Is it me or do you guys think the NBA has to in the next CBA institute either a Franchise Tag (NFL) or a Draft Tender attachment (MLB/NHL/NFL) for star players to stay with small market teams. These guys keep jumping ship (Lebron/KD/Hayward) and their previous teams are left with nothing after developing these star players. In the NFL star players don't leave unless they are traded or if they get signed in FA they usually have a first round tender to them. In Basbeall star players have 1st round picks attached to them. Angels got Trout w/yankees pick from Tex Signing, Yankees got Judge after losing Swisher to Indians. This at least compensates teams after losing their best players.
SEMI OT: NBA Free Agency
- Thread starter Woody522
- Start date
No, I think this has added excitement to this time of year, and has clearly upstaged baseball, and has become similar to NFL draft and free agency has in the spring where it is news-worthy.
The NBA tried to address this by allowing the home team the opportunity to pay more--a lot more--and add an extra year. But what appears to have happened, and NBA didn't see this coming, is that players are taking fewer years on the contract, which negates what the home team can offer that others cannot--by doing this, it allows the player to become a FA sooner, with more years of service, allowing them a bigger payday...that is how Hayward went to Boston...the dollars/year the first 3-4 years are essentially same, the home team was able to offer more and a 5th year...this system rewards teams who are fiscally responsible...and have cap space...I don't like the franchise tag in NFL...
The NBA tried to address this by allowing the home team the opportunity to pay more--a lot more--and add an extra year. But what appears to have happened, and NBA didn't see this coming, is that players are taking fewer years on the contract, which negates what the home team can offer that others cannot--by doing this, it allows the player to become a FA sooner, with more years of service, allowing them a bigger payday...that is how Hayward went to Boston...the dollars/year the first 3-4 years are essentially same, the home team was able to offer more and a 5th year...this system rewards teams who are fiscally responsible...and have cap space...I don't like the franchise tag in NFL...
I agree with Rat.
First, I don't think any union wants to operate like the NFLPA, who has negotiated the worst deal for its members of any sports league. Franchise tag really only benefits the team and I see no reason to put this in place.
My only are players taking less years, those players you mentioned have taken far less money in some years than their market values to play for teams with winning cultures. No incentives could keep a Durant situation from happening.
I'd also add that the three players you mentioned were on their first teams for 7,7 and 9 years respectively. Shouldn't the burden be on the team to create an environment around the player in that time span?
First, I don't think any union wants to operate like the NFLPA, who has negotiated the worst deal for its members of any sports league. Franchise tag really only benefits the team and I see no reason to put this in place.
My only are players taking less years, those players you mentioned have taken far less money in some years than their market values to play for teams with winning cultures. No incentives could keep a Durant situation from happening.
I'd also add that the three players you mentioned were on their first teams for 7,7 and 9 years respectively. Shouldn't the burden be on the team to create an environment around the player in that time span?
You're taking this topic directly from Bobby Marks from the AM Sportscenter this morning. And no, neither of those are feasible, and the players associations wouldn't sign off on either.
The NBA first needs to get rid of the current loosly termed *structure* they have in place. Trade exceptions, tax payer exemption slots, mid-level exceptions etc. It's all leading to a balloon effect where every team must be in the luxury tax to survive and creates this buyout structure we see now in the league.
They had a "poison" pill of sorts in that teams like Utah could offer their guys like $30-40M more over the course of a lifetime. Still, with the ability to win championships and make more money on outside endorsements and stuff, it seems like it doesn't work as well as they had hoped.
My biggest issue is that I think all teams should have a hard cap. Sure, there's a massive tax (Nick Young cost the Warriors like $5.1M in salary and another $13M or so in luxury tax). But it'd make things more interesting if everybody played by the same hardships.
Your other issue is the benefit of Florida and Texas and states like that that have no income tax.
My biggest issue is that I think all teams should have a hard cap. Sure, there's a massive tax (Nick Young cost the Warriors like $5.1M in salary and another $13M or so in luxury tax). But it'd make things more interesting if everybody played by the same hardships.
Your other issue is the benefit of Florida and Texas and states like that that have no income tax.
I think that's one of the biggest things that tick me off. While I'm in no way thinking they should be able to cut any contract they want like the NFL (or should they?), I hate the fact that teams like the Knicks would even think of essentially paying Carmelo his whole salary to go away.
If I were in charge, the biggest changes I would make would be to get rid of the max contract and have a hard salary cap.
If I'm a Top Five or Top Ten player, teams would be willing to pay almost anything to get me on board, leaving less cap space to fill out a roster or attract another high priced player. Some guys might be willing to give up something to create a super-team, but if the Sacramento Kings offered $65 million per year to a guy like Durant and the Warriors could 'only' offer $35 million as Curry is already making a fortune, the incentive structure will almost certainly see the star players more spread out.
If I'm a Top Five or Top Ten player, teams would be willing to pay almost anything to get me on board, leaving less cap space to fill out a roster or attract another high priced player. Some guys might be willing to give up something to create a super-team, but if the Sacramento Kings offered $65 million per year to a guy like Durant and the Warriors could 'only' offer $35 million as Curry is already making a fortune, the incentive structure will almost certainly see the star players more spread out.
I too would get rid of the max contract, but my fix is a little different. Keep the current cap structure, however, your top paid player would only hit a certain max % against the cap. For example, let's say the cap is 100M and the max player can get 35% of that. To re-sign LeBron the Cavs would pay his actual worth of 70M, but his cap hit would only be 35M. The trickle down effect of this would hopefully be that while the Cavs theoretically would have cap room for Kevin Love/Kyrie and other mid tier players, those players could earn a significant amount more money if they think they could go elsewhere and be the "Superstar" slot player and earn over 35M. This could spread the talent around more evenly at the top. Also, the Cavs in my example may not want to pay all those guys.
The one issue is this would reduce the luxury tax, meaning smaller franchises could lose the benefit of revenue sharing. I don't think this is a big problem. But as I mentioned above, at the end of the day, players may sacrifice money to win. KD passed on 20M, but would he sacrifice 50M if another team offered him a significant salary above the threshold?
The present system is fine as is.
It's leading to a lot of player movement, excitement during a period that in other sports usually doesn't have any, and harshly penalizes teams that make bad decisions (See: Portland, New York).
It's leading to a lot of player movement, excitement during a period that in other sports usually doesn't have any, and harshly penalizes teams that make bad decisions (See: Portland, New York).
There's nothing wrong with NBA free agency. The problem is with most NBA front offices. "Superteams" aren't the problem. The inability to identify and develop talent is. For all the complaining about the Warriors, most of their best players were drafted. Quite a few teams had the chance to draft Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green.
Similar threads
My case for a 24 team playoff
- anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
- The Round Table 2
