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

[Buzzard]

Again with the misleading "wildcard" designation. The Broncos were a wildcard in 1997, but had the 2nd best record in the conference and 4th best record in the league. The 2000 Baltimore Ravens also had the 2nd best record in the conference and in fact the 2nd best record in the league. The 2005 Steelers were the #5 seed and would have been the #2 seed in the NFC. The 2007 Giants and 2010 Packers actually had the 4th best record in their conferences

So it is absolutely misleading to use that as an example of parity. It is the same as me saying that the NBA has more parity because a #8 seed went to the NBA finals but a #8 seed never made the superbowl. That is all a matter of rules, of course.

As for how many 2nd place division teams have won the NBA since 1994: 95 rockets, 02 lakers, 04 pistons, 07 spurs.

How many 2nd place (and lower) in the division teams have made it to the superbowl at all? 6 since 94. In the NBA, its also 6.

All this while once again ignoring the fact that one is single elimination and the other is a best of 7. So if anything, by your rationale the NBA has better parity.

There is no doubt in my mind that any of the top six teams in the NFC this season could split a six game series 3 to 3. And you cannot play the weaker conference card since Green Bay won it all. Do you really expect that in any of this NBA seasons 1st round games?

[dlpin]

Now you are trying to argue unprovable hypotheticals. The bottom line is lower seeds have had as much success in the nba as in the nfl, despite the fact that the nfl is single elimination and the superbowl is always on neutral fields.

[AHF]

The games are fundamentally different because of the team emphasis in football and star emphasis in basketball. If you don't have a superstar player, you aren't competing for a championship. The only example to the contrary in the last 30 years is the Pistons who had 4-5 All-Star or borderline All-Star players but no superstar and they won a single championship.

The trend is very strong now that franchise players are deserting the markets they don't like. That is why I see the franchise tag being such a good thing for basketball fans. No one is going to keep rooting for Toronto, Cleveland, Memphis, Utah, etc. if their top players keep deserting to form "superteams" in high profile markets. For every Kevin Durant we see right now (quietly reupped with OKC) there are several other studs clamoring to jump ship to a sexier address (Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, Carlos Boozer, Chris Bosh, etc.). As a fan, I want a team that was smart enough to draft Chris Paul to be able to keep him rather than watching him Chris Bosh his team. At least Carmelo let the Nuggets get value out of his departure. Things are brutal for the fan bases of the Cavs and Raptors right now and I wouldn't be feeling too chipper if I were in Utah or Denver right now either.

As a fan, teams need a better way to retain their stars then is currently available. I get the argument about letting players have freedom but I just don't care as much about that as a fan as a I do about an enjoyable product and the only thing I enjoy about the Knicks or Heat is rooting against them. I also recognize that my view doesn't coincide with maximized ratings - Shaq in LA bring bigger ratings than Shaq in Orlando. But as a fan, I'd like to see a league where Orlando can keep their superstar rather than having to cough him up for pennies on the dollar because he wants to go to LA or Boston or NY, etc.

It is my view as a fan that teams that can't retain their superstar are doomed. You saw it with Lebron half-***ing the playoffs last season for Cleveland while waiting to take his talents to South Beach and I hope we don't see it in Atlanta (assuming we some day actually get our hands on a superstar).

[dlpin]

The games are fundamentally different because of the team emphasis in football and star emphasis in basketball. If you don't have a superstar player, you aren't competing for a championship. The only example to the contrary in the last 30 years is the Pistons who had 4-5 All-Star or borderline All-Star players but no superstar and they won a single championship.

The trend is very strong now that franchise players are deserting the markets they don't like. That is why I see the franchise tag being such a good thing for basketball fans. No one is going to keep rooting for Toronto, Cleveland, Memphis, Utah, etc. if their top players keep deserting to form "superteams" in high profile markets. For every Kevin Durant we see right now (quietly reupped with OKC) there are several other studs clamoring to jump ship to a sexier address (Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, Carlos Boozer, Chris Bosh, etc.). As a fan, I want a team that was smart enough to draft Chris Paul to be able to keep him rather than watching him Chris Bosh his team. At least Carmelo let the Nuggets get value out of his departure. Things are brutal for the fan bases of the Cavs and Raptors right now and I wouldn't be feeling too chipper if I were in Utah or Denver right now either.

