What are the top 3 things you want to see in the next CBA?

[Seano]

YEAH! If only there was some system that allowed every team to have THEIR player be THEIR property! Its unbelievable that a player could ever have a conscious! The teams know whats best for them folk, just let them have their property and allow a team to protect their assets so the team can have everythang they there deserve!!! THEM PLAYERS RUN CRAZY!!!! THEY RUINING EVERYTHANG!

Oh no you di'int just go there, Miss Thang! :rap:

Sorry, couldn't resist. :devil: I have nothing useful to add to this thread, but it's a very good thread with a lot of interesting thoughts and ideas.

[Joker]

And you ignore the fact that none of the top ten QBs in the NFL have moved in any of their prime years except one. Brees, oh yes there is that guy who went to prison also. QBs do not stick with their teams for so long just because they want to. They do so because at the end of the day, a owner can and will slap a franchise tag on you if forced to do so.

Stop acting like LeBron, Bosh, Melo, and Deron are your run of the mill 2nd or 3rd team all-stars. They are the Tom Bradys of their previous teams man. Everyone one of them was hands down the biggest star and most important player on their previous teams. Just own up to it, the tag works with the NFLs most important stars. And guess what, most of them all play QB in case you do not follow the game that much.

Quit comparing Football to Basketball. In Football, all the teams are on TV. In Football, the parity is so much that a team usually is a QB away from being a very good team. In Basketball, you can have a superstar and still need a lot of other pieces. In Football, you can sign someone from the PS, UFL, or Canada and they produce like the starter and in some cases, much better. In the NBA, when does that ever happen? Two different sports man, two different sports. In the NBA, elite players are compared to greats by winning, stats are secondary. Peyton Manning is widely consider the best QB to play the game and guess what, he has less rings than Tom Brady and Big Ben. Trent Dilfer has more rings than Phillip Rivers and Dan Marino? Who's better. In the NBA, people don't even rate you if you don't go the the Finals ala Nique. As great as he was, he wasn't even 1st ballot HOF. Two different sports, their not comparable.

The tag really doesn't work in the NFL, it's just that players are expendable where they can get away with it and they rarely use it on the QB's who might the only valued commodity in the NFL. Peyton and Vick was only tagged because of the CBA. The other position players are expendable. Imagine if Dwight Howard held out. That would be the end of Orlando's season. In Football, that's not the case more than likely. Will the fans stop coming because of a major star players injury sans Atlanta and Vick like they do in the NBA. Usually not.

Edited March 8, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[Buzzard]

As I said, you have no interest in the players and to be honest, your far too irritating on this subject, to such a degree it's uncomfortable to read some on your post. So bias I don't think you can logically play the middle in this case. I don't care about the new CBA and I am just giving an opinion just based on what I know. The owners are lying right now, they are making money. Some teams aren't but in Basketball, that will happen due to fan support always being bad for bad or uninteresting teams. That's nothing new in professional sports. Anywoo, the franchise tag isn't happening. The NBA just isn't that type of league. The player union is smarter due to players within it being prepped up by the agents in terms of spending for the last three years. In fact, the agents are telling kids to go back to school who have eligibility if their status is boarder-line lottery. This battle is really the agents/players v. owners and the agents want their share too.

Most small market teams don't lose stars. Denver was a small exception to the rule. Melo wasn't that popular anyway before the trade. Lebron was different, Cleveland wasn't any good outside of Lebron. They were complementary players but as we all know, in the playoffs, everything is tighter and overall team and talent wins out. Lebron like Dwight really didn't have a shot. Cleveland had Lebron for 7 years and the best player that they could keep around him was Mo Williams. SMH. LOL, the dark ages, you have to be kidding me, the NBA is just gonna do what baseball doing. Market the large teams and great players while most casual fans which is majority of basketball fans will follow them. Most people don't give a damn about local team in NBA Basketball. That's just internet guys who are crying.

