earthmansurfer wrote:I don't think the Franchise Tag would stand in a court of law IF they included players whose deals were expiring in the first year of the "Tag" (e.g. Melo). There is generally a Grandfather clause in contracts. One can't really compare the Shack salary thing as it helped him. This Franchise Tag would piss a player off. I think the Franchise Tag could only logically be applied to new contracts signed.
Court of law wouldn't touch it as it would be a bargained-for agreement in the CBA. Can't contest it unless it's just an unconscionable term, which it isn't. Major league sports also tend to get very relaxed scrutiny when it comes to contract issues.
However, I think if the new CBA were to include a franchise tag, it would be for prospective FA's only, and not for Carmelo. Mainly for equity reasons. Consider this: If Carmelo is a FA, that means he exercised his option to forego $18M in guaranteed salary prior to June 30, solely to test out FA and (obviously) to become a Knick. For the NBA/owners to then retroactively apply the franchise tag to him, so Denver can say, "hey, sucks for you, but you can only sign with us now," would be ridiculously unfair for Melo -- and only one team would really be fighting for retroactive implementation (Denver). If there is going to be a franchise tag, it'll be to keep Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, etc. with their teams. Sure, the Player's Union would fight against that too, but they're going to have make some concessions in the upcoming CBA, and the truth is, a franchise tag only affects a small minority of the Union. Those superstar FA's may get boned (but if I understand NFL rules, stars tagged with the "franchise" label can also get paid more than they would otherwise, so there is a tradeoff to restricting player freedom)