As a fan, teams need a better way to retain their stars then is currently available. I get the argument about letting players have freedom but I just don't care as much about that as a fan as a I do about an enjoyable product and the only thing I enjoy about the Knicks or Heat is rooting against them. I also recognize that my view doesn't coincide with maximized ratings - Shaq in LA bring bigger ratings than Shaq in Orlando. But as a fan, I'd like to see a league where Orlando can keep their superstar rather than having to cough him up for pennies on the dollar because he wants to go to LA or Boston or NY, etc.

It is my view as a fan that teams that can't retain their superstar are doomed. You saw it with Lebron half-***ing the playoffs last season for Cleveland while waiting to take his talents to South Beach and I hope we don't see it in Atlanta (assuming we some day actually get our hands on a superstar).

While that is nice in principle, again, how would a franchise tag change anything? Players already have to play a minimum of 5 to 7 years with the team that drafted them. How would forcing the players to stay 6 to 8 meaningfully change anything?

Let's say Lebron wanted to leave but was franchise tagged. Don't you think that by this point of the season the cavs would have already dealt Lebron to avoid losing him for nothing? So in the end nothing would have changed.

The only way to keep players with their original teams longer is to eliminate maximum contracts and allow the teams that drafted them to pay as much as they want. The reason MJ stayed with the Bulls wasn't that he was loyal, it was that the bulls could pay him 30 million a year while the knicks could only pay him 20. Same thing for virtually every other star. Stars are leaving more frequently now because if the salaries are all the same, then the big markets and their advertising dollars will always have an advantage. If cleveland could offer 30 million to lebron and the heat only 15, no way he leaves. But if he could only make 15 in either cleveland or miami, then miami is the more desirable location.

The franchise tag wouldn't change superstars changing teams.

[Buzzard]

While that is nice in principle, again, how would a franchise tag change anything? Players already have to play a minimum of 5 to 7 years with the team that drafted them. How would forcing the players to stay 6 to 8 meaningfully change anything?

Let's say Lebron wanted to leave but was franchise tagged. Don't you think that by this point of the season the cavs would have already dealt Lebron to avoid losing him for nothing? So in the end nothing would have changed.

The franchise tag wouldn't change superstars changing teams.

It will and it does. You keep throwing it out there that it does not change anything, yet in the NFL, and any sport for that matter, most players do not want to play even one season under a one year deal. And the tag can be applied in consecutive years for as long as the drafting team chooses.

The contract expires at the end of the season and it can be applied again to the same free agent. One major injury and their star power, signing bonus, and security blanket is out the door. This is the reason not even half the teams have to use it, and the last QB Cassel that was assigned the tag was immediately traded. Most will sign long term deals and they are not bad deals. But the drafting team only loses the player if they choose too.

Turner is a great example of how it works when players do move as is Matt Cassel. Chargers were already paying LT big bucks so they let him walk instead of assigning him the franchise tag. Releasing players to make room under the hard cap or using the tag was their only options, but at least they had options. Cassel was a risk to pay that much to but it worked out in that New England got something in return via trade. Most players of this kind of quality, especially QBs ( stars ) and RBs ( stars ) do not move around from team to team leaving the drafting team with absolutely nothing in return.

Read, this hardly ever happens with a star QB or RB while they are still in their prime, read it is happening all the time with stars in the NBA to the point of becoming a epidemic.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

It will and it does. You keep throwing it out there that it does not change anything, yet in the NFL, and any sport for that matter, most players do not want to play even one season under a one year deal. One major injury and their star power, signing bonus, and security blanket is out the door. This is the reason not even half the teams have to use it, and the last QB Cassel that was assigned the tag was immediately traded. Most will sign long term deals and they are not bad deals. But the drafting team only loses the player if they choose too.