I am not going to lie, this will be a great playoffs this year in the East and West. I haven't said that in years. The Hawks suck but they always do. Most people around Atlanta aren't even Hawks fans. Hell they weren't even Falcons fans till Vick came. We can cry but the NBA is actually becoming better. NY is good, LA is good, Boston is good, Chicago is good, Orlando doesn't really matter, their like the Hawks unless the Hawks get a superstar and they treat him like Vick 2.0. OKC and SAS are good and they are small market teams. Miami is a tourist site and the Heat are a tourist dream team.

The NBA is doing fine. Better than ever especially that the Knicks are good again.

I do not understand your beef with me. The players are making millions and the parity sucks. I do want players to stay put, the stars in general. Why in the world you think that is unfair to a owner who has invested countless millions or fans who have been waiting on their team to draft a superstar for a decade or more is beyond me.

If the NFL can make a franchise tag work and it does work, franchise making QBs hardly ever move as a pure free agent until well in their 30s and even then the losing team sometimes gets compensated. There is no precedent to show that the NBA cannot make it work either. Its not like players are going to suffer and lose countless millions. Which I guess is your beef. Maybe instead of being a fan, you consider yourself the Sqawks version of a players union rep. My guess is you take that imaginary job way to seriously. LMAO.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

And you ignore the fact that none of the top ten QBs in the NFL have moved in any of their prime years except one. Brees, oh yes there is that guy who went to prison also. QBs do not stick with their teams for so long just because they want to. They do so because at the end of the day, a owner can and will slap a franchise tag on you if forced to do so.

Stop acting like LeBron, Bosh, Melo, and Deron are your run of the mill 2nd or 3rd team all-stars. They are the Tom Bradys of their previous teams man. Everyone one of them was hands down the biggest star and most important player on their previous teams. Just own up to it, the tag works with the NFLs most important stars. And guess what, most of them all play QB in case you do not follow the game that much.

You keep trying to make false equivalencies. And even then you are still completely wrong. It is amazing to me how many times you've been completely wrong and when I point it out you simply Ignore it. But hey, if you want to restrict this just to quarter backs for completely arbitrary reasons: of the 6 quarterbacks that played in the pro bowl this year, 3 are not with their original teams (Vick, Brees, Cassel). Of the 6 quarterbacks that played in last year's pro bowl, 3 are either with other teams now or were not with their original teams then (McNabb, Schaub, Young). In fact, talking just about quarterbacks is so insane because quarterbacks are rarely tagged. In any case, looking at the top 5 quarterbacks by yards this year: Brees, Schaub and Eli Manning are not with the teams that drafted them. Of the next 5, Carson Palmer just requested to be traded and Kyle Orton is not with the team that draft him. Of the next 10, 4 are not with the teams that drafted them (McNabb, Schaub, Vick, Cutler).

Other than this year when teams are trying to keep player's rights with the labor dispute, most of the top quarterbacks were NEVER franchise tagged, making your argument 100% irrelevant. Before this year, when teams are afraid to offer extensions without a CBA in place, Brady, Manning, Vick, Roethlisberger, Rivers, were never tagged. The only of the pro bowler quarterbacks to be tagged were Cassel, who was then traded, and Brees, who then left.

So again, your example is irrelevant and false.

Edited March 8, 2011 by dlpin

[Joker]

I do not understand your beef with me. The players are making millions and the parity sucks. I do want players to stay put, the stars in general. Why in the world you think that is unfair to a owner who has invested countless millions or fans who have been waiting on their team to draft a superstar for a decade or more is beyond me.

If the NFL can make a franchise tag work and it does work. Franchise making QBs hardly ever move as a pure free agent until well in their 30s and even then the losing team sometimes gets compensated. There is no precedent to show that the NBA cannot make it work either. Its not like players are going to suffer and lose countless millions. Which I guess is your beef. Maybe instead of being a fan, you consider yourself the Sqawks version of a players union rep. My guess is you take that imaginary job way to seriously. LMAO.

I don't beef on the internet. I don't even beef in real life.

We have a team in Atlanta who just kept their superstar for the most money in the league this off-season. We should be happy. Cleveland's superstar left and took less money, ours stayed and took more. Best believe we would have did this with or without your "proposed" tag. Milwaukee kept their superstar from going to Cleveland for more money, remember Michael Redd. I think we overstate things sometimes when emotions are involved.

