Franchise Tag
- Thread starter kingsfan1984
- Start date
The NBA already has long rookie deals with team options and the ability to make a player a restricted free agent at the end of that rookie deal. At a certain point you just have to allow players to decide where they want to play. I hate that Durant left OKC but he should never have been forced to stay.
The other part of the NFL franchise tag is that (1) you get to franchise one guy out of a roster of 53 vs one guy out of 12. That's a big difference. Also the NFL tag is for a single year and pays the average (I believe) of the top 5 salaries at that position, after which the player can go wherever he wants.
I want to see more parity in the NBA but I think essentially forcing a guy to play his whole career in one place isn't the way to go about addressing it.
The other part of the NFL franchise tag is that (1) you get to franchise one guy out of a roster of 53 vs one guy out of 12. That's a big difference. Also the NFL tag is for a single year and pays the average (I believe) of the top 5 salaries at that position, after which the player can go wherever he wants.
I want to see more parity in the NBA but I think essentially forcing a guy to play his whole career in one place isn't the way to go about addressing it.
Maybe a system where each team can "assign" a free agent a "star" title\tag. Once a team places that tag on a free agent, another team must put the tag on that player as well to be eligible to sign him. However, a team can only have 1 "star" tagged player on team at a time.
So say OKC tagged Durant. Warriors have not signed a "star" tagged player on their roster so they put their tag on KD and sign him. But now warriors can not pursue another "star" player in free agency until Durant's contract is up. So if Curry becomes a free agent while Durant is under contract then as long as 1 other team puts a "star" tag on Curry, warriors wouldn't be able to sign him without trading Durant away first.
This would after a few years allow for more stars to be evenly dispersed in the NBA while still allowing an unhappy player to go to a new team....there would just be fewer teams able to use the "star" tag any given year. No more Miami heat decisions.
So say OKC tagged Durant. Warriors have not signed a "star" tagged player on their roster so they put their tag on KD and sign him. But now warriors can not pursue another "star" player in free agency until Durant's contract is up. So if Curry becomes a free agent while Durant is under contract then as long as 1 other team puts a "star" tag on Curry, warriors wouldn't be able to sign him without trading Durant away first.
This would after a few years allow for more stars to be evenly dispersed in the NBA while still allowing an unhappy player to go to a new team....there would just be fewer teams able to use the "star" tag any given year. No more Miami heat decisions.
Last edited:
So what is the solution... to get more parity? It seems like such a difficult thing to do... so complex especially when you consider the impact of collective bargaining on the whole thing. How do you even things out? It seems like it would be really difficult in basketball because it only takes three or four players for a team to be un-competitively good.
I think PART of the problem are the guys like David West who take minimum salaries to get on championship level teams; that is as bad, if not worse, than what the Miami Cheat and GS Worriers did with LBJ and KD. It is not just that you are playing super starting 5, but a bench that could compete for a playoff spot on their own; even the bottom 7 guys on the team could beat most teams AND those teams do not have to pay anything solid for that bench. On the other hand, a regular team has to pay above minimum for the majority of players and many of those guys are not great. If all teams had to pay a minimum for each range of players would not be able to over spend on the starting five AND get nine David Wests to sign on at the minimum.
So, how about this: I call it the Graduated Salary Floor
- A team is allowed to as many rookie scale contracts as they want.
- No more than 4 players at the veteran's minimum.
- Create a new, higher veteran's minimum for additional minimum players beyond the first 4. We could call this something like the Veteran's Graduated Minimum. A team could have up to 6 players at this scale.
- If a team trades for a player at the vet minimum and they already have 4 players at the minimum, they would have to bump the traded player's salary up to the graduated minimum.
Thoughts?
I think PART of the problem are the guys like David West who take minimum salaries to get on championship level teams; that is as bad, if not worse, than what the Miami Cheat and GS Worriers did with LBJ and KD. It is not just that you are playing super starting 5, but a bench that could compete for a playoff spot on their own; even the bottom 7 guys on the team could beat most teams AND those teams do not have to pay anything solid for that bench. On the other hand, a regular team has to pay above minimum for the majority of players and many of those guys are not great. If all teams had to pay a minimum for each range of players would not be able to over spend on the starting five AND get nine David Wests to sign on at the minimum.
So, how about this: I call it the Graduated Salary Floor
- A team is allowed to as many rookie scale contracts as they want.
