Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 at 12:55 pm  |  21 responses

A Franchise Tag in the NBA

Evaluating the possibility of the NBA incorporating the NFL’s franchise tag.

by Kyle Stack / @KyleStack

During a time in which the NBA is facing uncertainty in how its economic structure will proceed, it might pay off to look at other sports leagues for inspiration. Or it might not. It depends through which prism one is looking: whether the League benefits from the players holding the power they currently enjoy or the owners retaining it.

One inclusion in the NBA’s new Collective Bargaining Agreement — which can become official as soon as July 1, 2011 after the current CBA expires June 30 — that can help sway power to one side or another is what’s known as a franchise tag. It’s a team option signed into the NFL’s current CBA that permits each team to choose one free agent per offseason whom it would like to “franchise.” Here’s how it works:

– Every offseason before free agency, each team can assign the franchise tag to one player from its crop of restricted and NBA/unrestricted free agents. The tag forms the basis for a one-year contract, with the player able to become an unrestricted free agent once the ensuing contract has been completed. (A team can’t “franchise” the same player for more than two consecutive seasons.)

– If the team decides to apply the tag to a player, it has to decide if it’ll make it of the exclusive or non-exclusive variety. Exclusive means the team has to pay the greatest of the three following scenarios: 1) a minimum offer of the average of the top-five salaries at the player’s position for the current year as of April 15; 2) 120 percent of the player’s salary from the previous year; or 3) the average of the top five salaries at the player’s position as of the end of the previous season. And that player can’t negotiate a contract with any other team.

A non-exclusive tag eliminates the first pay option of those three and holds in play 120 percent of the previous year’s salary or the average of the top five salaries at the player’s position from the prior season, whichever is greater. Plus, that player has the freedom to negotiate a deal with any other team.

– If another team agrees to a contract with that “franchised” player, then the player’s original team receives two first-round draft picks if it decides not to match the new team’s offer.

– Finally, a player has the option to sign a multi-year deal with his current club until July 22 of the offseason in which he is “franchised.” After July 22, any contract signed by that player can be for only one year. He must sit out the season if he opts not to put his name on a contract by November 16.

If your head is spinning, think of it this way. If an NFL team has a free agent whom they don’t feel confident they can re-sign to a long-term deal, they hold the card of applying the franchise tag and either retaining the player’s services for another year — albeit at a high price — or receiving two first rounders, depending on how the scenario develops.

Given the power exerted by NBA players during this summer’s free agency period, and the power plays Chris Paul and Carmelo Anthony have attempted on their current teams, the franchise tag would seem to be an appealing option for owners if they want to keep a star player from leaving via free agency. One former general manager agrees.

“The franchise tag would be a huge hit for the owners,” said Steve Kerr, who returned to TNT’s broadcast booth as its lead game analyst after three years as general manager of the Phoenix Suns. “One of the biggest issues they’re trying to accomplish with this next CBA is cutting down the length of guaranteed contracts and getting rid of dead money — when a guy signs a $100 million deal and he gets injured.”

Kerr explained during a phone conversation that the franchise tag represents a way for teams to ward off a player’s free agency. Now, if the franchise tag as it exists in the NFL were applied to the NBA, any “franchised” free agent who was given non-exclusive status would still be able to shop his services around the League — it’s just that the signing team would have to send back two first rounders to the player’s original team. (It’s possible trade compensation could change if the NBA installed the tag into its CBA.) But Kerr’s point is correct in that the basis of a franchise tag is to restrict a player’s freedom.

For Gabe Feldman, director of the Sports Law Program at Tulane University, a franchise tag in the NBA would represent a team’s increased leverage versus a player demanding a trade.

“That might make it easer for teams to say ‘you can’t force our hand in the short run because we have a year or two to work out a trade,’” Feldman said in a phone interview.

With the Denver Nuggets’ hand being forced by Anthony, they would likely welcome the ability to assign him with a franchise tag next offseason. That would show inquiring teams that they wouldn’t be forced into agreeing to a deal that they wouldn’t value as much had they been given more time to search for an ideal trade.