I don't really care if you feel the need to use silly jokes. It's whatever man.

[Buzzard]

You keep trying to make false equivalencies. And even then you are still completely wrong. It is amazing to me how many times you've been completely wrong and when I point it out you simply Ignore it. But hey, if you want to restrict this just to quarter backs for completely arbitrary reasons: of the 6 quarterbacks that played in the pro bowl this year, 3 are not with their original teams (Vick, Brees, Cassel). Of the 6 quarterbacks that played in last year's pro bowl, 3 are either with other teams now or were not with their original teams then (McNabb, Schaub, Young). In fact, talking just about quarterbacks is so insane because quarterbacks are rarely tagged. In any case, looking at the top 5 quarterbacks by yards this year: Brees, Schaub and Eli Manning are not with the teams that drafted them. Of the next 5, Carson Palmer just requested to be traded and Kyle Orton is not with the team that draft him. Of the next 10, 4 are not with the teams that drafted them (McNabb, Schaub, Vick, Cutler).

Other than this year when teams are trying to keep player's rights with the labor dispute, most of the top quarterbacks were NEVER franchise tagged, making your argument 100% irrelevant. Before this year, when teams are afraid to offer extensions without a CBA in place, Brady, Manning, Brees, Vick, Roethlisberger, Rivers, were never tagged. The only of the pro bowler quarterbacks to be tagged was Cassel, who was then traded.

So again, your example is irrelevant and false.

And again you don't understand the point of having a franchise tag. It is the implied threat that gets a deal done when said team wants to keep said player. Once QB is locked up, then teams can and do use the tag on other position players as they see fit. And most teams do not like using it because it pays that player the average of the top five contracts at his respective position. If you do not think it works or will have zero effect, why are you so vehemently against it?

This is like a city ordinance gets passed that says you no longer have to use seat belts. You take the stance that you want to use a seat belt and the ordinance is not going to work. Its not against the law to use your seat belt, so what is your beef? Why do you care if there is a Franchise player designation if it is not going to change your NBA?

I don't beef on the internet. I don't even beef in real life.

We have a team in Atlanta who just kept their superstar for the most money in the league this off-season. We should be happy. Cleveland's superstar left and took less money, ours stayed and took more. Best believe we would have did this with or without your "proposed" tag. Milwaukee kept their superstar from going to Cleveland for more money, remember Michael Redd. I think we overstate things sometimes when emotions are involved.

I don't really care if you feel the need to use silly jokes. It's whatever man.

We were able to keep ours

Bucks kept theirs

Cavs lost theirs

Ok so whats your point? My emotions are not that tied up in this. I think the Cavs should have been able to keep theirs as long as they were willing to pay him fair market value. Nothing emotional or wrong with that IMO.

[dlpin]

And again you don't understand the point of having a franchise tag. It is the implied threat that gets a deal done when said team wants to keep said player. Once QB is locked up, then teams can and do use the tag on other position players as they see fit. And most teams do not like using it because it pays that player the average of the top five contracts at his respective position. If you do not think it works or will have zero effect, why are you so vehemently against it?

This is like a city ordinance gets passed that says you no longer have to use seat belts. You take the stance that you want to use a seat belt and the ordinance is not going to work. Its not against the law to use your seat belt, so what is your beef? Why do you care if there is a Franchise player designation if it is not going to change your NBA?

So even though most tagged players change teams, almost half of all the top quarterbacks change teams, and most of the players that never change teams were never tagged to begin with, there is somehow some magical connection that makes players stay with their clubs longer? I am sorry, but I am done with you. This has become a matter of faith, not logic. Every single point you've tried to make has been proven unequivocally false. The NFL uses franchise tags the same way the NBA uses bird rights: most of the time, it is to force a sign and trade. Players that want out in the NFL get out, regardless of franchise tag. See Matt Cassel, Jay Cutler, Eli Manning.