- No more than 4 players at the veteran's minimum.
- Create a new, higher veteran's minimum for additional minimum players beyond the first 4. We could call this something like the Veteran's Graduated Minimum. A team could have up to 6 players at this scale.
- If a team trades for a player at the vet minimum and they already have 4 players at the minimum, they would have to bump the traded player's salary up to the graduated minimum.
Thoughts?
I don't like "tags." Players should be able to sign where they please. You can, however, tweak the incentives somewhat. An interesting experiment would be the elimination of individual player max salaries, potentially coupled with a harder "cap." That way superstars wouldn't be just giving up a couple million a year to join their super teams (likely recouped via endorsements) but potentially dozens of millions. There are many interesting articles out there on how the true value of superstars is much higher than the individual player max. I think giving more teams a shot at stars via free agency (since each team could only afford one) would also reduce tanking, since it would open an outlet to signing stars to teams who otherwise just rely on the draft.
That said, I doubt the players association would sign off on this, because it would hurt the rank and file to benefit the few at the top.
That said, I doubt the players association would sign off on this, because it would hurt the rank and file to benefit the few at the top.
I agree that the David West situation is worse than the Kevin Durant one. I don't really begrudge the Warriors getting Durant - they did it under the salary rules while paying a fair (in fact I believe max) contract. In Miami, LeBron/Wade/Bosh had slightly sub-max contracts to make it all work if I recall correctly, but they weren't being paid at something far below market value.
West, on the other hand, would have been worth $10M easily in this market and by signing for the minimum (for the second year in a row, no less) he is effectively giving the Warriors an extra $8M+ in salary cap space.
I'm not sure that the suggestion that you've made will actually do much. Even if the Warriors had enough players to force West to sign for a "graduated" minimum, would this make any difference? If the graduated minimum was still an exception, does it matter? It's not so much that the Warriors aren't paying full price for West - I'm sure they could afford it - it's that they're getting a subsidy on their salary cap number allowing an even greater concentration of talent. I suppose that if a team were to clear out their roster in order to sign say three players to large/max contracts the roster charges for the graduated minimum (as opposed to the veteran's minimum) would reduce the total amount of cap space they had, but that wouldn't actually affect the minimum players like West. Who slides into which slot isn't going to make a lot of difference.
I think the way to solve problems like David West is to prevent players from signing ridiculously under-market contracts. That's not easy to do, but I've got a simple suggestion that might work: a free agent auction.
Now, normally free agents would not go to "auction", but imagine this: When a player signs a FA contract for less than half of the maximum, there would be a short period, say 24 hours, during which any team could call an auction - and by calling the auction that team automatically opens the bidding at 2x the signed contract. All teams with sufficient cap space may compete in the auction, and whoever wins it gets the player. I'm betting dollars to donuts that at least 15 teams would have gladly doubled West's vet minimum deal. Because the threshold is 2x, and because the team calling the auction would be forced to open the bid, I don't think you'd get frivolous auctions. ("What? Afflalo got $12M? No way, man, we're going $24M!" Not gonna happen.) And the simple threat of it would prevent a guy like West signing with the Warriors for the min, because he'd know that somebody would overbid them and then he would have no control over where he went. In fact, if an auction provision were established, it still might never be used - the threat of it would be enough to keep guys from signing contracts hugely under market. Obviously 2x is just a starting idea - maybe 2.5 is better, maybe 1.75 is better, but the concept is the point, and I think it would go a long way towards forcing the super teams to have "reasonable" benches that don't violate the spirit of the cap rules to concentrate talent.
West, on the other hand, would have been worth $10M easily in this market and by signing for the minimum (for the second year in a row, no less) he is effectively giving the Warriors an extra $8M+ in salary cap space.
I'm not sure that the suggestion that you've made will actually do much. Even if the Warriors had enough players to force West to sign for a "graduated" minimum, would this make any difference? If the graduated minimum was still an exception, does it matter? It's not so much that the Warriors aren't paying full price for West - I'm sure they could afford it - it's that they're getting a subsidy on their salary cap number allowing an even greater concentration of talent. I suppose that if a team were to clear out their roster in order to sign say three players to large/max contracts the roster charges for the graduated minimum (as opposed to the veteran's minimum) would reduce the total amount of cap space they had, but that wouldn't actually affect the minimum players like West. Who slides into which slot isn't going to make a lot of difference.