Turner is a great example of how it works when players do move as is Matt Cassel. Chargers were already paying LT big bucks so they let him walk instead of assigning him the franchise tag. Releasing players to make room under the hard cap or using the tag was their only options, but at least they had options. Cassel was a risk to pay that much to but it worked out in that New England got something in return via trade. Most players of this kind of quality, especially QBs ( stars ) and RBs ( stars ) do not move around from team to team leaving the drafting team with absolutely nothing in return.

Read, this hardly ever happens with a star QB or RB while they are still in their prime, read it is happening all the time with stars in the NBA to the point of becoming a epidemic.

What is the difference between signing a one year deal and a player in the last year of his contract? What you are saying makes zero sense. Every single one of the players who changed teams this year had a chance to sign an extension before the last year of their contract. And when given the choice between playing the last year of their contract and becoming a free agent or signing an extension, they all chose to play one year and become a free agent. What would change with a franchise tag?

And how are the examples you are giving proof of anything? Didn't all the examples you give change teams?

Of the 7 players given the franchise tag in 2007, only 2 are still with their original teams (and 4 of the other five either changed teams before the season they were tagged or immediately after). Only 5 of the 12 players franchise tagged in 2008 are still with their teams. Heck, only 7 of the 15 tagged just in 2009 are still with their teams right now.

The difference between the NFL and the NBA is that in the NFL the teams can offer as much money as they want to their key players. Not the franchise tag.

Edited March 8, 2011 by dlpin

[Buzzard]

What is the difference between signing a one year deal and a player in the last year of his contract? What you are saying makes zero sense. Every single one of the players who changed teams this year had a chance to sign an extension before the last year of their contract. And when given the choice between playing the last year of their contract and becoming a free agent or signing an extension, they all chose to play one year and become a free agent. What would change with a franchise tag?

And how are the examples you are giving proof of anything? Didn't all the examples you give change teams?

Of the 7 players given the franchise tag in 2007, only 2 are still with their original teams (and 4 of the other five either changed teams before the season they were tagged or immediately after). Only 5 of the 12 players franchise tagged in 2008 are still with their teams. Heck, only 7 of the 15 tagged just in 2009 are still with their teams right now.

What you are failing to understand is the leverage it gives a owner to keep his stars. QBs and RBs are hardly ever given a franchise tag because their agents know from day no one is going to let a Peyton Manning or Tomilson while still in their prime walk. Its the leverage of the tag that gets the deals done. In the NBA there was no leverage with Melo nexts contract, no leverage with Bosh or Bron. And same can be said with Derons next contract. Stars do not walk in the NFL, they already know there is zero chance they can.

You better believe any owner with half a brain would slap a franchise tag on Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rogers et al two or more years in a row if they could not get a deal done. And players detest one year deals much less multiple instances of them. That is what you are failing to see.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

What you are failing to understand is the leverage it gives a owner to keep his stars. QBs and RBs are hardly ever given a franchise tag because their agents know from day no one is going to let a Peyton Manning or Tomilson while still in their prime walk. Its the leverage of the tag that gets the deals done. In the NBA there was no leverage with Melo nexts contract, no leverage with Bosh or Bron. And same can be said with Derons next contract. Stars do not walk in the NFL, they already know there is zero chance they can.

You better believe any owner with half a brain would slap a franchise tag on Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rogers et al two or more years in a row if they could not get a deal done. And players detest one year deals much less multiple instances of them. That is what you are failing to see.

In the NBA teams don't have leverage, period, and no franchise tag is going to change that.

Deron Williams had one year and a half under his current contract. Vince Carter forced his way out of toronto with 2 years left in his contract. KG forced a deal with 2 years left in his contract. Heck, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Wilt Chamberlain forced trades to the Lakers at a time there even wasn't any free agency.