[Buzzard]

So even though most tagged players change teams, almost half of all the top quarterbacks change teams, and most of the players that never change teams were never tagged to begin with, there is somehow some magical connection that makes players stay with their clubs longer? I am sorry, but I am done with you. This has become a matter of faith, not logic. Every single point you've tried to make has been proven unequivocally false. The NFL uses franchise tags the same way the NBA uses bird rights: most of the time, it is to force a sign and trade. Players that want out in the NFL get out, regardless of franchise tag. See Matt Cassel, Jay Cutler, Eli Manning.

Matt Cassel, better believe New England did not want him not at that price

Jay Cutler Denver was done with him not the other way around

Eli was traded on draft day not a very good example of any type of use of the franchise tag

Here is the top 10 rated QBs in the NFL last season.

Tell me how many forced their teams to trade them. Keyword here is forced as in hold out ( Melo), publicly demanded a trade(Melo), spoke out on their dissatisfaction with said franchise ( Deron) or walked by their own choosing ( Amare, Bron, Bosh). How many changed teams because they wanted to? Schuab, Cassel, Vick never once requested a trade. They were moved because their team thought it was in their best interest for some really varied and extreme reasons.

1 Tom Brady NE QB 324 492 65.9 30.8 3,900 7.9 243.8 36 4 189 38.4 79T 53 9 25 111.0

2 Philip Rivers SD QB 357 541 66.0 33.8 4,710 8.7 294.4 30 13 234 43.3 59T 65 14 38 101.8

3 Aaron Rodgers GB QB 312 475 65.7 31.7 3,922 8.3 261.5 28 11 183 38.5 86T 54 10 31 101.2

4 Michael Vick PHI QB 233 372 62.6 31.0 3,018 8.1 251.5 21 6 131 35.2 91T 48 12 34 100.2

5 Ben Roethlisberger PIT QB 240 389 61.7 32.4 3,200 8.2 266.7 17 5 149 38.3 56T 52 8 32 97.0

6 Josh Freeman TB QB 291 474 61.4 29.6 3,451 7.3 215.7 25 6 166 35.0 64 48 10 28 95.9

7 Joe Flacco BAL QB 306 489 62.6 30.6 3,622 7.4 226.4 25 10 174 35.6 67 40 7 40 93.6

8 Matt Cassel KC QB 262 450 58.2 30.0 3,116 6.9 207.7 27 7 163 36.2 75T 40 4 26 93.0

9 Matt Schaub HOU QB 365 574 63.6 35.9 4,370 7.6 273.1 24 12 222 38.7 60 59 9 32 92.0

10 Peyton Manning IND QB 450 679 66.3 42.4 4,700 6.9 293.8 33 17 253 37.3 73T 43 9 16 91.9

Your boy Cutler is ranked 16th, Orton the guy they got in return is ranked 15th. That is called a trade, add in all those picks Denver got in return and its called a landslide win of a trade. Denver was done paying Cutler all that money, and if you look at his stats since the trade it is easy to see why.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzzard

[Joker]

And again you don't understand the point of having a franchise tag. It is the implied threat that gets a deal done when said team wants to keep said player. Once QB is locked up, then teams can and do use the tag on other position players as they see fit. And most teams do not like using it because it pays that player the average of the top five contracts at his respective position. If you do not think it works or will have zero effect, why are you so vehemently against it?

This is like a city ordinance gets passed that says you no longer have to use seat belts. You take the stance that you want to use a seat belt and the ordinance is not going to work. Its not against the law to use your seat belt, so what is your beef? Why do you care if there is a Franchise player designation if it is not going to change your NBA?

We were able to keep ours

Bucks kept theirs

Cavs lost theirs

Ok so whats your point? My emotions are not that tied up in this. I think the Cavs should have been able to keep theirs as long as they were willing to pay him fair market value. Nothing emotional or wrong with that IMO.

They had a chance like us. They failed. They had him for seven years in his OWN home state and they failed. They couldn't convince him they were trying to win. In fact ours was about to leave to till Atlanta offered him the max possible. Milwaukee did too. Cleveland just couldn't convinced theirs that the max possible was enough. They had a chance and fail. This isn't slavery, you can keep someone against their will when their contract runs out especially in a league where the players union is so much stronger by the commodity alone.

