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

[spotatl]

The Cavs were trying to be cheap and failed

You really don't remember the situation. Boozer was locked into an exceptionally team friendly contract and if the Cavs wanted to put the screws to him they had all the power. They could have made him play another season at barely more than the minimum and then he would have been a restricted free agent at the end. Boozer and his agent went to the Cavs and said that if they declined the team option that Boozer would gladly sign a long term deal for the mid level exception (techincally early bird rights) because the cavs would be doing them such a favor. Boozer then completely stuck the cavs in the back as they declined the team option and he signed with another team that the Cavs were not able to match because they didn't have the caproom to exceed the early bird offer. The Cavs were trying to do Boozer a favor and he completely screwed them.

[Joker]

You really don't remember the situation. Boozer was locked into an exceptionally team friendly contract and if the Cavs wanted to put the screws to him they had all the power. They could have made him play another season at barely more than the minimum and then he would have been a restricted free agent at the end. Boozer and his agent went to the Cavs and said that if they declined the team option that Boozer would gladly sign a long term deal for the mid level exception (techincally early bird rights) because the cavs would be doing them such a favor. Boozer then completely stuck the cavs in the back as they declined the team option and he signed with another team that the Cavs were not able to match because they didn't have the caproom to exceed the early bird offer. The Cavs were trying to do Boozer a favor and he completely screwed them.

I would never hire some of you guys in a business setting. Some of you can't see the picture that Cleveland was trying to sign him for cheap and failed. You even said it. Read between the lines. He signed elsewhere for a much larger price because teams other knew his value. Cleveland was trying to pull one over and failed. Bad business 101. Know your value the and the value of others. Waiving bird rights should only happen for players like Joe Alexander and that O'Bryant kid from Bradley U.

Edited March 8, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[AHF]

You really don't remember the situation. Boozer was locked into an exceptionally team friendly contract and if the Cavs wanted to put the screws to him they had all the power. They could have made him play another season at barely more than the minimum and then he would have been a restricted free agent at the end. Boozer and his agent went to the Cavs and said that if they declined the team option that Boozer would gladly sign a long term deal for the mid level exception (techincally early bird rights) because the cavs would be doing them such a favor. Boozer then completely stuck the cavs in the back as they declined the team option and he signed with another team that the Cavs were not able to match because they didn't have the caproom to exceed the early bird offer. The Cavs were trying to do Boozer a favor and he completely screwed them.

The failure with Boozer was a reflection of his ethics - not of Cleveland's "cheapness." Boozer said he would take more money up front for less on the back end but was just a bold faced liar they should not have trusted. If he had any ethics, both Boozer and the team would have gotten something they didn't have out of that deal. By the way, Cleveland gave Boozer every penny they could give him under the CBA. They were not trying to save money over what they could have offered him. Their dilemma was that they could keep him for $695,000 or sign him to a long-term 6 year, $40M deal. Boozer asked them to sign him to the long-term deal ostensibly for the higher immediate salary and security. Cleveland waived their right to keep him for $695,000 and gave him the maximum they could offer him. He then stabbed them in the back because he is a liar.

And on Boozer, everyone realizes that after the Cavs declined their option to keep him for $695,000 and offered him the max he had agreed to take that his agents dropped him as a client and declined their $2 million cut of his new contract because they thought what he did was so unethical and outrageous, right?

On the subject of the thread just let me add:

(1) I get the concern raised by several posters as far as a franchise player not having the right to change teams with a franchise tag. As a fan, I take that over the impact on teams that end up without a real hope when their superstar walks. LA, for example, will always be able to get their next superstar under the current system. They can draft him and keep him (Magic, Kobe, West, etc.) or they can acquire him because people will always want to go to the glitz and glamour of the LA Lakers (Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, etc.) Memphis will never have one unless they draft him and then they are at risk to lose him unless he is a low maintenance guy like Karl Malone. In my view, someone who is being paid above the maximum salary and therefore more than every other player in the league doesn't deserve the label of "slave" any more than you would call Peyton Manning a slave. If the max salary is $20M and the franchise tag costs $21M, that doesn't quite rank among the great tragedies of life to have to play in Cleveland like Manning plays in Indianapolis.