The reason top quarter backs rarely change teams in their primes is that their original teams are willing to pay whatever it takes to keep them, while in the NBA that doesn't happen. Do you think that if the Colts were restricted in what they could pay Peyton that Peyton would stick around?

Nevermind, of course, the fact that one of you examples actually changed teams. Brees changed teams. Eli Manning forced his way to another team. Ricky Williams, Edgerrin James, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, Eric Dickerson, Marshall Faulk, Warrick Dunn and Ricky Watters all either left via free agency in their primes or demanded to be traded due to contract disputes.

If staying with one team for their careers is something desirable, then the NBA does a better job than the NFL. Other than a handful of quarterbacks, everyone changes teams much more frequently.

Edited March 8, 2011 by dlpin

[Buzzard]

While that is nice in principle, again, how would a franchise tag change anything? Players already have to play a minimum of 5 to 7 years with the team that drafted them. How would forcing the players to stay 6 to 8 meaningfully change anything?

Let's say Lebron wanted to leave but was franchise tagged. Don't you think that by this point of the season the cavs would have already dealt Lebron to avoid losing him for nothing? So in the end nothing would have changed.

The franchise tag wouldn't change superstars changing teams.

I do not understand the bold statement. The franchise tag as implemented by the NFL has no limit on the number of seasons it can be applied to any player. The only limit is only one is allowed per season. The only way the Cavs lose Bron for nothing with a franchise tag system, is if they choose not to use it on him. Zero chance that would have happened.

[Buzzard]

In the NBA teams don't have leverage, period, and no franchise tag is going to change that.

Deron Williams had one year and a half under his current contract. Vince Carter forced his way out of toronto with 2 years left in his contract. KG forced a deal with 2 years left in his contract. Heck, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Wilt Chamberlain forced trades to the Lakers at a time there even wasn't any free agency.

The reason top quarter backs rarely change teams in their primes is that their original teams are willing to pay whatever it takes to keep them, while in the NBA that doesn't happen. Do you think that if the Colts were restricted in what they could pay Peyton that Peyton would stick around?

Nevermind, of course, the fact that one of you examples actually changed teams. Brees changed teams. Eli Manning forced his way to another team. Ricky Williams, Edgerrin James, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, Eric Dickerson, Marshall Faulk, Warrick Dunn and Ricky Watters all either left via free agency in their primes or demanded to be traded due to contract disputes.

If staying with one team for their careers is something desirable, then the NBA does a better job than the NFL. Other than a handful of quarterbacks, everyone changes teams much more frequently.

Ricky Williams was a multiple drug infraction risk who was suspended for a season and the next strike would have been longer, Edgerrin James was way past his prime right around 30 yrs old, Curtis Martin was a injury risk, Jerome Bettis was involved in a big trade, Eric Dickerson was involved in a big deal, Marshall Faulk was involved in a big deal, Warrick Dunn was not a big time player but was part of a running back duo and Ricky Watters was not in his prime.

Brees was involved in a contract dispute and competing with another top draft pick for the starting job. Eli forced his way before the draft this way he was not on a a team that he did not want to play for. His brother knows all about the franchise tag that the Chargers would have been able to use as leverage. Notice here that QBs, the stars of the NFL are a very short list in your list.

Now do you not think the Cavs valued Bron as much as Peyton? Utah thought of Deron as much as Brees? Denver thought of Melo as much as Rogers? The Raps valued Bosh as much as Eli? That is really my point, if you do not see that we are watching a different NBA.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzzard

[Joker]

I do not understand the bold statement. The franchise tag as implemented by the NFL has no limit on the number of seasons it can be applied to any player. The only limit is only one is allowed per season. The only way the Cavs lose Bron for nothing with a franchise tag system, is if they choose not to use it on him. Zero chance that would have happened.