I think the way to solve problems like David West is to prevent players from signing ridiculously under-market contracts. That's not easy to do, but I've got a simple suggestion that might work: a free agent auction.
Now, normally free agents would not go to "auction", but imagine this: When a player signs a FA contract for less than half of the maximum, there would be a short period, say 24 hours, during which any team could call an auction - and by calling the auction that team automatically opens the bidding at 2x the signed contract. All teams with sufficient cap space may compete in the auction, and whoever wins it gets the player. I'm betting dollars to donuts that at least 15 teams would have gladly doubled West's vet minimum deal. Because the threshold is 2x, and because the team calling the auction would be forced to open the bid, I don't think you'd get frivolous auctions. ("What? Afflalo got $12M? No way, man, we're going $24M!" Not gonna happen.) And the simple threat of it would prevent a guy like West signing with the Warriors for the min, because he'd know that somebody would overbid them and then he would have no control over where he went. In fact, if an auction provision were established, it still might never be used - the threat of it would be enough to keep guys from signing contracts hugely under market. Obviously 2x is just a starting idea - maybe 2.5 is better, maybe 1.75 is better, but the concept is the point, and I think it would go a long way towards forcing the super teams to have "reasonable" benches that don't violate the spirit of the cap rules to concentrate talent.
As a fan, goal is more parity in the NBA where small market teams disadvantages are less and having more competitive teams. Personally the regular season is boring when you can count on one hand the number of teams with any realistic chance each year. Then the rich get richer each year not due to good planning, player development, etc but just because they are LA or Miami or New York. Sure I get that's what the NBA wants is big name players in the big markets but it doesn't excite me.
You are hitting near but not quite on the solution to the problem you seem to identify. IF the problem is talent concentrating on a few select teams one very doable solution would be to allow each team to select one and only one player to receive a very large financial bonus as that's teams franchise player. This would be a voidable part of their contract contingent on length of contract (say 4 years) with the bonus nontransferable, meaning you could trade the player at the contracted salary but the other team could only offer the bonus if they extend the contract. So while a team would still be free to sign multiple max contracts or undervalue free agents looking for a ring, 30 guys would receive a lot of extra money possibly from the league for agreeing to play 4 years as 'the man' on their team. No solution is perfect but this might go far to spread some of the talent in the league a bit and encourage loyalty and stability.
I like where your head's at, but I think that you'd have to draw the line somewhere else; I think you need to lower the bar from less than half the maximum, otherwise every player would be obligated to sign for at least 51 percent of the max, or go into auction. Which would probably end up creating a whole new set of problems down the line.
Now, my recommendation wouldn't have been able to help the David West circumstance, simply because of what he did last year, but it likely help going forward: implement your auction system, with the provision that, if a player signs a FA contract with a new team where his average salary is less than half the average salary of his previous contract, he goes up for "auction."
Now, my recommendation wouldn't have been able to help the David West circumstance, simply because of what he did last year, but it likely help going forward: implement your auction system, with the provision that, if a player signs a FA contract with a new team where his average salary is less than half the average salary of his previous contract, he goes up for "auction."
I tend to agree with both you and Capt. on the idea of auctions, but the flip side is how does the league distinguish between an opportunistic guy looking for a ring and being willing to undervalue himself, and the stand up guy like Duncan or Stockton who routinely took below market money for the good of their team?
I think you misunderstood a bit. The idea is that every player would have to sign for 51% of their fair market value, or merely risk going into auction. But they would only go into auction if at least one team was willing to commit to double their contract. As in my example, Afflalo signed for about $12M. That's actually a bit less than 50% of his max, so he would be eligible to go into auction. But still, there would have to be that one team out there that was willing (and able!) to give him $24M, because by calling the auction they are forced to submit that bid. I don't see that happening. And furthermore in Afflalo's case, seeing as he signed with the Kings it's not like he was chasing a ring. If (let's say) the Nets wanted him for $24M, he'd have taken it rather than $12M from the Kings.
That could also work. And while it wouldn't have prevented West from doing what he did this year, it would have stopped it last year when he signed with the Spurs. The only trouble I see with the previous contract method is that sometimes players are on bad deals, sometimes they've been injured and are trying a comeback, sometimes they truly have fallen out of their prime and have just finished up their last "big" deal. There are a few ways you can imagine that a player's most recent deal is far over their actual current market value. Those guys would be hurt in their ability to pick their next destination - even if they're NOT trying to game the system.
