A More Ideal NBA CBA, Part II - Franchise Players and Free Agency Movement

FRANCHISE PLAYERS AND FREE AGENCY MOVEMENT

BIRD RIGHTS
Currently, the NBA tries to keep especially its higher performing players in their current teams through Larry Bird rights. In short, Larry Bird rights allow a team to go above the salary cap if a player is re-signing with his current team. Bird rights also allow a player to sign with his current team for a maximum length of time for one more season than he would if he went to a new team. A player right now can sign a new contract for a maximum of five years, but if he stays with his current team he can sign for six years.


SIGN AND TRADES....
A loop hole to sign free agents with new teams for six years rather than five years is what's known as sign and trade, where a player intends on signing a contract with a new team, but the new team asks the old team to sign the player to a large deal and the new team will trade back other players/picks/etc. Notable sign and trades include:

1. Kwame Brown signed a lucrative 3 year $25 million contract with the Washington Wizards and was traded to the Los Angeles Lakers for Chucky Atkins and Caron Butler in 2005.

2. LeBron James signed a 6 year, $110 million contract with the Cleveland Cavaliers and was traded to the Miami Heat for two Heat first round picks, the first pick must be used by 2013 and the last by 2017; a 2012 second round pick the Heat received from the Hornets; another 2nd round pick the Heat originally got from OKC; and a trade exception for about $14.5 million which must be used by July 2011.

Sometimes, a sign and trade could work out for both teams. In scenario 1, Brown was traded to another team which was in need of a physical center to fill Shaq's shoes. The Lakers interchanged Brown and their 2005 first round pick, Andrew Bynum often to see which player would end up the best. Brown didn't pan out as well as Bynum, and the Lakers were able to move him to Memphis and acquire Pau Gasol in a future trade. In addition, the contract gave Brown a nice payday, but for the Lakers it wasn't a crippling deal either. For the Wizards, they removed a young player who wasn't working out for them while acquiring another promising young talent to help fill in the void of Larry Hughes. Other times, the sign and trades could shaft a team or possibly both like in scenario 2. The Cavaliers lost a star player for assets that will most likely not equal the value and star power that James gave them. The Heat right now do get one of the best players in the NBA, and perhaps they may win a championship or more, maybe even this season. But if James failed to deliver or got injured (god forbid), then Miami would have to rebuild, and they would not have access to those picks they had before the trade for LeBron.

FRANCHISE TAG
The closest thing we have to a franchise tag in the NBA is Bird Rights. However, the Franchise tag can be an effective tool in keeping a team competitive and perhaps protecting the franchise. Prime example is LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers. With his departure through the sign and trade, the Cavaliers not only lost their franchise player, but also about a quarter of the team's value according to Forbes. While I don't want to restrict free agency, losing a player can have disastrous consequences to a team, and Cleveland is a poster child for the case for it.

The leagues that use a franchise tag would be the NFL, where one player gets the tag, and in exchange gets a one year guaranteed contract for the full amount (NFL contracts tend to be very laden with many performance incentives and are usually not worth as much as what we hear on the news). The other notable league is the WNBA, where a player is given the franchise tag (their CBA calls such a player a "core" player) where the player can't be an unrestricted FA, but she is given a one year contract for the maximum salary given her experience in the WNBA.

MY TAKE ON BIRD RIGHTS, SIGN AND TRADES, AND A FRANCHISE TAG
With Bird rights, with a hard cap, it's obvious the team can't keep a player and go over the cap for him. However, if a player wanted to sign for the maximum amount of years, he should get an extra year. I'd keep the maximum contract length at five years if a FA signs with a new team, and six years if a FA signs with his current team.

To me I see no real point for a sign and trade, so I say that it should be eradicated. If a player's intends on signing with another team anyway, then that player needs to just sign with that team.

I think a franchise tag is a good idea to protect the teams to prevent a LeBron or Chris Bosh situation and it gives them a chance to retool the team toward contention. The player will be well compensated in return since he can't exercise his FA rights. For the players I want to put this rule as well. No player can receive a franchise tag more than two years in a row. Second, how about salary amounts?