(2) (a) It is asinine to think the franchise tag wouldn't impact whether and how players moved. Lebron would still be in Cleveland if there was a franchise tag. That is just a fact. Bosh would either be in Toronto or Toronto would have received actual value for trading him if they thought he wasn't going to give enough of an effort there. Right now teams that have a star like Deron Williams or Camelo Anthony have two choices: (a) wait and see if they can resign him like Toronto did with Bosh or (b) deal him while they still have some leverage and can get something in return. Cleveland and Toronto tried their best to resign their stars. Denver and Utah learned their lesson and cut their losses. From my perspective as a fan, this is not good for the NBA product.

(b) If we accept the argument some have made that players will always be able to force trades, then all the franchise tag would do is ensure the team gets value for letting the player go. How is that an unreasonable outcome? Would it have been a terrible thing if Miami had to give up value for Chris Bosh? Really?

Edited March 8, 2011 by AHF

[spotatl]

Personally I'd support a franchise tag that would give a team like Denver or Cleveland leverage for 1 extra season. But if the PLayer really were willing to take a 1 year contract for say 10% more than the max contract then they should be an UFA the following season. SImilar to how it works when players come off of the rookie scale contracts- players will only do that if they BADLY want out of a situation. But lets say a player is stuck on the Clippers for an owner he hates- there should be a way for him to move on at some point if he wants out.

[AHF]

Personally I'd support a franchise tag that would give a team like Denver or Cleveland leverage for 1 extra season. But if the PLayer really were willing to take a 1 year contract for say 10% more than the max contract then they should be an UFA the following season. SImilar to how it works when players come off of the rookie scale contracts- players will only do that if they BADLY want out of a situation. But lets say a player is stuck on the Clippers for an owner he hates- there should be a way for him to move on at some point if he wants out.

I get that argument. I just weigh the damage to the product as a fan as being more of a problem for me than someone being "stuck" for a team they'd rather leave at $21M/year (or whatever the premium rate would be). On Donald Sterling, the good news is that he's never been willing to pay a premium in the past despite a multitude of top draft picks so I wouldn't bet the house on him doing that in the future! The few guys the Clippers signed to big contracts have all ended up getting shipped out of town way before the ends of those deals.

[Joker]

The failure with Boozer was a reflection of his ethics - not of Cleveland's "cheapness." Boozer said he would take more money up front for less on the back end but was just a bold faced liar they should not have trusted. If he had any ethics, both Boozer and the team would have gotten something they didn't have out of that deal. By the way, Cleveland gave Boozer every penny they could give him under the CBA. They were not trying to save money over what they could have offered him. Their dilemma was that they could keep him for $695,000 or sign him to a long-term 6 year, $40M deal. Boozer asked them to sign him to the long-term deal ostensibly for the higher immediate salary and security. Cleveland waived their right to keep him for $695,000 and gave him the maximum they could offer him. He then stabbed them in the back because he is a liar.

On the subject of the thread just let me add:

(1) I get the concern raised by several posters as far as a franchise player not having the right to change teams with a franchise tag. As a fan, I take that over the impact on teams that end up without a real hope when their superstar walks. LA, for example, will always be able to get their next superstar under the current system. They can draft him and keep him (Magic, Kobe, West, etc.) or they can acquire him because people will always want to go to the glitz and glamour of the LA Lakers (Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, etc.) Memphis will never have one unless they draft him and then they are at risk to lose him unless he is a low maintenance guy like Karl Malone. In my view, someone who is being paid above the maximum salary and therefore more than every other player in the league doesn't deserve the label of "slave" any more than you would call Peyton Manning a slave. If the max salary is $20M and the franchise tag costs $21M, that doesn't quite rank among the great tragedies of life to have to play in Cleveland like Manning plays in Indianapolis.

