Franchise player tag!
- Thread starter ParniValjak
- Start date
Saw on another site that the franchise tag the NBA is proposing is not truly restrictive -- its basically just a tag you put on one player that allows you to pay him more than any other player. Still a franchise tag I suppose, but it doesn't guarantee anything. If LeBron wants to run away and hide behind Wade there's nothing ther to stop him.
The mere fact anything has been proposed though did get me thinking along these same lines. Who are we gonna end up designating? Reke would be eligible first. How will he feel if we don't offer it to him? Then DeMarcus comes up, the exra money is already gone...
I think the safest thing to do is to offer it to Rubio.
The mere fact anything has been proposed though did get me thinking along these same lines. Who are we gonna end up designating? Reke would be eligible first. How will he feel if we don't offer it to him? Then DeMarcus comes up, the exra money is already gone...
I think the safest thing to do is to offer it to Rubio.
i would hope neither, assuming that both guys would be willing to re-sign without forcing the kings to force them to stay.
also if it is just a way to pay players extra, that seems like a terrible idea. franchises already get the +1 year bonus, if players know that their franchise can pay them more, it starts negotiations of wrong- like why haven't you given me the franchise tag? i'm not worth enough?- the type of issue that could really turn negotiations sour, and one that would not come up with other franchises. and i also don't think any franchise is going to open its negotiations with offering the franchise tag when they don't have to if all it means is giving up another 1-2 million per year.
also if it is just a way to pay players extra, that seems like a terrible idea. franchises already get the +1 year bonus, if players know that their franchise can pay them more, it starts negotiations of wrong- like why haven't you given me the franchise tag? i'm not worth enough?- the type of issue that could really turn negotiations sour, and one that would not come up with other franchises. and i also don't think any franchise is going to open its negotiations with offering the franchise tag when they don't have to if all it means is giving up another 1-2 million per year.
You wouldn't have to choose, would you? Their contracts would be up in different years, and if you can designate one player per year, then there's nothing to discuss. You're obviously going to pay both, and hopefully you don't have to tag either.
I must say, I don't like this tag in its current form. Seems like it would cause more issues between teams and players, because if Player X refuses to sign with his current team unless they give him significantly more than any other team can, then he's taking advantage of the team. It doesn't seem like the answer.
I must say, I don't like this tag in its current form. Seems like it would cause more issues between teams and players, because if Player X refuses to sign with his current team unless they give him significantly more than any other team can, then he's taking advantage of the team. It doesn't seem like the answer.
As an aside, did not feel this was worth its own thread, but something troubling popped up in the reports of the offers/counteroffers. Apparently the NBA has again put forth the idea of another round of amnesty bad contract dumping, letting every team dump one contract for free, as part of the new CBA. You would think that would come inot play this very offseason if the players accept it. And if it did, there would be no team in the NBA hurt worse by it then us, the Sacramento Kings, and the one team that had assembled more caproom than any other by traditional means. All of a sudden a number of other teams could chop a big salary and get into a free agent race which otherwise we had cornered. And we on the other hand barely have a big bad contract to worry about anymore, so tthe amnesty would do nothing for us, and a whole lot for our competitors.
Would this be different to what it was last time though?
IIRC, last time teams had the option to dump one contract, the team still had to pay that contract out and it would still count against their salary cap but they would not have to pay luxury tax on that contract. I think it was something along those lines. Mavs dumped Finley monstrous contract and it was still counted against their Salary cap except that Cuban saved about $18million per season in luxury tax payments.
IIRC, last time teams had the option to dump one contract, the team still had to pay that contract out and it would still count against their salary cap but they would not have to pay luxury tax on that contract. I think it was something along those lines. Mavs dumped Finley monstrous contract and it was still counted against their Salary cap except that Cuban saved about $18million per season in luxury tax payments.
Yeah, as stated the contract still counted against the cap for the remaining years. Just saves teams a ton of tax money. In fact, if this were to go down the Kings may be able to take a chance on a significant free agent that otherwise wouldn't have been available. Hmmmm... Brandon Roy anyone?
Last edited:
The problem is this time there may not even be a luxury tax, and the story was it was going to come off the CAP. Pretty obviously specifically designed to free teams up to spend money under the new system. Problem is that really sucks for those of us who were responsible and set ourselves up to have money through restraint.
I'm just comparing it with the NFL tag, which is one per year, as the team sees fit. And more often than not, it's used to keep a player off the market while you negotiate terms on a longer deal. A tag like this in the NBA would be entirely different, and as such, might not be one per year, but one per roster, which would make sense with smaller rosters. But I don't know, obviously.
Yeah, you beat me to it. It may allow more teams into the freeagent market, but at the same time, it would make more players available. And, as you mentioned, if there is a hard cap put in place, some teams may only get back to cap level. As far as the Kings go, I think I would be saying bye bye to Cisco. I like the dude, but I think we could do better with that money.
That's not what I read. I read that the hard cap stuff that was proposed would be delayed until 2013-2014 and I assume the amnesty clause is basically a direct result of a pending hard cap. Until the hard cap is instituted there would still be a luxury tax penalty and regular salary cap. I took it as an escape for teams that were hopelessly above whatever that hard cap level is going to be set at. Stein said it would be, "reminiscent of a similar provision in the summer of 2005." I highly doubt other owners would OK something that allowed cap space to teams well over the cap and most certainly not in immediate fashion. It sounds to me that the NBA is looking at whatever changes that will come in the next CBA as more gradual and will be implemented in steps allowing teams to prepare for them, so I'm pretty sure the upcoming market won't be flooded with teams able to spend over the MLE because they were able to cut a high priced player.
Last edited:
When decision time comes, it seems pretty straight-forward.
Situation A:
Cousins is thriving, Evans is struggling; tag Cousins.
Situation B:
Evans is thriving, Cousins is struggling; tag Evans.
Situation C:
Both are thriving, team is winning; tag Evans, as Cousins will be happy with not being on a losing team anymore.
Situation D:
Both are thriving, team is losing; who cares?
Situation E:
Both are struggling, team is winning; give it to Beno
Situation A:
Cousins is thriving, Evans is struggling; tag Cousins.
Situation B:
Evans is thriving, Cousins is struggling; tag Evans.
Situation C:
Both are thriving, team is winning; tag Evans, as Cousins will be happy with not being on a losing team anymore.
Situation D:
Both are thriving, team is losing; who cares?
Situation E:
Both are struggling, team is winning; give it to Beno
I may be giving too much credit to Stern and co. but it sounds to me like the overwhelming majority of what the owners want is a situation where it would make it even more likely that we'd be able to retain our guys. I think there are about 29 other owners right now somewhat PO'd by what went down in Miami this past summer and are determined to make sure that if it happens again, the players involved will have to give up far more than a measly 10 million over the life of their contracts.