Franchise player tag!

[bajaden]

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.

First off, I'd like to split that measly 10 million with you. Secondly, I think your right. I think the owners would like to be in a situation where they have more control over the future of their team. That means taking as much control of the outcome of player movement as possible. Just having a hard cap in place would be a giant step toward limiting player movement. The major advantage the big markets have over the small markets is money. If you can limit the use of that money, the playing field becomes more equal.

I think Stern likes what he see's in the NFL, where you can't predict whose in the superbowl from year to year. Where, through good drafting and managing, you can go from the bottom to the top in a year or two. Quite different from the old days when the teams that had the money, were usually the one's at the top. Now I'm sure LA and New York would probably disagree with him. But when you look at the excitement generated by the playoffs this year, you have to think a large part of it is because of the fresh blood like the Thunder, Chicago, and the Grizz, and the demise of the Lakers, Spurs etc.

What I wonder, is whether the League, and the players union, are both willing to throw water on all the good PR the playoffs are generating, by having a lockout, and possibly cancelling the season. My gut tells me no! I think a compromise will be reached. Neither side will get all of what it wants, which is the usual result anyway. I think the players union will give up a little of its guaranteed money. And I think there will be some changes in rookie salarys, and length of contracts. If the league is unable to get a hard cap put in place, then I think there will be some changes in how your allowed to go over it. Such as doing away with the MLE.

It obvious that the whole concept of the luxury tax was to put restrictions on the teams with the money. As it turned out, teams like New York and LA etc. could care less about the luxury tax. So while it may have worked to some degree, it didn't have the effect the league wanted. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out. Hopefully in the Kings favor.

 

[Bricklayer]

The major advantage the big markets have over the small markets is money. If you can limit the use of that money, the playing field becomes more equal.

That's not actually the bigggest problem -- even today's soft cap makes initial player acquisitions difficult for big/rich markets/owners. Just allows them an advantage in retention. But the bigger problem is one that you almost can't fix intra-league unless you a) compeltely take the choice out of key personnel's hands; or b) actually discriminate against certain markets. Its the human factor. Its the I wanna party all night and bang tanned oiled supermodels every day syndrome. Its a bunch of 20-something year old cash soaked kids, very few of them with much education, being presented with glitz, glamour, and yes willing hotties, hearing how great it is from their fellow 20-something dip**** friends, hearing how rich/famous they'll get from their agents. And then coming home to Cleveland/Sacramento/Milwaulkee and having to decide whether to stay or go. And of course a huge HUGE factor is endorsement money. 30 years ago it was miniscule/irrelevant. Now for the top guys it can be worth more than the contract, making whatever monetary tweaks you make intra-league almost irrelevant if the guy can make it all up and then soem from endorsements int he bigger city.

A decade ago the concept of the "max contract" was introduced because star level players and their agents were acting like gangsters holding teams up for ridiculous sums of money for 10 year deals and the like. It was a good thing. But the law of unintended consequences now seems to be applying -- once upon a time your star player brought in his agent and gave you the shakedown for everythig you were worth. And if you gave in, he took so much moeny from you it overwehlemed other factors. But now by taking away that ability, the "other factors" are starting to predominate in a way that it is very hard to counter with intra-league rules. Your choices kind of are, cap contracts, and allow the "other factors" to predominate. Don't cap contracts, and allow players to hit up teams for ridivulous sums to overcome the "other factors"; or finally, to simply stop top players from moving altogether. HAving tried both a) and b) and ran into walls both times, I am up for c) at this point.

 

[Glenn]

Option C will rub against the free agency rights players have won in courts. I definitely want to see movement restricted but that's because my team is in Sacramento which not only has no money, it has no oiled hotties nor advertising options. Waaaay back at the beginning players could only play for teams in their area. Oscar Robertson was very unhappy with this as he was stuck in Cincinatti and there was no chance of a good team being developed there. So he sued. And here we are.

Seems like the amount of money these guys make should make up for the horrible fate of living in a town without Paris Hilton.

I look forward to the results of these CBA negotiations as in the end, I think our team will benefit.

 

[Bricklayer]

Option C will rub against the free agency rights players have won in courts. I definitely want to see movement restricted but that's because my team is in Sacramento which not only has no money, it has no oiled hotties nor advertising options. Waaaay back at the beginning players could only play for teams in their area. Oscar Robertson was very unhappy with this as he was stuck in Cincinatti and there was no chance of a good team being developed there. So he sued. And here we are.

Seems like the amount of money these guys make should make up for the horrible fate of living in a town without Paris Hilton.

I look forward to the results of these CBA negotiations as in the end, I think our team will benefit.

The NFL has paved the way on the franchise players track. You can't impose it, but you can bargain for it. Hard, lockout inspiring bargaining. But it can be done.

 

[SacTownKid]

First off, I'd like to split that measly 10 million with you. Secondly, I think your right. I think the owners would like to be in a situation where they have more control over the future of their team. That means taking as much control of the outcome of player movement as possible. Just having a hard cap in place would be a giant step toward limiting player movement. The major advantage the big markets have over the small markets is money. If you can limit the use of that money, the playing field becomes more equal.

I think Stern likes what he see's in the NFL, where you can't predict whose in the superbowl from year to year. Where, through good drafting and managing, you can go from the bottom to the top in a year or two. Quite different from the old days when the teams that had the money, were usually the one's at the top. Now I'm sure LA and New York would probably disagree with him. But when you look at the excitement generated by the playoffs this year, you have to think a large part of it is because of the fresh blood like the Thunder, Chicago, and the Grizz, and the demise of the Lakers, Spurs etc.