The ability for teams to gain leverage in those situations can’t be underestimated. Larry Coon, an NBA salary cap expert who runs the website CBAFAQ.com, said that while the Nuggets still control the Anthony situation to a degree, they don’t hold much leverage.

“Under a normal situation, if a player has one more year left to become a free agent and he wants to go, he can hold a team hostage,” Coon said during a phone conversation.

The NBA probably doesn’t want too many more of its star players demanding trades considering Anthony and Paul’s reported recent trade demands come on the heels of Kobe Bryant demanding a trade from the Los Angeles Lakers in 2007. That’s an undesirable proposition for a league which still has image problems. Yet the players would have a reasonable argument against a franchise tag. Take Anthony’s possible scenario, for instance. Imagine if the NBA adopted the franchise tag in its NFL form and put it into effect beginning next offseason. Furthermore, pretend Anthony wouldn’t sign a contract extension between now and then.

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , , , ,

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    As always, Kyle, very insightful stuff. Great read!

  • The Philosopher

    Great piece.

  • Jer Boi

    Great article really cleared things up.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    I would support the franchise tag for one year, but not for two consecutive seasons. (Like it matters what I think.)
    I think the whole “dead money” argument is a little shady, mainly because most teams have injury insurance which allows them to avoid having to pay contracts on players who get seriously injured, which means they never actually have to pay out those huge clunker contracts.
    The biggest problem is players underperforming for their contracts, or having their performance price them out of re-signing with their current team. Teams are using the “dead money” argument as a smokescreen to protect them from their own failures.

  • JTaylor21

    Franchise Tag for the NBA is a really, really, really BAD idea. It would be restrictive to player movements and a determent to the free agency process. Of course the owners love this idea because it put even MORE power in their greedy hands and takes away one of the few advantages that players have over teams.

  • IAMORANGE4EVER

    No to the franchise tag. If a franchise truly wants to keep their franchise players, then do whatever it takes to keep them – at least Cleveland tried with LeBron, but can you say Denver did all they could to keep Carmelo? No way…they are the same franchise that gave away Camby for the right to swap second round picks, and some trade exceptions they ended up letting expire…the same franchise that refused to part with Linas Kleiza for Ron Artest, only to watch that asset go overseas and then eventually end up on the Toronto Raptors. Bottom line, don’t cut/shed salary to avoid luxury tax (Denver) and then cry when you’re franchise player wants to join another franchise that is serious about WINNING.

  • IAMORANGE4EVER

    *YOUR franchise player

  • IAMORANGE4EVER

    @JTaylor21: +1

  • http://twitter.com/HarryByrdMan44 LA Huey

    @IAMORANGE, Wow…I hate you for finally saying something with which I agree.
    btw, good stuff, Mr Stack

  • Pingback: A Franchise Tag in the NBA | International Sports

  • MikeC.

    I kind of agree with a franchise tag. Not in the same way it’s done in the NFL, but almost like protection during an expansion draft. The league could keep the same restricted FA rules it has now when players come to the end of their rookie contracts. That system seems to be working fine. Then when they come to the end of their next contract, they could be franchised for a year at a hefty raise if they don’t sign a long-term extension. That gives the player a fat bump in pay for a year while giving the team a chance to trade him if he truly doesn’t want to re-sign. Then at the end of that ‘franchised’ year, the player is totally unrestricted to leave as they are now. Sort of like what NY did with David Lee last season, but official instead of a good-graces type of deal. If players, agents and management can keep things all business and keep hurt feelings out of the boardroom, it would work out best for all parties financially and for chemistry.

  • ifjnedicbefiov

    They should only do this if they make major CBA changes like no lux tax , hardcap and low salary. I think should only do this if theres a hard cap.

  • total scrotal implosion

    Bad idea for the nba. I forgot about how close nuggs were to getting ron. I bet celts would have liked that.

  • Zeiram

    I understand the discussion about this topic. Yeah players should have the freedom to go where they want. But at the same time small market teams have to be protected because not everyone has the quiet personality of TD or Durant.