I see it from owners perceptive as well. While Cleveland lost, Miami won. Oh well. While Small City Tech lost their top employee, IBM just added another good employee. It's life, they had seven years man, seven years. OKC signed their too a max deal with no complaints. He has another star he's playing with named Russell Westbrook who is a tad better than Mo Williams. I laugh at people who truly believe this. Look at Dwight Howard's best teammate: Jason Richardson. The only good team I remember J Rich on was Phoenix which he was their 3rd best player and in 3rd as in Josh Smith to Marvin not Josh Smith to Al Horford type 3rd. Jameer Nelson, lol. Come on, you can't expect to win with clowns. You can't. In the 70's you had the great Moses Malone playing for Houston which was one of the truly best NBA seasons ever by a player than next to Philly. Players move along. Always have. Michael Jordan would have left Chicago if NY offered more money which wasn't possible and he could have left if his best player kept being the great Orlando Woolridge. Even Tim Duncan looked at leaving and stayed because of a great organization in San Antonio.

You really think Cleveland deserves Lebron? They canceled Boozer rights to sign him for cheap and failed. They fired a good coach in Paul Silas for who, a far worst coach than Woody, Mike Brown. When they had good picks, they drafted Sasha Paliovic and Luke Jackson. The year before Lebron, Dejuan Wagner. They just landed Lebron and now Lebron should be stuck in slavery because of an inept ownership group. Their not even as good of an organization as Atlanta who might suck at getting personnel but they value the hell of their players, during and after their careers.

Some of you guys should hear yourself speak. I wish your 1st law firm you worked at sucked and kept you there because they can franchise your tender at the firm. So what you want to create your own firm? Socialism rules from now on! LOL, really guys, really.

Edited March 8, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[dlpin]

Matt Cassel, better believe New England did not want him not at that price

Jay Cutler Denver was done with him not the other way around

Eli was traded on draft day not a very good example of any type of use of the franchise tag

Here is the top 10 rated QBs in the NFL last season.

Tell me how many forced their teams to trade them. Keyword here is forced as in hold out ( Melo), publicly demanded a trade(Melo), spoke out on their dissatisfaction with said franchise ( Deron) or walked by their own choosing ( Amare, Bron, Bosh). How many changed teams because they wanted to? Schuab, Cassel, Vick never once requested a trade. They were moved because their team thought it was in their best interest for some really varied and extreme reasons.

1 Tom Brady NE QB 324 492 65.9 30.8 3,900 7.9 243.8 36 4 189 38.4 79T 53 9 25 111.0

2 Philip Rivers SD QB 357 541 66.0 33.8 4,710 8.7 294.4 30 13 234 43.3 59T 65 14 38 101.8

3 Aaron Rodgers GB QB 312 475 65.7 31.7 3,922 8.3 261.5 28 11 183 38.5 86T 54 10 31 101.2

4 Michael Vick PHI QB 233 372 62.6 31.0 3,018 8.1 251.5 21 6 131 35.2 91T 48 12 34 100.2

5 Ben Roethlisberger PIT QB 240 389 61.7 32.4 3,200 8.2 266.7 17 5 149 38.3 56T 52 8 32 97.0

6 Josh Freeman TB QB 291 474 61.4 29.6 3,451 7.3 215.7 25 6 166 35.0 64 48 10 28 95.9

7 Joe Flacco BAL QB 306 489 62.6 30.6 3,622 7.4 226.4 25 10 174 35.6 67 40 7 40 93.6

8 Matt Cassel KC QB 262 450 58.2 30.0 3,116 6.9 207.7 27 7 163 36.2 75T 40 4 26 93.0

9 Matt Schaub HOU QB 365 574 63.6 35.9 4,370 7.6 273.1 24 12 222 38.7 60 59 9 32 92.0

10 Peyton Manning IND QB 450 679 66.3 42.4 4,700 6.9 293.8 33 17 253 37.3 73T 43 9 16 91.9

Your boy Cutler is ranked 16th, Orton the guy they got in return is ranked 15th. That is called a trade, add in all those picks Denver got in return and its called a landslide win of a trade. Denver was done paying Cutler all that money, and if you look at his stats since the trade it is easy to see why.