I think we're both aiming at finding a way to define "fair market value". Your method would be based on the player's most recent contract, mine is a bit more based on current demand. But we're aiming at the same thing.
Perhaps combining the two suggestions would work pretty well. First off, you have to sign for less than half of your previous deal's average to be eligible for auction. This sets a threshold so that a player can sign a deal at 50.1% and know that they are not subject to auction. Second, if eligible for auction, another team would have to A) call the auction and B) be forced to a bid that is 2x the contract (this could still be well below the previous contract average if a guy did like David West and signed for, say, 10-20% of his previous deal). There's an objective number at which you are safe from auction, but there's still a market force at play - if you sign for 22% of your previous contract but nobody else is willing to go to 44%, then you're safe.
Interesting idea, just complicated enough to make the attorneys happy but simple enough it might work. I completely agree that the bigger problem is not the Durant's that become high paid mercenaries but rather the high value vets that take a few last years off form competitive play in order to sit on a winners bench, bad for the sport and no fun to watch.
By the way your response to Slim makes a sweet qualification! I might use this in my introduction to argumentation class.
By the way your response to Slim makes a sweet qualification! I might use this in my introduction to argumentation class.
I have espoused the idea of a franchise tag in the NBA for a long time. Would solve a lot of problems. Not all, but a lot.
Have to create a 'supermax" salary slot to be filled only by a player you deem "franchise" in order for it to be saleable to the players, who are only the highest paid people on the entire planet now.
Still might not have saved the OKC situation though, as they had 2 of them. Could have at least made Durant's decisions more stark if he was leaving tens of millions on the table though.
Have to create a 'supermax" salary slot to be filled only by a player you deem "franchise" in order for it to be saleable to the players, who are only the highest paid people on the entire planet now.
Still might not have saved the OKC situation though, as they had 2 of them. Could have at least made Durant's decisions more stark if he was leaving tens of millions on the table though.
[/quote]
The "superslot" makes sense to be able to get something through the players union. Win win for both sides of the isle.
The big hangup must be how the NBA figures the value of the super teams in expanding the NBA to new markets. From the little i've heard, the Miami super team piqued the interest of a lot of people outside the country or in that were not NBA fans already and this new Warriors team is set to do the same. They already are getting our money and truth is even dissatisfied with the the current status of the NBA, we won't be turning our eyes and wallets away in enough numbers to make a difference over an issue like this. For things to change, league officials and owners would need reason to believe that more parity in the league would equal more dollars for them.
The "superslot" makes sense to be able to get something through the players union. Win win for both sides of the isle.
The big hangup must be how the NBA figures the value of the super teams in expanding the NBA to new markets. From the little i've heard, the Miami super team piqued the interest of a lot of people outside the country or in that were not NBA fans already and this new Warriors team is set to do the same. They already are getting our money and truth is even dissatisfied with the the current status of the NBA, we won't be turning our eyes and wallets away in enough numbers to make a difference over an issue like this. For things to change, league officials and owners would need reason to believe that more parity in the league would equal more dollars for them.
I am a fan of the "franchise tag" to a certain degree. I would like to see them approach it like the qualifying offer for baseball free agents, but with more money involved to prevent teams from hindering the lower tier free agents like baseball does. If you offer at minimum the 1 year salary for the max, then you receive the other teams first round pick but with protection in the top 3 spots or something of that nature.
I would say rather that they would have the option to participate in the auction - I'd force them to win it outright, however. (And if they didn't have enough cap space to win the auction, then tough luck. That's kind of the point - if you don't have the cap space to sign a David West at a market-plausible price, then you don't get a David West.)
Disclaimer: not so knowledgeable on salary whatnot, but have some idea. How about:
For each player
Year 1 -> 100% of salary counts towards team cap,
Year 2 -> 75%
Year 3 -> 62.5%
...
Limit is 50%
Or you could even make limit 33.3333%
And this is only if the player stays for x years in a row, and there's no salary cap
For each player
Year 1 -> 100% of salary counts towards team cap,
Year 2 -> 75%
Year 3 -> 62.5%
...
Limit is 50%
Or you could even make limit 33.3333%
And this is only if the player stays for x years in a row, and there's no salary cap