(2) (a) It is asinine to think the franchise tag wouldn't impact whether and how players moved. Lebron would still be in Cleveland if there was a franchise tag. That is just a fact. Bosh would either be in Toronto or Toronto would have received actual value for trading him if they thought he wasn't going to give enough of an effort there. Right now teams that have a star like Deron Williams or Camelo Anthony have two choices: (a) wait and see if they can resign him like Toronto did with Bosh or (b) deal him while they still have some leverage and can get something in return. Cleveland and Toronto tried their best to resign their stars. Denver and Utah learned their lesson and cut their losses. From my perspective as a fan, this is not good for the NBA product.

(b) If we accept the argument some have made that players will always be able to force trades, then all the franchise tag would do is ensure the team gets value for letting the player go. How is that an unreasonable outcome? Would it have been a terrible thing if Miami had to give up value for Chris Bosh? Really?

Your speaking for your interest, I am sure NBA players would agree with you. :scratchhead: It's very unreasonable, your just looking at it from one way, even some owners know that that's unreasonable and the player will just quit on your franchise while it makes you look even more stupid. Look at Deron. Look at Dwight at techs. Look at all the players who happy and unhappy. Just look around. This league is very telling and always has been.

The glaring error wasn't Boozer's ethics which was bad but the business sense of the Cavs. You never cut a valuable player or employee rights. I talked to a couple NBA guys and some players and they laugh at Cleveland's stupidity. They would still have Lebron today if they just waited a year, signed Boozer to a legit 65 to 70 million dollar max deal which is what his value would have reached a year later. Lebron really didn't want to leave but he knew that Cleveland has reached it's tipping point. Orlando is feeling the same thing with Dwight Howard.

The whole low maintenance crap is really bogus. Most players who have talent around them stay. I can only think of players who wanted bigger cities who really left for a worst situation are Shaq, Kareem, and a few others.

Peyton is only being tagged because of the new CBA and even then, he's going to sue if he doesn't get a piece of the TV revenue. Even then, because of replaceable, the NFL player rep will never have the power that the NBA players rep has. The amount of seriously stupid players in the NBA has dropped a lot due to NBA players being prepped up since 8th grade in some cases for lifestyle differences in AAU.

Edited March 8, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[AHF]

Your speaking for your interest, I am sure NBA players would agree with you. :scratchhead: It's very unreasonable, your just looking at it from one way, even some owners know that that's unreasonable and the player will just quit on your franchise while it makes you look even more stupid. Look at Deron. Look at Dwight at techs. Look at all the players who happy and unhappy. Just look around. This league is very telling and always has been.

Of course NBA players don't agree with me. They don't agree with maximum salaries. The don't agree with restricted free agency. They don't agree with anything that limits their flexibility or earnings potential and yet those things are part of every league's rules.

The glaring error wasn't Boozer's ethics which was bad but the business sense of the Cavs. You never cut a valuable player or employee rights. I talked to a couple NBA guys and some players and they laugh at Cleveland's stupidity. They would still have Lebron today if they just waited a year, signed Boozer to a legit 65 to 70 million dollar max deal which is what his value would have reached a year later. Lebron really didn't want to leave but he knew that Cleveland has reached it's tipping point. Orlando is feeling the same thing with Dwight Howard.

That is just wrong. Cleveland could not have signed Boozer to a max deal the next offseason because they didn't have the ability to do that under the CBA. If they had that right, they would have paid him nothing and then offered him the max. Their dilemma was that they had him over a barrel for that season but after that they wouldn't be able to match offers on the open market.

IF HE WAS ETHICAL - WHY DID HIS AGENTS FIRE HIM AND DECLINE THEIR COMMISSION?

Agents aren't known for doing that.