How many of these were franchise tagged before this year? How many of these were even a free agent? And how would a franchise tag stop players from requesting a trade?

That's what I thought. The lack of logic is still baffling.

Edited March 8, 2011 by dlpin

[Buzzard]

They had a chance like us. They failed. They had him for seven years in his OWN home state and they failed. They couldn't convince him they were trying to win. In fact ours was about to leave to till Atlanta offered him the max possible. Milwaukee did too. Cleveland just couldn't convinced theirs that the max possible was enough. They had a chance and fail. This isn't slavery, you can keep someone against their will when their contract runs out especially in a league where the players union is so much stronger by the commodity alone.

You really think Cleveland deserves Lebron? They canceled Boozer rights to sign him for cheap and failed. They fired a good coach in Paul Silas for who, a far worst coach than Woody, Mike Brown. When they had good picks, they drafted Sasha Paliovic and Luke Jackson. The year before Lebron, Dejuan Wagner. They just landed Lebron and now Lebron should be stuck in slavery because of an inept ownership group. Their not even as good of an organization as Atlanta who might suck at getting personnel but they value the hell of their players, during and after their careers.

Some of you guys should hear yourself speak. I wish your 1st law firm you worked at sucked and kept you there because they can franchise your tender at the firm. So what you want to create your own firm? Socialism rules from now on! LOL, really guys, really.

Cleveland canceled Boozers right so they could sign him long term sooner. Not any cheaper. If they extended him he would have been playing at a rookie 2nd round pick level for another one to two seasons. Instead they wanted to get him locked up long term sooner, on a higher paying contract, and keep their young superstar core of Bron and Boozer together.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzzard

[Buzzard]

How many of these were franchise tagged before this year? How many of these were even a free agent? And how would a franchise tag stop players from requesting a trade?

That's what I thought. The lack of logic is still baffling.

You think players and teams in the NBA somehow will not be effected by a franchise tag yet you are against it. Now that is baffling.

[Joker]

Cleveland canceled Boozers right so they could sign him long term sooner. Not any cheaper. If they extended him he would have been playing at a rookie 2nd round pick level for another one to two seasons. Instead they wanted to get him locked up long term sooner, on a higher paying contract, and keep their young superstar core of Bron and Boozer together.

cheaper. No one breaks a contract unless they know he's going to be worth a lot more in the market in the future. They failed and that's all that matters. Why didn't Atlanta break Horford contract last year to sign him to a long deal. Because they knew his value high and will be high when it expires. The Cavs were trying to be cheap and failed. Some of the worst ineptitude I seen in sports by an organization. Jon Koncak contract wasn't that bad in comparison to this.

[dlpin]

You think players and teams in the NBA somehow will not be effected by a franchise tag yet you are against it. Now that is baffling.

No, it is actually really simple and it is amazing that you can't seem to understand basic logic. If something will not have the desired effect, why fight for it, negotiate over it, or waste time on it?

[Buzzard]

So even though most tagged players change teams, almost half of all the top quarterbacks change teams, and most of the players that never change teams were never tagged to begin with, there is somehow some magical connection that makes players stay with their clubs longer? I am sorry, but I am done with you. This has become a matter of faith, not logic. Every single point you've tried to make has been proven unequivocally false. The NFL uses franchise tags the same way the NBA uses bird rights: most of the time, it is to force a sign and trade. Players that want out in the NFL get out, regardless of franchise tag. See Matt Cassel, Jay Cutler, Eli Manning.

I think I proved this wrong. Of the top ten only only Cassel, Shuab, and Vick changed teams. And it had nothing to do with their choices and everything to do with the teams choices. Now you can say that has nothing to do with the franchise tag all you want, but the fact remains it is a fact concerning their lack of movement. And the fact remains that of the top five scorers currently in the NBA, three forced trades or walked outright this season alone.

You say a franchise tag would not have stopped that, I differ big time. Especially in regards to Amare, Melo, and Bron. Deron being traded by all accounts shocked him as much as it did most NBA fans. But the bottom line is he was on a pretty good team and he still complained. Now he is in lotteryville probably wishing he would have kept his mouth shut.

