Will we have another franchise player like Paul Pierce?

[Employee8]

This is a question I had been thinking about for quite some times, especially after reading "Breaks of the Game".  There are a few players who stay with one team for the entire course of their careers.  Names that come up are Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Big Z (before he went to Miami), Paul Pierce, Dirk Nowitzki, Manu Ginobili.  I'm talking about strict one-team player (Kobe doesn't count, drafted by Charlotte).  Dwayne Wade looks to join the list sometimes in the next several years.

I realize that it's not like the old days anymore where player and owner loyalty actually existed to one another.  And now that we don't have Red around to instill that atmosphere in Boston, I'm wondering if we'll have another player like Pierce that will stick around for quite some time?  I don't think we will.  Here are a few reasons why I think so:

-Money always talks
-DA's approach (everyone's always available)
-Other than the mystique, Celtics is like any other NBA team and by that I mean we've got your run-of-the-mill guys- above average staff, good front office, etc
-Emerging trends of superstars being friendly towards one another
-Hostile media coverage in Boston
-Cold weather

Am I thinking into it too much?  Where does it all start?  Great owner, solid front office, a long staying coach like Jerry Sloan or Gregg Popovich, or does it start with that one superstar we draft?

[Chris]

If the owners get their way, then yes.  One of the owners goals in the CBA negotiations is to make it so they can reward "franchise players" for staying with the teams that they came up with. 

[Employee8]

If the owners get their way, then yes.  One of the owners goals in the CBA negotiations is to make it so they can reward "franchise players" for staying with the teams that they came up with. 

Are they trying to close the loophole for players taking the hometown discount and then jettisoning on the team like LeBron did with Cleveland?  What are the incentives for staying with one team?

[LB3533]

If the owners get their way, you would have to draft your "franchise player".

There would be nearly zero chance to sign a franchise guy.

[Chris]

If the owners get their way, then yes.  One of the owners goals in the CBA negotiations is to make it so they can reward "franchise players" for staying with the teams that they came up with. 

Are they trying to close the loophole for players taking the hometown discount and then jettisoning on the team like LeBron did with Cleveland?  What are the incentives for staying with one team?

Well, nothing is agreed upon yet, but the owners have been pretty vocal that they want to find a way, that works for the players as well, to at least try to stop that from happening again.

From what I have heard, the most realistic option is a sort of mutual franchise tag, where teams can choose 1 player as a franchise player, and can pay that one player significantly more than any other team can...but they won't be able to sign and trade that right, like they do in the current system. 

I don't think they will be able to get something like the NFL franchise tag, that actually restricts a player from leaving, but instead, it will be a provision that gives the player significant financial motivation to stay.

[wdleehi]

If the owners get their way, then yes.  One of the owners goals in the CBA negotiations is to make it so they can reward "franchise players" for staying with the teams that they came up with. 

Are they trying to close the loophole for players taking the hometown discount and then jettisoning on the team like LeBron did with Cleveland?  What are the incentives for staying with one team?

Well, nothing is agreed upon yet, but the owners have been pretty vocal that they want to find a way, that works for the players as well, to at least try to stop that from happening again.

From what I have heard, the most realistic option is a sort of mutual franchise tag, where teams can choose 1 player as a franchise player, and can pay that one player significantly more than any other team can...but they won't be able to sign and trade that right, like they do in the current system. 

I don't think they will be able to get something like the NFL franchise tag, that actually restricts a player from leaving, but instead, it will be a provision that gives the player significant financial motivation to stay.

Another thing I heard they want to do is to get rid of the sign and trade. 


That way, the player has to take less then what his current team can offer if they leave. 

[pearljammer10]

This is a question I had been thinking about for quite some times, especially after reading "Breaks of the Game".  There are a few players who stay with one team for the entire course of their careers.  Names that come up are Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Big Z (before he went to Miami), Paul Pierce, Dirk Nowitzki, Manu Ginobili.  I'm talking about strict one-team player (Kobe doesn't count, drafted by Charlotte).  Dwayne Wade looks to join the list sometimes in the next several years.

I realize that it's not like the old days anymore where player and owner loyalty actually existed to one another.  And now that we don't have Red around to instill that atmosphere in Boston, I'm wondering if we'll have another player like Pierce that will stick around for quite some time?  I don't think we will.  Here are a few reasons why I think so:

-Money always talks
-DA's approach (everyone's always available)
-Other than the mystique, Celtics is like any other NBA team and by that I mean we've got your run-of-the-mill guys- above average staff, good front office, etc
-Emerging trends of superstars being friendly towards one another
-Hostile media coverage in Boston
-Cold weather

Am I thinking into it too much?  Where does it all start?  Great owner, solid front office, a long staying coach like Jerry Sloan or Gregg Popovich, or does it start with that one superstar we draft?

