The system the league has presented would not work this way, according to sources. 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.

Teams already have to ability to keep their player by signing their own players to larger max contracts and having the ability to go over the cap to sign their own players. Why should the players have to suffer because a few stupid GMs, and we know who they are, can't read the market and decide to sign players to deals that are way above their value. Even If this system was in place last summer, I doubt that it would've kept Lebron in Cleveland.

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 years 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.

I don't have too much of a problem with this, but why should NBA players be punished by the moves made by a small group of stupid GMs. Look, we all know Curry's deal screwed us. But that had nothing to do with the agents. Isaiah was negotiating against himself. He could've put stipulations on the deal that required Curry to be in shape or have to play a number of games to receive his full contract for the year. But Zeke didn't and we were punished for it just like Atlanta should be punished for the Joe Johnson deal and Memphis should be punished for the Rudy Gay deal.

The system the league has presented would not work this way, according to sources. 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.

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 years 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.

Well, that doesn't seem like a significant benefit/concession now, does it?

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:the NFL Union decertified to cry foul against monopolistic hiring practices... the player's union should wipe their ass with this because it violates Federal laws, and I do not believe the NBA benefits from the same Federal Antitrust exemptions as the MLB (though I could be mistaken).

There are like a trillion different things in sports that violate federal salary and hiring laws. My understanding is that Congress a long time ago passed an exception for sports.

I certainly wouldn't consider myself an expert in this area. But, like I said, none of the four team sports benefit from the same exemptions as baseball. Like I said, one of the reasons the NFL player's union decertified was to saw for monopolistic hiring practices (please note: this applies to HIRING PRACTICES)

Over the next 25 years, the emergence of radio and television altered the means by which Major League Baseball (MLB) sold its "product" to customers, increasing questions as to whether the nature of the MLB's conduct should be considered both interstate and commerce. In the 1950s, the Supreme Court considered three important cases that brought further attention to the issue. The first, Toolson v. New York Yankees (1953), affirmed that baseball was indeed outside the purview of federal antitrust laws. Yet, in two subsequent cases, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal antitrust laws did indeed apply to boxing (United States v. International Boxing Club [1955]) and football (Radovich v. National Football League [1957]). These arguably conflicting decisions spurred the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly to hold hearings in 1958, further examining the application of federal antitrust laws to professional sports leagues as a whole.

In 1961, Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act, which allowed the nation's professional teams engaged in baseball, basketball, football, and hockey to join together and form single network agreements for national broadcasting rights for their respective leagues. Congress has continued to hold hearings on, and enact legislation affecting, the intersection of antitrust laws and professional sports.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/history/SportsAntitrust.cfm

Nalod wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Don't know if this has been posted yet:http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/05/11/nba-proposes-unique-franchise-tag-to-union/. If this report is true, I would fight NBA's proposal tooth and nail.

The system the league has presented would not work this way, according to sources. 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.

Teams already have to ability to keep their player by signing their own players to larger max contracts and having the ability to go over the cap to sign their own players. Why should the players have to suffer because a few stupid GMs, and we know who they are, can't read the market and decide to sign players to deals that are way above their value. Even If this system was in place last summer, I doubt that it would've kept Lebron in Cleveland.

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 years 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.

I don't have too much of a problem with this, but why should NBA players be punished by the moves made by a small group of stupid GMs. Look, we all know Curry's deal screwed us. But that had nothing to do with the agents. Isaiah was negotiating against himself. He could've put stipulations on the deal that required Curry to be in shape or have to play a number of games to receive his full contract for the year. But Zeke didn't and we were punished for it just like Atlanta should be punished for the Joe Johnson deal and Memphis should be punished for the Rudy Gay deal.

The words "suffer" and "Punished" are interesting choice.

A player loses value for other than injury or declined talent should not get paid. Then the franchise "suffers" and its fans. Eddy being a prime example.

Might a player whose value skyrockets have an opportunity to profit a the same time? NFL players when the teams want to hold them longer have been known to renegotiate a better contract.

So What Im saying is a guy like George Hill, or Landry should have better status sooner if all agree.

If the franchise can reduce its risk players should be at the same time have an opportunity to profit.

Sort of like Boozer did with clevelend but not screw them over as he did.

What I think is unfair is restricitng a player's movement. I'm all for contracts being more favorable to the consumer for the reasons you said. But, at the same time, I do think it is unfair to restrict mobility

Nalod wrote:Im looking at it like there are 450 NBA players. Tough gig if you can getit.

30 teams and each can "Tag" just one.

That's just 15% of the total.

ANd thats nto to say all would want to move.

I think really what the new CBA can do as has the old one was help the middle of the pack players. When 126Mil contracts were all the rage there was not much left over for veteran players who were still in their prime. These are the guys that carry the league and are the role players for the big money, big gate attractions that the "Stars".

So while a few players in Cleveland, MIlwaukee and a few less desireable places might have to suffer with max contracts tagged on them, its the middle player that Im more concerned getting value, and not bolting to Europe where a better pay day awaits.

From an owners perspcetive despite stupidity from time to time whena Shaq leaves, or Lebron the franchise value drops substantially. From a basketball standpoint a team can recover with having high draft picks and getting the next great player but it could be 1, 2 or 3 years until that happens or the player developes. From the owners perspective his product just dropped. The Star factor draw of a big name is huge business. In those 1,2,or 3 years your losiong revenue you can never get back. Its gone. Meanwhile your ratings dropped and that effects future local TV revenue.

Cleveland did very well this year almost in defience to Lebron. I'd be curious to see what happens in the future.

Im sympathetic to an owner who lays out $450mil to buy a team and has to service a huge debt. I think they are entitled to a reasonable profit and given the risk they take. Players have put their lives in their careers but not their money.

IN the end you do have stupid owners and stupid players. ITs silly either has to be protected from themselves. I think its just about spreading the risk. The superstar player who brings it does not to worry.

BIg players will still demand trades and perhaps that is the most fair of all. Players get to move as they wish and teams get reasonable value in return.

Like I said, we are talking about just 15% of the players who could potentially be "Tagged" in any year. From what I see the amount of money that one gets "Tagged" is not to suffer from.