What I wonder, is whether the League, and the players union, are both willing to throw water on all the good PR the playoffs are generating, by having a lockout, and possibly cancelling the season. My gut tells me no! I think a compromise will be reached. Neither side will get all of what it wants, which is the usual result anyway. I think the players union will give up a little of its guaranteed money. And I think there will be some changes in rookie salarys, and length of contracts. If the league is unable to get a hard cap put in place, then I think there will be some changes in how your allowed to go over it. Such as doing away with the MLE.

It obvious that the whole concept of the luxury tax was to put restrictions on the teams with the money. As it turned out, teams like New York and LA etc. could care less about the luxury tax. So while it may have worked to some degree, it didn't have the effect the league wanted. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out. Hopefully in the Kings favor.

Yeah, no kidding. Wouldn't that be great to have the ability to pull that kind of dough out from in between the cushions of your couch like Lebron!

I personally think the way to go is increased revenue sharing and greater dispersion on even more taxes that those big cities pay to the smaller markets which they can in turn use it to strengthen their own team. Put those big market teams in a position where the more they spend, the more the other teams can spend too.

 

[rainmaker]

The more I think about it, the more I don't like the idea of a franchise tag, especially in the way the league is talking about it. Revenue sharing is a must. I like a hard cap, but I too read it would be slowly implemented over 2-3 years.

I think we need even better incentives to resign with your own team. The league will slash some of the guaranteed money, and length of contracts. Maybe the new max contract will only be 4 years. How much? Who knows. But I'd like to see an extra 2 years for resigning with your own team, and 10% more earnings over the course of the contract. That would be substantial, and make it tough for guys like Reke or Cousins to walk.

Look at Dwight as an example. What if hypothetically with the new CBA, the max a team can offer him is a 4yr $52M contract, roughly $13M per. Now, if Orlando could offer 6yrs at $86M, or $1.3M more per yr(10%), with an extra 2 yrs, would Dwight consider leaving?

 

[bajaden]

A decade ago the concept of the "max contract" was introduced because star level players and their agents were acting like gangsters holding teams up for ridiculous sums of money for 10 year deals and the like. It was a good thing. But the law of unintended consequences now seems to be applying -- once upon a time your star player brought in his agent and gave you the shakedown for everythig you were worth. And if you gave in, he took so much moeny from you it overwehlemed other factors. But now by taking away that ability, the "other factors" are starting to predominate in a way that it is very hard to counter with intra-league rules. Your choices kind of are, cap contracts, and allow the "other factors" to predominate. Don't cap contracts, and allow players to hit up teams for ridivulous sums to overcome the "other factors"; or finally, to simply stop top players from moving altogether. HAving tried both a) and b) and ran into walls both times, I am up for c) at this point.

There's no doubt that keeping good players from being attracted to the bright lights and endorsements of the bigger cities is a difficult problem. And I agree that just equalizing the field financially, won't solve that part of the problem. But it will help. In some sense, it does come down to the players personal desires and then choices. In our case for instance, both Evans and Cousins are small town guys. So New York or LA may not have the same appeal to them as it would another player. But in a more general sense, it is a problem, and not one easily solved.

I'm assuming that your referring to the franchise label in option C. And that would work if its all inclusive, and leaves the player no options. I guess you'd have to make sure that you don't have two of your top players becoming freeagents in the same year. I do think a hard cap would go a long way toward slowing player movement. You can't sign a player if you don't have room under the cap. However, I'm not very optimistic the league will get the players union to agree to anything resembling a hard cap.

 

[Uncia03]

I think that this summer of LeBron is going to help the Sacramento Kings with how the CBA plays out. But I think that the Carmelo fiasco is going to do even more in terms of the CBA.

I know that Denver was almost forced to make this move, and Carmelo felt that he needed to move because of Miami, but there is only a handful of owners who want to see players have the ability to hold their teams hostage.

You know that Orlando and New Orleans will be pushing hard for something to be put in place to help retain their superstars, and that they'll want something put into effect immediately.

In terms of a potential franchise tag, although it looks as if they might not adopt the NFL model, I think they can still be effective with it.
It appears as if they are looking to leverage guaranteed money with the franchise tag to induce a player to remain with their teams.

If they end up creating a system where the amount of guaranteed money and years declines after each year of the contract, as has been mentioned, then using a franchise tag to alleviate the diminished declines could be significant.

For instance, if they set up contracts so that the longest any deal can be is 4 years, with the 1st year fully guaranteed, the 2nd year 75% guaranteed, and the last two years not at all guaranteed, then that could have a significant impact on teams being able to retain their players.

If a player signs with their own team, thereby giving the home team the ability to say, fully guarantee the 2nd and 3rd year, and guarantee 50% of the 4th year, then that could help pursuade players to sign with their own teams to get the guaranteed money.
If you add on to that a Franchise tag, where the contract allows for a 5th year, with 4 years guaranteed and the 5th year 50% guaranteed, along with a slightly higher % increase per year, that sort of money could make the difference.
Every player knows that he is an injury away from not being able to compete any longer.

I don't see the league utilizing a franchise tag like they do in the NFL. I wouldn't mind seeing that happen, being as we are small market. But depending on whether the League can really re-vamp contracts, they could add far more significant perks to the home team, as well as putting together a Franchise tag package which would make it very difficult for players to leave.

The NBA needs to make player retention all about the money and the security of the contract.
Set it up so that if a player signs with another team, that contract has almost no guarantees, while signing with your own team provides a lot of guarantees. This might not solve the issue when you start talking about endorsements, but it would be far better than what we have now.

If you could get something like this set up, while also imposing a hard cap, or at the very least remove all exceptions for teams over the cap, I think it puts the Sacramento Kings in a far better position to retain Tyreke and Cousins than if we were to deal with these issues in previous years.