The whole low maintenance crap is really bogus. Most players who have talent around them stay. I can only think of players who wanted bigger cities who really left for a worst situation are Shaq, Kareem, and a few others.

If Karl Malone left Utah for LA in his prime, he would not have been downgrading. But it takes a special personality in the NBA to want to stick with a rebuilding program in a non-marquee market. Michael Jordan could have left Chicago for LA and it would have been to join a team with more talent. Looking at the Knicks, there is nothing about the Knicks that was a better situation than Phoenix or Denver. In fact, New York was a notably worse team than either franchise. It is solely for the idea of bringing stars together in a big market that NY has gotten Amare and Carmelo following their toast with Paul.

Peyton is only being tagged because of the new CBA and even then, he's going to sue if he doesn't get a piece of the TV revenue. Even then, because of replaceable, the NFL player rep will never have the power that the NBA players rep has. The amount of seriously stupid players in the NBA has dropped a lot due to NBA players being prepped up since 8th grade in some cases for lifestyle differences in AAU.

I'm not sure what that means. Manning, Brady, and other top franchise players in the NFL know they are staying with their team and negotiate their long-term agreements accordingly. He will be the highest paid player in the NFL when he signs his new contract in Indy just like when he was franchised in 2004 and then signed the richest contract in the league. If he doesn't agree to a new deal he will be paid $23 million for the upcoming season. I don't see him as a "slave," though I am sure he doesn't agree with the franchise tag or any other restraint on his movement or salary.

[dlpin]

Personally I'd support a franchise tag that would give a team like Denver or Cleveland leverage for 1 extra season. But if the PLayer really were willing to take a 1 year contract for say 10% more than the max contract then they should be an UFA the following season. SImilar to how it works when players come off of the rookie scale contracts- players will only do that if they BADLY want out of a situation. But lets say a player is stuck on the Clippers for an owner he hates- there should be a way for him to move on at some point if he wants out.

Teams already have leverage because of bird rights, something that is a lot more powerful than the franchise tag. Because of bird rights teams almost always prefer to do a sign and trade.

On top of that, I can't believe people are still arguing the franchise tag thing. If a lack of free agency didn't keep players with their original teams in the nba, a franchise tag would?

That is the thing that is amazing to me, that people don't get. A player in the NBA has a lot more power, because they have a lot more influence, than in the NFL. If Lebron sat out demanding a trade, do you think he would lose any value? Abdul Jabbar demanded a trade after he had won 3 of 5 mvp awards, and then won two more as soon as he was traded. Lebron and Bosh already were forced to stay with their teams for 7 years to become free agents. If that wasn't a possibility, if there was no way they could ever become unrestricted free agents, I guarantee they would have demanded a trade a long time ago.

[dlpin]

Of course NBA players don't agree with me. They don't agree with maximum salaries. The don't agree with restricted free agency. They don't agree with anything that limits their flexibility or earnings potential and yet those things are part of every league's rules.

That is just wrong. Cleveland could not have signed Boozer to a max deal the next offseason because they didn't have the ability to do that under the CBA. If they had that right, they would have paid him nothing and then offered him the max. Their dilemma was that they had him over a barrel for that season but after that they wouldn't be able to match offers on the open market.

IF HE WAS ETHICAL - WHY DID HIS AGENTS FIRE HIM AND DECLINE THEIR COMMISSION?

Agents aren't known for doing that.

If Karl Malone left Utah for LA in his prime, he would not have been downgrading. But it takes a special personality in the NBA to want to stick with a rebuilding program in a non-marquee market. Michael Jordan could have left Chicago for LA and it would have been to join a team with more talent. Looking at the Knicks, there is nothing about the Knicks that was a better situation than Phoenix or Denver. In fact, New York was a notably worse team than either franchise. It is solely for the idea of bringing stars together in a big market that NY has gotten Amare and Carmelo following their toast with Paul.