[Buzzard]

No, it is actually really simple and it is amazing that you can't seem to understand basic logic. If something will not have the desired effect, why fight for it, negotiate over it, or waste time on it?

lol, If a owner can sign his star player instead of losing him how will that not be a desired effect. You kill me with that complete lack of logic. Yes it is a choice. And it will not be a black and white one in every instance. But to think it would not put a damper on players holding teams ransom is foolish. Do you not think for one minute that a tag placed on Melo, Bron, Bosh, or Amare would have at least made a trade more palatable for the losing team? If not you are missing the whole point.

In the NFL, players of that caliber hardly ever walk for nothing. Even McNabb, whom you cited as a top QB, brought some return when he was traded. And McNabb was ranked 24th out of the 31 who qulaified with enough passes thrown. Not anywhere near a top QB anymore.

[dlpin]

lol, If a owner can sign his star player instead of losing him how will that not be a desired effect. You kill me with that complete lack of logic. Yes it is a choice. And it will not be a black and white one in every instance. But to think it would not put a damper on players holding teams ransom is foolish. Do you not think for one minute that a tag placed on Melo, Bron, Bosh, or Amare would have at least made a trade more palatable for the losing team? If not you are missing the whole point.

In the NFL, players of that caliber hardly ever walk for nothing. Even McNabb, whom you cited as a top QB, brought some return when he was traded. And McNabb was ranked 24th out of the 31 who qulaified with enough passes thrown. Not anywhere near a top QB anymore.

Which of these teams, other than phoenix who was just too cheap, was left with nothing?

Denver received decent role players and multiple picks. Utah received a top PF prospect, a good pg and multiple picks. the Cavs received 2 first round picks, 2 second round picks, and a trade exception that would have allowed them to get anyone with a contract of 14 million or less. Toronto got their own pick back (a lottery pick) and a 16 million trade exception they could have used to get any player they wanted. And if Phoenix got nothing, it's because they were stupid, because they could have even gotten KG for Amare not too long ago.

And if McNabb wasn't a top quarterback this year, last year he was a pro bowler. But once again you keep moving the goal posts to hide the fact that you completely ignore NFL history.

[dlpin]

I think I proved this wrong. Of the top ten only only Cassel, Shuab, and Vick changed teams. And it had nothing to do with their choices and everything to do with the teams choices. Now you can say that has nothing to do with the franchise tag all you want, but the fact remains it is a fact concerning their lack of movement. And the fact remains that of the top five scorers currently in the NBA, three forced trades or walked outright this season alone.

You say a franchise tag would not have stopped that, I differ big time. Especially in regards to Amare, Melo, and Bron. Deron being traded by all accounts shocked him as much as it did most NBA fans. But the bottom line is he was on a pretty good team and he still complained. Now he is in lotteryville probably wishing he would have kept his mouth shut.

"Proved wrong" only if you pick and choose how to rank players. If you rank them by yards the situation differs. If you rank them by pro bowl selections the situation differs. If you rank them by all pro selection, the situation differs. And that is all while having to make arbitrary rules as to what counts. EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THE PLAYERS WHO STAYED WITH THEIR TEAMS WERE TAGGED BEFORE THIS YEAR.

Of the top quarterbacks in the league, the only 2 to be tagged before this year were Brees and Cassel. Where are they now, huh?

Of course, all of this while making the completely arbitrary choice that only quarterbacks count, even as the franchise tag is rarely, if ever, used on quarter backs. 18 players in the 1st or 2nd all pro teams this year are on teams that are different from where they started.

So none of the top quarterbacks tagged stayed with their teams (Cassel and Brees). Of the 12 players tagged in 2009, 7 were gone within 1 year. And yet the franchise tag is the miracle that will stop players from leaving. Even though it didn't do anything like that in the NFL. Even though being under contract has NEVER stopped an NBA player from requesting and getting a trade. In 3 decades of free agency you've had 4 or 5 big time players move during free agency (Shaq, Amare, Lebron, Bosh, Grant Hill). Of these, 3 ended up being sign and trades. All others were traded while still under contract. And even before free agency even existed some of the best players of all time demanded trades (Wilt, Kareem, Jerry Lucas).

