Fixing the NBA: Keeping Stars at Home

Maybe I know nothing about true fanhood, because I am from a place where bandwagon-jumping originated – but I believe the people who think the new NBA collective bargaining agreement should be centered around a “franchise tag” are missing the idea. I don’t think basketball needs that, and I think football needs less of it. I may be on the side of the players, here, but I think it’s fair that they get to make their own decision where to play after serving for 5 years on the team that drafted them. It’s their team’s job, during that handful of seasons, to convince them to stay. But I think there’s a way for me to be happy (because I think the franchise tag is BS) and for you tag-promoters to be happy (because you want teams to be able to keep their stars) and all it comes down to is how the NBA allocates their contract differences.

I want the best of both worlds, which makes me, well, a bit of a douche bag, I guess. Expecting to have your cake, and your pie, and eat both of them – that’s usually trouble – and impossible. But I think it’s perfectly fair for a player to pick his new home when his contract is up. I also believe there should be a rule set in place to help prevent this from happening so everyone and their mother doesn’t go to beautiful Minnesota and form a power team in Timberwolves’ jerseys. Right now, obviously, the rule in place isn’t good enough.

This dual-happiness could happen by making the difference between what a “home team” can pay a player much greater than what a new team can pay the player. Like I said, I’m no expert on the NBA contract guidelines, but from what I believe, a home team can give the player raises of 10.5% per season on their extension instead of the customary 8% raise per season – and they can offer a 6th year instead of the maximum 5-year deal a new team can offer. But if the player is traded, those raises and contract years are exactly the same, because with the trade of the player also go the player’s Bird Rights (Bird Rights only go to a player who plays for at least 2 years – Early Bird Rights – and 3 years – Full Bird Rights). Those Bird Rights are what allow for a team to go over the cap to sign their own player, and also offer that 10.5% and that 6th season. You follow?

As for the contract, it’s not that big of a difference, and most teams will take something in a sign and trade so that they get assets in return for losing their star – a win/win of sorts. But it’s not a win/win at all – and that’s why people are complaining about their star players running East toward bigger markets. I think sign and trades should be greatly reduced or abolished all together – if you eliminated the chance that the player could get paid the same amount of money while playing for a new team, there’s a smaller chance that player decides to bust out of town. Who wants to leave guaranteed money and years on their contract?

To further convince a player to stay, I think a hometown team should be able to pay their players 25% more than a new team could. And I think that 25% extra shouldn’t count toward that home team’s salary cap. That second part allows the team to build around it’s star even if they are a small market/small city team. And a new team would have to put in 3 years with their new player before that player qualified for any of that home team discount stuff. Is your average player willing to take 25% less per season for three seasons? Probably not. Will the 25% of the contract not going on the books help a small market team stay competitive by signing extra pieces to fit around their star? Probably.

Let’s dive into a hypothetical, because they are so much fun… So let’s say this summer, James could have made 16 million a year staying in Cleveland and just 12 million a year moving to Miami. What do you think his choice would have been then? And by the way, the Cavs would have been able to do more with their money, because only 12 of that 16 would go on the books.

You could make this rule “only for max deals” or you could do it for every contract in the NBA. But I think that whole claim that “I’m not just playing for the money” would be tested if they couldn’t possibly get paid as much money going somewhere else. Especially if it was a considerable chunk of change – I feel like now it’s only 1 million a year or something (which is a lot to me, probably you as well, but when you’re making 65 million in 3 years writing for a small internet sports site, now are we?). As is, there usually isn’t a difference because the player leaves via a sign and trade and makes just as much money as he would have staying at home.

Or we could just have super teams like baseball does and everyone can root for the underdog while people in Miami, New York, and LA all become hated by everyone else in the USA. We don’t need Franchise Tags in the NBA. We need to get rid of the sign and trade BS and reward players for staying in their drafted homes.