I'm not sure what that means. Manning, Brady, and other top franchise players in the NFL know they are staying with their team and negotiate their long-term agreements accordingly. He will be the highest paid player in the NFL when he signs his new contract in Indy just like when he was franchised in 2004 and then signed the richest contract in the league. If he doesn't agree to a new deal he will be paid $23 million for the upcoming season. I don't see him as a "slave," though I am sure he doesn't agree with the franchise tag or any other restraint on his movement or salary.

The reasons a few of the star players haven't left their teams in the NFL is because in the NFL there is no maximum salary. Eliminating the maximum salary would do more to keep players with their current teams than a franchise tag ever would. You can bet your life that if the Bulls didn't pay MJ 10 million more than the competition would he would have left. Just like you can bet your life that if Lebron knew he was stuck forever with that cavs team with no shot of ever becoming a free agent he would have demanded a trade a long time ago.

[AHF]

Teams already have leverage because of bird rights, something that is a lot more powerful than the franchise tag. Because of bird rights teams almost always prefer to do a sign and trade.

On top of that, I can't believe people are still arguing the franchise tag thing. If a lack of free agency didn't keep players with their original teams in the nba, a franchise tag would?

That is the thing that is amazing to me, that people don't get. A player in the NBA has a lot more power, because they have a lot more influence, than in the NFL. If Lebron sat out demanding a trade, do you think he would lose any value? Abdul Jabbar demanded a trade after he had won 3 of 5 mvp awards, and then won two more as soon as he was traded. Lebron and Bosh already were forced to stay with their teams for 7 years to become free agents. If that wasn't a possibility, if there was no way they could ever become unrestricted free agents, I guarantee they would have demanded a trade a long time ago.

So your argument is that a franchise tag won't stop teams like Toronto and Cleveland from having to deal their stars, it will only ensure they have the leverage on other teams to ensure they get meaningful value back and that this would be a bad thing.

Is that right?

[spotatl]

dlpin- bird rights matter for the extra year but the difference between threatening to take 1 year contract vs a 5 year contract is trivial compared to the difference between taking a 5 year contract vs a 6 year contract.

If the Nuggets had the threat of keeping Carmelo an extra year then the negotiations would have been completely different.

Lebron was forced to stay with their team for 5 seasons in order to become a free agent when they were drafted. They choose to extend once because the idea of playing for a 1 year contract was so unappealing. I'd like to put the same sitaution in for the NBA. I do think it would give players the option to force themselves out if they wanted to badly enough while still giving their current teams a little more leverage. And thats all I am looking for with a franchise tag- a little more leverage for their current teams.

Edited March 8, 2011 by spotatl

[spotatl]

That is just wrong. Cleveland could not have signed Boozer to a max deal the next offseason because they didn't have the ability to do that under the CBA. If they had that right, they would have paid him nothing and then offered him the max. Their dilemma was that they had him over a barrel for that season but after that they wouldn't be able to match offers on the open market

Actually AHF- you have this wrong. Cleveland absolutely could have kept Boozer for one more season and then had full bird rights on him and could have maxed him out if they wanted to when Boozer was a restricted free agent. Boozer was totally screwed in this deal because he wanted a real contract. Boozer BEGGED the cavs to decline his team option so he could sign for the MLE with them then completely backstabbed them.

Edited March 8, 2011 by spotatl

[sturt]

(I love this thread... I just wish I had time to read it all... :biggrin: )

[AHF]

Actually AHF- you have this wrong. Cleveland absolutely could have kept Boozer for one more season and then had full bird rights on him and could have maxed him out if they wanted to when Boozer was an restricted free agent. Boozer was totally screwed in this deal because he wanted a real contract. Boozer BEGGED the cavs to decline his team option so he could sign for the MLE with them.

You are right. My bad. They would have been able to do a full maximum contract after that season since he would have been with them for 3 years at that point and they would have had bird rights.

However, he would have been an unrestricted free agent at that point in time. He was only a restricted FA when the Cavs declined their $695,000 option on him and then they offered him their maximum offer under the CBA.