But, as I said, I am done. You are arguing faith, not logic. And you've been proven wrong too many times to count.

[Buzzard]

Which of these teams, other than phoenix who was just too cheap, was left with nothing?

Denver received decent role players and multiple picks. Utah received a top PF prospect, a good pg and multiple picks. the Cavs received 2 first round picks, 2 second round picks, and a trade exception that would have allowed them to get anyone with a contract of 14 million or less. Toronto got their own pick back (a lottery pick) and a 16 million trade exception they could have used to get any player they wanted. And if Phoenix got nothing, it's because they were stupid, because they could have even gotten KG for Amare not too long ago.

And if McNabb wasn't a top quarterback this year, last year he was a pro bowler. But once again you keep moving the goal posts to hide the fact that you completely ignore NFL history.

Here is the goal post. Bron and Bosh picked their team. Cleveland and Toronto could only get back what Miami offered. Melo same deal with NY. That is what I mean by holding teams hostage. A franchise tag gives the owner another option. That option is we will sign you and possibly trade you but it will be at what we consider to be the best deal for our franchise. Why does that work? Simple, the next team that has him can tag him also.

And that is the big picture whether you agree or not. Amare was unrestricted and disgruntled, he did not care nor want the Suns to get anything in return. No such thing could happen with a franchise tag available, unless the Suns chose not to place a tag on him. Utah cut their losses and sent Deron packing for the best deal they could find before he could do a similar thing to them.

And again I cannot over emphasize how much a threat a one year deal is to most super stars. They detest them and it is the last thing any agent with half a brain would want to settle for. It is the biggest FA deterrent the NFL has. You could call it their only one.

I think there will be a lot of changes next season, once and if we have one. Honestly after all the Melo, Bron, and Bosh soap operas this season, I am looking forward to them.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

Here is the goal post. Bron and Bosh picked their team. Cleveland and Toronto could only get back what Miami offered. Melo same deal with NY. That is what I mean by holding teams hostage. A franchise tag gives the owner another option. That option is we will sign you and possibly trade you but it will be at what we consider to be the best deal for our franchise. Why does that work? Simple, the next team that has him can tag him also.

And that is the big picture whether you agree or not. Amare was unrestricted and disgruntled, he did not care nor want the Suns to get anything in return. No such thing could happen with a franchise tag available, unless the Suns chose not to place a tag on him. Utah cut their losses and sent Deron packing for the best deal they could find before he could do a similar thing to them.

And again I cannot over emphasize how much a threat a one year deal is to most super stars. They detest them and it is the last thing any agent with half a brain would want to settle for. It is the biggest FA deterrent the NFL has. You could call it their only one.

I think there will be a lot of changes next season, once and if we have one. Honestly after all the Melo, Bron, and Bosh soap operas this season, I am looking forward to them.

A one year deal is a threat for players? That is why every single one of the players you mentioned rejected extensions to play out the last year of their contracts?

But hey, let's go one step further. Let's do away with free agency at all. No player ever becomes an unrestricted free agent again, and even without a contract his rights still belong to the owner, who has the right of first refusal. How about that? It would be like a permanent franchise tag for every player ever. After all, before free agency there was no way players kept teams hostage and moved around, huh?

Except that this is wrong. Before there ever was free agency (unrestricted free agency only came in the 80s), before there ever was the possibility of moving teams without permission, players still demanded and got trades. Kareem demanded to be traded to the lakers. Wilt demanded to be traded to Philadelphia and then to the Lakers. Jerry Lucas demanded to be traded to the knicks. Moses Malone asked to be traded to philadelphia. Julius Erving held out and forced a trade to philadelphia. Rick Barry sat out a year to go to the oakland oaks. Bob McAdoo demanded a trade and ended up in NY. I can go on. We are talking about players who had a combined 14 MVP awards demanding trades in their primes.

What you ignore is that even under contract there is nothing that forces a player to play or to care. You clearly don't know your NBA or NFL history, as I have shown again and again.