The franchise tag is a dumb idea in general, the only reason why it's even in the NFL is because the player union is weak in the NFL because their replaceable. In the NBA, you can't find a 20 ppg scoring playing in the minor leagues 98% of the time. There are over 100 million people that play Basketball and you still can't find more than 10 superstars worldwide. The talent level and what's needed means the players are a valued commodity. Their not replaceable like football players. Another thing is the players will never agree to one and the owners know that too. You have no interest in the players so I really don't think your opinion will fly in regard to the negotiations. I don't think much of anything we are talking about will happen. The NBA making money at highest rates than ever and they never had the power the NFL has over it's players. The NBA will lowest the profit share pot from the players. That's unquestionable. The franchise tag talk is nonsense. Just something fans can cry about. The NBA helped the owners when they made players restricted and they had to stay with their teams for a min of five seasons if good enough. I doubt anything will come that will change that. If anything, the players are going to try to lower the amount of tender years to three or four to earn more profit. This will be a tug and pull contest. This one will last for a least a half a year and a very likely lockout.

Edited March 8, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[dlpin]

I do not understand the bold statement. The franchise tag as implemented by the NFL has no limit on the number of seasons it can be applied to any player. The only limit is only one is allowed per season. The only way the Cavs lose Bron for nothing with a franchise tag system, is if they choose not to use it on him. Zero chance that would have happened.

How can you not understand this? In the NBA a player can sulk and sit out and there would still be demand for him. They keep him on a franchise tag indefinitely and keeps tanking the season. And unlike the NFL, teams would still be interested in him. Let me say this again: Kareem and Wilt demanded trades when there wasn't a free agency and got them. If a player wants to leave, all they have to say is demand a trade.

Ricky Williams was a multiple drug infraction risk who was suspended for a season and the next strike would have been longer, Edgerrin James was way past his prime right around 30 yrs old, Curtis Martin was a injury risk, Jerome Bettis was involved in a big trade, Eric Dickerson was involved in a big deal, Marshall Faulk was involved in a big deal, Warrick Dunn was not a big time player but was part of a running back duo and Ricky Watters was not in his prime.

Brees was involved in a contract dispute and competing with another top draft pick for the starting job. Eli forced his way before the draft this way he was not on a a team that he did not want to play for. His brother knows all about the franchise tag that the Chargers would have been able to use as leverage. Notice here that QBs, the stars of the NFL are a very short list in your list.

Now do you not think the Cavs valued Bron as much as Peyton? Utah thought of Deron as much as Brees? Denver thought of Melo as much as Rogers? The Raps valued Bosh as much as Eli? That is really my point, if you do not see that we are watching a different NBA.

You don't know what you are talking about. Ricky Williams' first suspension came AFTER he joined the Dolphins. Edgerrin James was traded to the Cardinals when he was 27. Jerome Bettis requested a trade because his coach at the Rams wanted to move him to fullback, and he was traded along with a 3rd round pick for a 2nd round pick, hardly a "big trade." Eric Dickerson's trade was as big as Carmelo's. Curtis Martin had missed 3 games in 3 seasons when he was traded. Marshall Faulk was traded for a 2nd and 5th round picks. Warrick Dunn was twice a pro bowler and former rookie of the year. Ricky Watters left SF after his 3rd year there, and he was an ALL PRO the last year in SF.

In other words, you were wrong in every single thing you said.

As for your last point, you clearly don't understand what I am saying. The issue is not how much the team valued these players, but that the franchise tag would do nothing. The franchise tag does nothing in football to keep players in the same team. It would do even less in the nba where superstars are MORE valuable than in the NFL.