You are also right that Boozer begged them to do this so he would not have to play for $695,000 without any guaranteed future income. He would have ended up with very little if he had a serious injury that season. Then he was such liar that his own agents fired him and declined their commission in an unheard of effort to maintain their credibility with teams. It is because Boozer was so unethical that SFX felt the need to fire him and decline their $2,000,000 cut of his contract with Utah.

If SFX felt that Boozer's behavior was in any way defensible, they would have taken their $2,000,000.

Edited March 8, 2011 by AHF

[spotatl]

However, he would have been an unrestricted free agent at that point in time. He was only a restricted FA when the Cavs declined their $695,000 option on him and then they offered him their maximum offer under the CBA.

No- thats not correct either. Boozer would have been a restricted free agent because he was still in his first 3 seasons in the league. The only players in their first 3 seasons in the league who are unrestricted free agents are first round picks that had their third or fourth season team options declined.

Boozer was totally screwed. The cavs had him locked in for a third season at an absurdly low rate for his production and then after that he was still going to be only a restricted free agent. The cavs had all the cards- they let him out of his contract because he told the cavs he would resign and then completely backstabbed them.

[spotatl]

I had a long post written about the things I wanted to see but evidently I never hit send or wasn't logged when I typed it.

The major thing I want to see is an escalating luxury tax based on how many years a team has been a tax payer. The current tax is 100%. You pay a dollar for every dollar over the tax you are. I'd say that under my new system the first season you are over the tax it wouldn't be painful. Maybe a 50% tax. That way if a team had a big salary they were waiting to clear off of the books that it wouldn't be too painful to pay the tax one season waiting for the player to come off. But if the team stayed over the tax line the next season it would be a 125% tax. The next season it would be a 175% tax. The next season a 225% tax. Pick the numbers however you want- basically it would let teams extend out their run a couple extra seasons but eventually that team would collapse under its own weight and eventually the team would have to blow it up and shed salary to get back under the tax line.

I'd like to see a team once every 3 seasons be able to buy out a player and have him completely come off of the team's cap. (the player still gets the money owed to him though)

I'd like to see the rules on signing bonuses be relaxed. Currently players would be stupid to sign an non-guaranteed contract but if he were given a big enough signing bonus then maybe he would. It would give smart teams more flexibility.

My personal pet peeve is that teams can give non-guaranteed qualifying offers to retain the rights of some players. To me if you want to keep a players rights so they can't go to a different team then you should have to guarantee their contract for the season. Otherwise they shoudl be free to sign with the team they think gives them the best chance to stick.

Edited March 8, 2011 by spotatl

[AHF]

No- thats not correct either. Boozer would have been a restricted free agent because he was still in his first 3 seasons in the league. The only players in their first 3 seasons in the league who are unrestricted free agents are first round picks that had their third or fourth season team options declined.

Boozer was totally screwed. The cavs had him locked in for a third season at an absurdly low rate for his production and then after that he was still going to be only a restricted free agent. The cavs had all the cards- they let him out of his contract because he told the cavs he would resign and then completely backstabbed them.

I am seeing different things on that:

If the Cavs had picked up Boozer's option, he would have been an unrestricted free agent after next season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nba&id=1832906

After the 2003-04 NBA season, in which Boozer averaged 15.5 points and 11.4 rebounds per game, the Cavaliers had the option of allowing him to become a restricted free agent, or keeping him under contract for one more year at a $695,000 salary, which was clearly much lower than he would earn on the free agent market. If the Cavaliers chose that latter option, Boozer would have been able to enter the free agent market unrestricted after that one year expired.

http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=Carlos_Boozer

[dlpin]

So your argument is that a franchise tag won't stop teams like Toronto and Cleveland from having to deal their stars, it will only ensure they have the leverage on other teams to ensure they get meaningful value back and that this would be a bad thing.