I propose that the player should receive one of the following:

If the player has less than five years of NBA experience, he should receive a one year contract worth the greater of:

• 150% of the salary he received last season.
  
• Maximum salary allowed under the new CBA given player's experience.
  

If the player has been in the league more than five years, he would receive a one year contract worth the lesser of those same two things. The reason why is because of maximum contract amounts which I'll hit in a later section and that is the root issue with what's hurting NBA teams.

Franchise tag should only exist if it means an automatic max salary. Other than that, no.

Other than that...what you wrote means nothing to me because I already disagree with the hard cap.

Yo Adrien! wrote:

Franchise tag should only exist if it means an automatic max salary. Other than that, no.

Other than that...what you wrote means nothing to me because I already disagree with the hard cap.

Sounds fair, we can agree to disagree on the cap. Revenue sharing is also something I'm going to hit too....

You did a really good job with the structure I think, but it leads to TOO MUCH PARODY. More parody (at least in terms of ability to spend) might be good, but limiting a team from spending would just make most teams average and a few teams bad. We wouldn't have teams that are the "elite" of the NBA. You wouldn't be able to keep cores of 3 stars, even if you drafted them all yourself. You'd run out of money and they'd go elsewhere to make more money and player a larger role. This wouldn't even be by choice for that player, it would be necessary or they would be required to take a lot less money. With increased revenue sharing, that huge spending advantage of playing in a larger market (more profit leads to willing to spend more on players) would be negated and money would still be coming back to the smaller market teams. Just really need to make sure that money goes towards signing players rather than into the owners pocket, which is happening in baseball (some cases, not all) right now.

Yo Adrien! wrote:

You did a really good job with the structure I think, but it leads to TOO MUCH PARODY. More parody (at least in terms of ability to spend) might be good, but limiting a team from spending would just make most teams average and a few teams bad. We wouldn't have teams that are the "elite" of the NBA. You wouldn't be able to keep cores of 3 stars, even if you drafted them all yourself. You'd run out of money and they'd go elsewhere to make more money and player a larger role. This wouldn't even be by choice for that player, it would be necessary or they would be required to take a lot less money. With increased revenue sharing, that huge spending advantage of playing in a larger market (more profit leads to willing to spend more on players) would be negated and money would still be coming back to the smaller market teams. Just really need to make sure that money goes towards signing players rather than into the owners pocket, which is happening in baseball (some cases, not all) right now.

I love parodies (particularly Weird Al), but I'm not sure that applies here...you mean too much parity, right?

Also, can someone fill me in on what exactly the revenue sharing option entails?

a franchise tag is dumb in my opinion. If a player wanted to stay, he would sign an extension. If you tag him, you'll keep him for another season and watch him leave a year later.

So if tags were around last summer, the cavs would have helf on to Bron. then this summer, LBJ would have left anyway. So what's the point of tagging him?

Bulls N' Bears wrote:

a franchise tag is dumb in my opinion. If a player wanted to stay, he would sign an extension. If you tag him, you'll keep him for another season and watch him leave a year later.

So if tags were around last summer, the cavs would have helf on to Bron. then this summer, LBJ would have left anyway. So what's the point of tagging him?

Well, situations change from year to year. The Cavs could hold on to LeBron for the 2011-2012 season as well with a franchise tag with this scenario.

If a tag were in effect for the 2010 Free Agent Season,

1. LeBron would have been tagged, and he would have stayed there. Chris Bosh also would have likely been tagged and would have stayed in Toronto.

2. Not so sure if Phoenix was gonna try to tag Amare or if the Jazz would have tagged Boozer.

3. Miami would tag Dwyane. He did "flirt" with the Bulls during free agency, though it was a smoke screen for LeBron and Chris' departures to Miami which were likely pre-determined, though it can never be proven.

The 2011 season wouldn't necessarily mean that LeBron and Chris would've went to Miami or New York Knicks or the New York Nets. You never know what the injury bug could do, and some teams may just not pan out as well.