that again early in the following (last) season, since he was healthy.

Also... it's likely that he's a better player than he was in that Phoenix series. He was 21 and had the offseason to work on punishing smaller players on the blocks after the Suns threw that at him.

Ed O.

 

[THE HCP]

I think if there is a franchise tag, Blazers should use it on Batum.

Not really but how can you not love a kid who is in Paris enjoying 85 degree weather and tweets to his fellow Blazers fans in Ptd:


Nicolas Batum™
Enjoyin Paris with 85F outside...good morning PDX



That is the kind of player I enjoy cheering for . . .

I want a trademark logo next to HCP!

 

[Draco]

Also... it's likely that he's a better player than he was in that Phoenix series. He was 21 and had the offseason to work on punishing smaller players on the blocks after the Suns threw that at him.

Well yes that sounds fine in theory, except he scored 8ppg again the next year.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

the franchise player should have all of his money guaranteed, and everyone else should be 50% maybe

 

[RR7]

The important part of the NFL franchise tag is that if a player is allowed to leave after being franchised, the existing team is awarded two first round draft picks. If the NBA does something similar, that would be a powerful disincentive. There's no way MIA would have been able to assign four first round picks to CLE and TOR.

They did trade 2 first rounders each to Cleveland and Toronto.

That's besides the point. I agree with your premise, adn think a compensation sort of system would be very interesting. Either a team giving up a pick, or maybe just a sandwich pick. Difficulty is, it could cause teams to not look to spend money in free agency, because signing a decent player if you are a lottery team is not likely worth losing your pick. But, th epick with that player could push you over the top and into the playoffs.

 

[Minstrel]

First round picks are a lot more valuable in the NFL. Almost no player is viewed as worth two first round picks. In the NBA, I think any team would trade two first round picks for a superstar. So, it's not necessarily a bad thing, for parity, to compensate the team losing a player...but I don't think it would be anywhere near as powerful a disincentive in the NBA. It would be more akin to the MLB compensation system...it's not a great outcome and really doesn't dissuade teams from signing premium free agents (though it does dissuade teams from signing second/third tier guys sometimes), but it's a bit of benefit to the team losing players.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

First round picks are a lot more valuable in the NFL. Almost no player is viewed as worth two first round picks. In the NBA, I think any team would trade two first round picks for a superstar. So, it's not necessarily a bad thing, for parity, to compensate the team losing a player...but I don't think it would be anywhere near as powerful a disincentive in the NBA. It would be more akin to the MLB compensation system...it's not a great outcome and really doesn't dissuade teams from signing premium free agents (though it does dissuade teams from signing second/third tier guys sometimes), but it's a bit of benefit to the team losing players.

well even just this year, julio jones was essentially traded for more than two #1 picks, also jay cutler fetched a few as well....i think more often, any player worth that much is not available in the first place.

what also drives down prices alot of times is that teams are basically forced to get rid of players in the nfl because of the hard cap, lowering their leverage.

 

[PapaG]

Hypothetically, Bird Rights are much more valuable for proven players than a franchise tag.

A franchise designation would put a team like Portland in a worse position than it is now if the accompanying unrestricted free agency that the NFL has followed it.

No thanks.

 

[PapaG]

First round picks are a lot more valuable in the NFL. Almost no player is viewed as worth two first round picks. In the NBA, I think any team would trade two first round picks for a superstar. So, it's not necessarily a bad thing, for parity, to compensate the team losing a player...but I don't think it would be anywhere near as powerful a disincentive in the NBA. It would be more akin to the MLB compensation system...it's not a great outcome and really doesn't dissuade teams from signing premium free agents (though it does dissuade teams from signing second/third tier guys sometimes), but it's a bit of benefit to the team losing players.

Not in their current CBA. The NFL's draft/contract structure is so out of scale that a high pick that doesn't pan out can cripple a franchise for years against the cap. At least in the NBA, a rookie-contract failure (in terms of on-court production) such as Greg Oden can be offset by the relatively low cost of his rookie contract. As a Raider fan, JaMarcus Russell's deal killed the franchise for four years because of the money guaranteed to him.

 

[Minstrel]

well even just this year, julio jones was essentially traded for more than two #1 picks, also jay cutler fetched a few as well....i think more often, any player worth that much is not available in the first place.

By the "draft pick value chart," picks in the future get devalued, so a first round pick next year is worth a current second rounder and a first round pick two years in the future is worth a current third rounder. It's pretty rare that anyone gives up two first rounders for the current year, from what I can remember. And even a first rounder this year and first rounder next year is pretty rare, though certainly not unheard of.

Not in their current CBA. The NFL's draft/contract structure is so out of scale that a high pick that doesn't pan out can cripple a franchise for years against the cap.

You're talking about how you value NFL first round picks. What I was saying is that NFL teams seem to value them much higher based on how rarely they trade multiple first rounders (in terms of current year value). Even one first rounder gets traded less commonly in the NFL than in the NBA.

 

[PapaG]

You're talking about how you value NFL first round picks. What I was saying is that NFL teams seem to value them much higher based on how rarely they trade multiple first rounders (in terms of current year value). Even one first rounder gets traded less commonly in the NFL than in the NBA.

There is much more diversity in player types in the NFL over the NBA. The NBA is basically about 3 or 4 body types. The NFL is about multiple body types, with multiple schemes, for about 10 different positions. The added bonus in the NFL is that mid-first picks can actually be better for average teams than a top pick for a bad team. It does take one player to turn around an NBA franchise, but outside of Brandon Roy, who is the last multiple All-Star player on a winning team that was drafted outside of the Top 3 picks in the past five years?

 

[Minstrel]

There is much more diversity in player types in the NFL over the NBA. The NBA is basically about 3 or 4 body types. The NFL is about multiple body types, with multiple schemes, for about 10 different positions. The added bonus in the NFL is that mid-first picks can actually be better for average teams than a top pick for a bad team. It does take one player to turn around an NBA franchise, but outside of Brandon Roy, who is the last multiple All-Star player on a winning team that was drafted outside of the Top 3 picks in the past five years?

These are good reasons for why NFL teams value first rounders more and I essentially agree with you. For a number of reasons, the draft is more essential to NFL teams because they need more players. More specialized roles (you can swap perimeter players through roles or play a natural PF at center, but it's harder to swap a linebacker into a safety role, let alone a wide receiver role), more good players required to win, more units necessary for a variety of schemes.

My point was simply that draft pick bounties on free agent signings are a significantly more powerful disincentive to sign away another team's free agent in the NFL than the NBA. You'll never see an NFL team sell a first round pick for cash (if such a thing is even allowed by rules...but even if it were, no team would consider doing it).