Is that right?

No, my argument is that a franchise tag limited to one year would have only delayed the inevitable for one year, therefore not changing anything. And if the franchise tag could be applied multiple times, essentially doing away with free agency for superstars, they would demand trades sooner rather than waiting for the full 7 years. Right now, if a player wants to leave, they have two choices. Stay with a team for 5 years, playing the 5th year for a lot less than what they could, or signing the shortest possible extension of 7 years. If you make it so that they never can become a free agent, they will demand a trade sooner. If they know a team has the power to keep them one year longer, they will just sign a shorter contract. You all assume that the players wouldn't change anything in reaction to the creation of the franchise tag. That they wouldn't sign shorter contracts, or demand trades sooner.

And the bucks, warriors, etc. got nothing of real value for multiple time mvps.

dlpin- bird rights matter for the extra year but the difference between threatening to take 1 year contract vs a 5 year contract is trivial compared to the difference between taking a 5 year contract vs a 6 year contract.

If the Nuggets had the threat of keeping Carmelo an extra year then the negotiations would have been completely different.

Lebron was forced to stay with their team for 5 seasons in order to become a free agent when they were drafted. They choose to extend once because the idea of playing for a 1 year contract was so unappealing. I'd like to put the same sitaution in for the NBA. I do think it would give players the option to force themselves out if they wanted to badly enough while still giving their current teams a little more leverage. And thats all I am looking for with a franchise tag- a little more leverage for their current teams.

The power of the bird right is not the extra year. The power of the bird rights is that retaining a player's bird rights is so powerful (by allowing teams to also get other players, keep mle, etc) that the vast majority of teams would rather do a sign and trade than trade outright. The cavs, who got "nothing" for Lebron, got 2 first round and 2 second round picks, on top of the right to get a 14 million dollar player with their trade exception. A trade exception they chose not to use. Denver, who got "nothing" for Melo, got 4 very good young players and 3 first round picks.

In any case, I don't get this massive overreaction to Lebron, Bosh and Melo leaving. That is far from being the main problem with the nba.

[spotatl]

AHF- writers get CBA stuff wrong all the time. All players in their first 3 seasons in the league are restricted free agents except for first round picks who had their team options declined. It was a common misconception at the time.

[AHF]

No, my argument is that a franchise tag limited to one year would have only delayed the inevitable for one year, therefore not changing anything. And if the franchise tag could be applied multiple times, essentially doing away with free agency for superstars, they would demand trades sooner rather than waiting for the full 7 years. Right now, if a player wants to leave, they have two choices. Stay with a team for 5 years, playing the 5th year for a lot less than what they could, or signing the shortest possible extension of 7 years. If you make it so that they never can become a free agent, they will demand a trade sooner. If they know a team has the power to keep them one year longer, they will just sign a shorter contract. You all assume that the players wouldn't change anything in reaction to the creation of the franchise tag. That they wouldn't sign shorter contracts, or demand trades sooner.

And the bucks, warriors, etc. got nothing of real value for multiple time mvps.

The Bucks got 4 players who averaged double figures for them. Better than what the Bosh trade is going to reap for Toronto, for example.

The Warriors got money to cover 17.6% of the purchase price of the franchise just one year later. Given that the average NBA team is worth $369M today, a similar payment of roughly $50M would certainly be welcomed by teams like Toronto or Cleveland. On the court, the trade was clearly a disaster but that was a team that had moved and was giving away HOFers at the time (Paul Ariza, etc.) which is different than what we are seeing today.

If you want to do a real comparison, see what Denver and Utah got for Carmelo and Deron compared to what Toronto and Cleveland got for Lebron and Bosh.

In any case, I don't get this massive overreaction to Lebron, Bosh and Melo leaving. That is far from being the main problem with the nba.

It is a big problem in the Cleveland, Toronto, Utah, New Orleans, Orlando, and Denver markets. It will be a problem in future markets as well.