Tag: Franchise Tag


Report: NBA proposes franchise tag, non-guaranteed contracts


The proposal the NBA owners presented the NBA players union late last month would do away with fully-guaranteed contracts and adds a style of franchise tag, one that is different than the NFL’s but new to the NBA, reports Zach Lowe at Sports Illustrated.

Both would be a radical shift from the current collective bargaining agreement. It’s a proposal the players have said they do not like.

Contract guarantees could be a real sticking point. Currently, most longer contracts in the NBA are fully guaranteed (they don’t have to be, non-guaranteed years or a buyout clause can be negotiated as part of the deal, which  has happened in the case of Lamar Odom, Marcus Camby and others), so when you make a bad deal to sign Eddy Curry long term you or someone has to pay the man. All of it.

Sources also said the league’s proposal would ban fully guaranteed contracts. All contracts would have limits on the amount of money a player would be guaranteed to receive, and those guarantees would decline during the life of each contract. In other words, a player making, say, $5 million per season over four seasons would actually be guaranteed less than $5 million in each of those four seasons — and the amount guaranteed would drop each season. The idea is for teams to be able to get out of undesirable contacts more easily and avoid ugly Eddy Curry-style buyout talks.

That makes financial sense for the owners, and you can see why the players would oppose it. On one hand it would make it easier for franchises to erase mistakes and restructure their rosters — they could get out of salary cap hell faster — something fans would like. But if you do something stupid — say, offer Joe Johnson a six-year max deal — shouldn’t there be a price to pay as a franchise? Why should an owner/GM do something stupid and have a “get out of jail free” card to go with it?

Then there is the franchise tag.

The inability of Cleveland to retain LeBron James and Toronto to retain Chris Bosh scared a lot of mid-to-small market NBA owners, who wondered if they were every lucky enough to get a real star via the lottery would they be able to keep the player. That is why some owners have pushed for a form of the tag.

But what the NBA has proposed is different than the NFL version. The NFL franchise tag takes that player off the market, he is locked into his team with a top five salary at his position.

Instead, a team would be allowed to designate one player for preferential contractual treatment, including more overall money, more guaranteed money and at least one extra year on his contract. A player would have to agree to such a designation. It is designed to work as an incentive to get a player to remain with his team rather than as a roadblock to free agency, the sources said.

Take the situation between the Cavaliers and LeBron James one year ago. Under the league’s proposal, the Cavaliers would not have been able to unilaterally “tag” James a franchise player and bind him to the team for one more season. The Cavaliers would have been able to offer James various enticements he may not have been able to get from other teams, the sources said.

The NBA’s existing CBA already allows this to a degree, teams a player is with can offer more than other teams. In the case of James, the Cavaliers did offer larger raises and one more year on the deal, which would have totaled about $27 million more over the life of the deal. It wasn’t enough. That is why a shotgun sign-and-trade took place, so James could get those larger raises (although he took a smaller base salary and less overall money to leave).

But in a world with non-guaranteed contracts, the incentives that do guarantee more money could be a stronger lure to keep players with teams.

Which has always been a goal of the NBA. They realize the value of having Tim Duncan always being a Spur or Kobe Bryant always being a Laker. While those men should have the ability to test the market, the league benefits in marketing from having its stars be stable with a franchise.

The answers are not simple. And it’s going to take a long time for these two sides to get on the same page. But at least they are talking.

PBT Friday Morning One Liners

Minnesota Timberwolves v Boston Celtics

I am not a fan of the franchise tag for the NBA. Danny Nowell at Magic Basketball does a great job explaining why this is a bad idea.

The Timberwolves are going to offer Kevin Love a lot of money. This story says $70 million, but that is this CBA’s number. However, whatever the max is they can offer him under the new CBA, you can bet Love will get that or close to it.

The Celtics officially signed Sasha Pavlovic. He brings some depth at the wing, but if they end up needing him to really do much they are in trouble.