[Buzzard]

The franchise tag is a dumb idea in general, the only reason why it's even in the NFL is because the player union is weak in the NFL because their replaceable. In the NBA, you can't find a 20 ppg scoring playing in the minor leagues 98% of the time. There are over 100 million people that play Basketball and you still can't find more than 10 superstars worldwide. The talent level and what's needed means the players are a valued commodity. Their not replaceable like football players. Another thing is the players will never agree to one and the owners know that too. You have no interest in the players so I really don't think your opinion will fly in regard to the negotiations. I don't think much of anything we are talking about will happen. The NBA making money at highest rates than ever and they never had the power the NFL has over it's players. The NBA will lowest the profit share pot from the players. That's unquestionable. The franchise tag talk is nonsense. Just something fans can cry about. The NBA helped the owners when they made players restricted and they had to stay with their teams for a min of five seasons if good enough. I doubt anything will come that will change that. If anything, the players are going to try to lower the amount of tender years to three or four to earn more profit. This will be a tug and pull contest. This one will last for a least a half a year and a very likely lockout.

But what you have to say is really important or at the very least has some bearing on negotiations? You are funny as hell. I have to disagree with you on this one concerning a franchise tag and who will win in the next set of negotiations. I do not think its a coincidence we have seen all this player movement and the fact that most players wanted extensions signed sealed and delivered is to be taken as some fluke. I think the players are posturing for a long negotiation as well as some major concessions. Could they end up with a shorter tender? I think so, as long as a franchise tag is available to the owners.

I do agree with the last bold statement. This could be a long one. I think the small market owners are fed up with losing their stars and losing money. And without the small market teams, and the millionaires who back those teams, the NBA may as well be playing in the dark ages when all we had to look forward to was the Lakers, Celtics and a occasional Knick team winning a championship. Big markets may still be the rule of the day but without the 20 or more other NBA teams in the small markets the NBA may as well be the NHL.

[Buzzard]

How can you not understand this? In the NBA a player can sulk and sit out and there would still be demand for him. They keep him on a franchise tag indefinitely and keeps tanking the season. And unlike the NFL, teams would still be interested in him. Let me say this again: Kareem and Wilt demanded trades when there wasn't a free agency and got them. If a player wants to leave, all they have to say is demand a trade.

As for your last point, you clearly don't understand what I am saying. The issue is not how much the team valued these players, but that the franchise tag would do nothing. The franchise tag does nothing in football to keep players in the same team. It would do even less in the nba where superstars are MORE valuable than in the NFL.

No I do not understand you. Not at all. If the franchise tag does not work why is the NFL players union trying to at least get it amended so it would at least be limited to the number of seasons it can be applied to a single player? I guess they just want it changed for the sake of changing it LMAO.

No one said players do not move or get traded in the NFL, but when was the last time you saw 5 all-star QBs, Amare, Bron, Bosh, Deron, Melo, all in their prime moved to different teams within a span of less than 6 months? That type of thing does not happen in the NFL ever.

Here is some perspective: that is three of the top five scoring options in the NBA. That would hands down be like three of the top five rated QBs moving to different teams in less than 6 months. That just does not happen in the NFL and should not happen in the NBA.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

No I do not understand you. Not at all. If the franchise tag does not work why is the NFL players union trying to at least get it amended so it would at least be limited to the number of seasons it can be applied to a single player? I guess they just want it changed for the sake of changing it LMAO.

No one said players do not move or get traded in the NFL, but when was the last time you saw 5 all-star QBs, Amare, Bron, Bosh, Deron, Melo, all in their prime moved to different teams within a span of less than 6 months? That type of thing does not happen in the NFL ever.

The reason the players want it changed is financial, not because they want to change teams more often. The franchise tag does not work for what you want it to do, which is keeping players in the same teams for longer. Again, 7 on the 12 players who received a franchise tag 2 years ago are on other teams.

As for what you said, the timing is irrelevant. It just so happened that 3 of those all stars were free agents at the same time. The fact is that NFL players change teams just as often, and the franchise tag has done NOTHING to keep stars from changing teams. I've already presented all the facts but you keep trying to change the goal posts while ignoring the evidence that shows you are wrong.

But just to keep things in perspective: 10 players from last year's pro bowl are no longer with their teams. They include Vince Young, Brandon Marshall and Julius Peppers.

Of this year's ALL PRO team, no less than 18 players are not with their original teams.