    Here are three ways to achieve this which could get approval by the players:

    1. The non-bird tag_
    Teams can tag one player per season. That players loses his bird rights when he is traded. No restrictions on how often you can tag a player (no two consecutive years max limit). This is basically just an incentive to stop players from demanding trades. Instead they can just leave via free-agency. Teams would still get compensated (because a sign-and-trade is best for the FA) but didn´t have to worry for trade demands that much. The only exepction would be players who just hate their team that damn much but you would trade these players anyway(see Fernandez,Rudy).

    2. The restricted free agency option:
    Restricted Free Agency is a good tool to achieve the goals of the “franchise tag” but forcing it on players is a no go. So how about RFA as an add-on option for contracts. Say if a player agrees to adding a RFA option to his contract he is eligible to a yearly bonus of up to 5% of his annual salary that does not count against the cap.

    This would be an enticing option for players (more money) and at the same time keeps them from making trade demands.

    3. Money compensation:
    Franchise-tag in compensation only so let´s just say we take the non-exclusive route. A team can tag a player and if that player is signed by another team in the offseason that team has to compensate the original team. I would not give picks (because there are so few of them and they are to valuable) but a monetary sum kind of like a remuneration for training the player. This would help teams who give playing time to young players and see them leave as soon as they have increased their value.

    I agree that the Bird Rule is mostly fine but the problem is with players making trade demands. They do this exactly because of the bird rule. Or else they would just leave in FA. So actually I have to say LBJs departure would be more acceptable than Carmelo´s if he really forced them to a trade.

  • IAMORANGE4EVER

    If by chance there is some sort of franchise tag in the next CBA, I’ll tell you right now, there isn’t a SNOWBALLS chance in HELL that the Nuggets would then be able to immediately apply it to Carmelo Anthony should he choose unrestricted free agency next summer after completing 8 seasons in the league. Denver is basically faced with a couple of choices in their current situation: trade Carmelo to a team he’d like to spend the 2nd half of his career with, or take the mega cap space, blow the team up, and start rebuilding.

  • MikeC.

    @Zeiram – You make some excellent points on the financial compensation, however there’s one hole in your logic. It’s a big hole named Donald Sterling. That guy would gladly trade every player on his roster for cash when they become eligible for larger extensions. He’d just wait for players to come to the end of their rookie contracts, then trade them for cash and draft more cheap rookies. If you can find a way to get Sterling out of the league, then I’m 100% with you. I love the idea of adding the restricted tag to extensions in exchange for a higher salary. Players give up some of their freedom for more financial security. Teams get to hold their players a little tighter, but pay for it. If players demand a trade during their contract, they forfeit the portion of their salary that was inflated due to accepting the restricted tag. Things are shaping up nicely on this forum. After a couple days of brainstorming like this, maybe we’ll all get to hammer out the new CBA and we can avoid a boring lockout.

  • http://www.shawnkemp.com Masr

    No to the franchise tag.

  • http://www.slamonline.com Nima Zarrabi

    Excellent read. Very detailed and great interviews.

  • hammer

    I have never liked the franchise tag. Put a franchise tag on a player and they r bound n some cases 2 b discontent and can reach a point 2 being a distraction 4 the team as we have seen n the nfl. Like start demanding trades and not giving a 100 percent committment 2 the team. As much as I luv the nba,I have 2 say that the nba has the most prima donnas out of all sports leagues. This franchising a player would only make matters worse

  • Shem

    No to the franchise tag. Has anyone ever thought why BIG NAMES IN THE NFL like Darrell Revis, Vincent Jackson, Marcus McNeil, Chris Johnson are all holding out right now? The way the NFL operates is ridiculous. The owners have POWER in the NFL and that’s exactly why so many players are unhappy with their contracts and hold out. I’m glad that superstars in the NBA have more power in the NBA have authority. Come October, I get to watch Carmelo, LeBron, Bosh, Amar’e play prior to the NFL where arguably the best cornerback (Revis) and CJ2K clearly the best player in the NFL right now are sitting at home mopping about their contracts.

  • Shem

    Sorry for the typo ^

Advertisement
Counterkicks