Speaking of Boston: Can they re-sign Jeff Green (who may cost as much as Perkins)? If not, is the trade a big net loss for them?

Zydrunas Ilgauskas pitched his New York pad to Carmelo Anthony during a game… and it worked.

Clippers send Willie Warren down to the D-League.

Brendan Haywood is back to starting at center for a few games for Dallas while Tyson Chandler rests his sore ankle. Now we get a look at what Dallas almost looked like for this season (hint: it’s not nearly as good).

The Spurs are expected to sign
swingman Othyus Jeffers to a 10-day contract. You don’t know who he is, but do you doubt he’ll work well for the Spurs?

Baron Davis makes his Cavs debut Friday. Count me among the non-beleivers (but for Cleveland’s sake I hope he proves me wrong).

The fall of Andris Biedrins.

Hornets want to see new CBA before deciding next step with Chris Paul

Miami Heat v New Orleans Hornets
1 Comment

Utah watched the Carmelo Anthony circus unfold, they heard their star point guard Deron Williams talk about waiting to see about signing an extension, they realized that an extended lockout next season could mean little chance to move him.

So they shocked the world and sent to New Jersey.

Chris Paul could be a free agent at the same time as Williams. There are plenty of rumblings about him wanting out of town, specifically to go to New York. But New Orleans wisely has chosen to see what the new collective bargaining agreement looks like before shipping their best player and face of the franchise out of town, according to the Times-Picayune. You know, get all the facts before making any franchise-altering moves.

“I think with Chris, until there is a new agreement with the players association, I think it’s difficult to say what’s going to tactically work,’’ (Hornets GM Hugh) Weber said. “It may be a totally different landscape.’’

The Hornets cannot begin extension discussions with Paul’s representatives until this summer, Weber said. However, if a lockout occurs, no discussions can start until a labor agreement is reached.

Not if, when a lockout occurs. It is happening. Whenever that ends the Hornets will offer Paul a max deal, it’s just not known what a max deal will look like. Maybe there will be a franchise tag that allows the Hornets to hold on to Paul for another year. Maybe a million things.

So rather than move now, the Hornets are going to ride it out and see what the landscape looks like next fall. Then make their move.

Carmelo Anthony drama has owners thinking franchise tag

Dallas Mavericks v Denver Nuggets

What do NBA owners want out of the collective bargaining agreement? More money. Remember, it is always about the money.

Who generates that money? Don’t say “the players” because it’s much more narrow than that. While there are 12 to 15 guys on an NBA roster, only a couple of those players directly generate more income than they take in. There are only a handful of players who can sell tickets, who people buy the jerseys of, who people turn on their televisions to watch and who sponsors line up to be next to be associated with. Balk at how much money Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Amar’e Stoudemire make if you want, they generate far more money for the franchise than they are paid.

What owners really want is to be able to keep those guys.

And they are worried about that moreso in the face of the trend we are seeing with Carmelo Anthony — a guy with a year left on his deal who has told the team he is not coming back and is forcing their hand to trade him (or risk the consequences).

This has owners thinking more about really pushing for a “franchise tag” in the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement, according to a tweet from ESPN’s Marc Stein. It makes a lot of sense. Owners see Anthony, hear rumblings about Dwight Howard and Chris Paul, and they wonder about keeping their own stars.

The franchise tag would allow them to keep their best player and take the negotiations out of it. In the NFL system a franchise tag allows a team to tie an unrestricted free agent to them for a one-year deal worth 120 percent of what he made the year before or the average of the top five players at that position in the league, whichever is higher.

In the NBA, it would have allowed Cleveland to keep LeBron James for one more year. Same with Chris Bosh in Toronto. How long the team can keep slapping the tag on a guy depends on how the CBA is written.

The franchise tag is flat out un-American and the antithesis of an open capitalism — if you fulfill the terms of your contract to a team why should they be able to force you to stay? The NBA’s current system already gave teams advantages to sign their own players — they can offer larger raises and one more year than other teams. If a player is willing to take less money for better working conditions (or whatever his reason for leaving) why shouldn’t he be able to do what he wants?