Edited March 8, 2011 by dlpin

[Buzzard]

My top three:

1- Franchise Player Designation

By having the franchise tag owners would have the bargaining power to get their own superstar players signed.

2- Hard Cap

Teams have to watch their spending if they want to continue to sign their players or free agents.

3-Unrestricted Free Agency

Players can choose where they want to play after their rookie contract, provided they are not franchised.

This is how it should be and since you cannot franchise two players in one season, owners would also have to be frugal and observant when important players contracts expire. The cap would have to be moderate, otherwise it is a useless cap. This is the basis of the NFLs agreement, and it works. The players reportedly want unrestricted free agency, the owners reportedly want the franchise option. My money says they get some form of both with a hard cap.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

By having the franchise tag owners would have the bargaining power to get their own superstar players signed. This is the basis of the NFLs agreement, and it works. The players reportedly want unrestricted free agency, the owners reportedly want the franchise option. My money says they get some form of both with a hard cap.

It is amazing how much you simply ignore the facts.

Let's repeat, 7 of the 12 players tagged just in 2009 are on other teams now. 18 current All pro players are not with their original teams.

Williams, one of the examples you talked about, wasn't even on his last year of his contract. Like KG wasn't. Like Vince Carter wasn't. Like Kareem wasn't. Like Wilt wasn't.

Edited March 8, 2011 by dlpin

[Joker]

But what you have to say is really important or at the very least has some bearing on negotiations? You are funny as hell. I have to disagree with you on this one concerning a franchise tag and who will win in the next set of negotiations. I do not think its a coincidence we have seen all this player movement and the fact that most players wanted extensions signed sealed and delivered is to be taken as some fluke. I think the players are posturing for a long negotiation as well as some major concessions. Could they end up with a shorter tender? I think so, as long as a franchise tag is available to the owners.

I do agree with the last bold statement. This could be a long one. I think the small market owners are fed up with losing their stars and losing money. And without the small market teams, and the millionaires who back those teams, the NBA may as well be playing in the dark ages when all we had to look forward to was the Lakers, Celtics and a occasional Knick team winning a championship. Big markets may still be the rule of the day but without the 20 or more other NBA teams in the small markets the NBA may as well be the NHL.

The franchise tag is not a one time offering per player, just only once allowed per season. It can be renewed every season on the same player if a deal cannot be worked out. That is what makes it such a powerful tool when dealing with your most expensive assets like quarterbacks. Teams hardly ever have to use it now, but the threat is there if it is needed. Bron nor Melo absolutely could not have gone anywhere if the NBA had a franchise tag been placed on them. Except maybe Europe lol.

NBA superstars are the equivalent to NFL quarterbacks. No team or fan base needs to be put through the BS that Bron, Bosh, and Melo have stirred up. f*** the players, lets get some stability and excitement back into a very ho hum game.

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.

Edited March 8, 2011 by nbasuperstar40

[Buzzard]

It is amazing how much you simply ignore the facts.

Let's repeat, 7 of the 12 players tagged just in 2009 are on other teams now. 18 current All pro players are not with their original teams.

Williams, one of the examples you talked about, wasn't even on his last year of his contract. Like KG wasn't. Like Vince Carter wasn't. Like Kareem wasn't. Like Wilt wasn't.

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.

[Guest]

As a fan, teams need a better way to retain their stars then is currently available. I get the argument about letting players have freedom but I just don't care as much about that as a fan as a I do about an enjoyable product and the only thing I enjoy about the Knicks or Heat is rooting against them. I also recognize that my view doesn't coincide with maximized ratings - Shaq in LA bring bigger ratings than Shaq in Orlando. But as a fan, I'd like to see a league where Orlando can keep their superstar rather than having to cough him up for pennies on the dollar because he wants to go to LA or Boston or NY, etc.

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!

/sarcasm, this isn't meant at AHF, actually meant more at Buzzard on this particular topic. Too many people fail to realize the difference between the NBA and NFL along with the ramifications of a hard cap.