The players’ union would fight a franchise tag. But this is a negotiation, they give in on the franchise tag and they get a concession — in this case a major concession — on something else.

A year ago the idea of a franchise tag seemed impossible in the NBA. With what has transpired around Carmelo Anthony, it seems much more likely now. But it’s not coming without a serious fight. Which is why this lockout could be a real mess.

Should the NBA adopt the NFL's franchise player tag?


Thumbnail image for bosh_wade_james.jpgLeBron James became an unrestricted free agent and left. Chris Bosh became an unrestricted free agent and left. Amare Stoudemire became an unrestricted free agent and left. Carlos Boozer became an unrestricted free agent and left.

The radical shifting of the NBA landscape has some in the league (and some fans) asking if that much movement is a good thing?

You can bet owners — particularly small market owners — will fight in the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement talks to limit that movement. They will say they need to be given the tools to keep players in the fold. They will argue that without them the NBA will become Major League Baseball, where some small market teams are perceived as farm teams for the Yankees and Red Sox.

NBA owners would love a more NFL-style system: A hard salary cap, and no guaranteed contracts (players get signing bonuses instead, something not really done in the NBA).

And there is the franchise tag.

That tag (and the start of NFL training camps) has people all over the NBA asking if it is a good fit in the NBA.

You can bet they think that in Cleveland and Toronto.

The franchise tag allows a team to tie an unrestricted free agent to them for one more year. An exclusive franchise tag takes away a player’s right to negotiate — he stays with his team on a one-year deal worth 120 percent of what he made the year before or the average of the top five players at that position in the league, whichever is higher. There is also the lesser-used non-exclusive tag, where players can negotiate with other teams but the “home” team can match, and if the player does leave his former team gets two picks as compensation.

In the NBA, it would have allowed Cleveland to keep LeBron James for one more year at a max deal. Same with Chris Bosh in Toronto. After that one-year deal, the team could renew the tag the next year, in practice locking a player with a team in a series of one-year deals.

The NBA’s current system already gave those teams advantages — they could offer larger raises and one more year than other teams — but it was not enough. Should teams be able to force a top player to stay and maybe not have that salary count against the cap?

How fair is that to the players? In the case of LeBron he actually took less than the maximum to move. Should a player who is willing to take less money to move be restricted from that movement? Is that fair? If you wanted out of your current job enough to take less to move to another company, should you be restricted from that? Is that fitting the American ideal?

CBS’s Ken Berger bounced the idea off a few people and got an interesting response.

“The league would love to have [a franchise tag] in place to maintain competitive balance,” said Gabe Feldman, director of the Sports Law Program at Tulane University. “The small-market owners would love it, but the big-market owners wouldn’t. It’s not just a struggle between the owners and the players. It’s a struggle between the owners and the other owners.”

The owners vs. owners issue comes up on another topic as well — revenue sharing. NFL owners share revenue from local television deals and the gate at arenas in a way NBA owners do not. National television revenue is split evenly in the NBA, but local revenue is not. So what the Knicks get from MSG or the Bulls get from a big market in Chicago is not shared with what the Grizzlies get out of small-market Memphis.

Another question: If you franchise tag a player, how many max deals should you be allowed to have? The Lakers have Kobe and Gasol basically at max deals, with Bynum not far behind (and a lot of good players making “middle class” money, something they can afford to do as a big market, high-revenue team, which smaller markets cannot). Every team that went deep in the playoffs was paying the luxury tax last year, it is not a coincidence.

The owners may want a franchise tag, but they need to get their own house in order, first.

And know this — while the NBA seems destined for a lockout as owners try to alter what they see as a player-friendly financial system, the NFL is headed for one as well as players try to change what is seen as an owner-friendly system.

There is no way the players are going to easily — or ever — accept an NFL like system. No matter what the owners want.