Well if this is your logic then Dirk doesnt count either as he was drafted by the Bucks then traded to Dallas (along with Pat Garrity) for Robert Traylor.

[Employee8]

If the owners get their way, then yes.  One of the owners goals in the CBA negotiations is to make it so they can reward "franchise players" for staying with the teams that they came up with. 

Are they trying to close the loophole for players taking the hometown discount and then jettisoning on the team like LeBron did with Cleveland?  What are the incentives for staying with one team?

Well, nothing is agreed upon yet, but the owners have been pretty vocal that they want to find a way, that works for the players as well, to at least try to stop that from happening again.

From what I have heard, the most realistic option is a sort of mutual franchise tag, where teams can choose 1 player as a franchise player, and can pay that one player significantly more than any other team can...but they won't be able to sign and trade that right, like they do in the current system. 

I don't think they will be able to get something like the NFL franchise tag, that actually restricts a player from leaving, but instead, it will be a provision that gives the player significant financial motivation to stay.

Whew boy, that's something very tricky to deal with because then you've got the risk of tearing apart the locker room when one player with the highest pay isn't playing up to his performance.  And the others will feel they should receive money equal to the franchise player.  Well if this thing passes, one thing is for sure- no more melding of superstars.  No more Big 3s.

[Chris]

If the owners get their way, then yes.  One of the owners goals in the CBA negotiations is to make it so they can reward "franchise players" for staying with the teams that they came up with.  

Are they trying to close the loophole for players taking the hometown discount and then jettisoning on the team like LeBron did with Cleveland?  What are the incentives for staying with one team?

Well, nothing is agreed upon yet, but the owners have been pretty vocal that they want to find a way, that works for the players as well, to at least try to stop that from happening again.

From what I have heard, the most realistic option is a sort of mutual franchise tag, where teams can choose 1 player as a franchise player, and can pay that one player significantly more than any other team can...but they won't be able to sign and trade that right, like they do in the current system.  

I don't think they will be able to get something like the NFL franchise tag, that actually restricts a player from leaving, but instead, it will be a provision that gives the player significant financial motivation to stay.

Another thing I heard they want to do is to get rid of the sign and trade.  


That way, the player has to take less then what his current team can offer if they leave.  

Yeah, I definitely think that will be part of it.  I really think they think that "Bird rights" should be used ONLY to keep a player on his current team, and reward that player for their loyalty to building the fanbase, rather than a way of getting around the system, which it had previously become.

BTW, I am not sure I understand why the players are so against a hard cap.  In every scenario I have seen, the players are always guaranteed their portion of the pie.  All the soft cap does it make it easier for there to be a lack of balance among the teams, but the players would still be getting the same amount of money, whether the cap is hard or soft.  Its just in a hard cap, the money is more likely to go to the guys who deserve it, rather than overpaying the guys who aren't very good.

[Employee8]

This is a question I had been thinking about for quite some times, especially after reading "Breaks of the Game".  There are a few players who stay with one team for the entire course of their careers.  Names that come up are Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Big Z (before he went to Miami), Paul Pierce, Dirk Nowitzki, Manu Ginobili.  I'm talking about strict one-team player (Kobe doesn't count, drafted by Charlotte).  Dwayne Wade looks to join the list sometimes in the next several years.

I realize that it's not like the old days anymore where player and owner loyalty actually existed to one another.  And now that we don't have Red around to instill that atmosphere in Boston, I'm wondering if we'll have another player like Pierce that will stick around for quite some time?  I don't think we will.  Here are a few reasons why I think so:

-Money always talks
-DA's approach (everyone's always available)
-Other than the mystique, Celtics is like any other NBA team and by that I mean we've got your run-of-the-mill guys- above average staff, good front office, etc
-Emerging trends of superstars being friendly towards one another
-Hostile media coverage in Boston
-Cold weather

Am I thinking into it too much?  Where does it all start?  Great owner, solid front office, a long staying coach like Jerry Sloan or Gregg Popovich, or does it start with that one superstar we draft?

Well if this is your logic then Dirk doesnt count either as he was drafted by the Bucks then traded to Dallas (along with Pat Garrity) for Robert Traylor.

My bad.  TP to you.

[wdleehi]

If the owners get their way, then yes.  One of the owners goals in the CBA negotiations is to make it so they can reward "franchise players" for staying with the teams that they came up with.  

Are they trying to close the loophole for players taking the hometown discount and then jettisoning on the team like LeBron did with Cleveland?  What are the incentives for staying with one team?

Well, nothing is agreed upon yet, but the owners have been pretty vocal that they want to find a way, that works for the players as well, to at least try to stop that from happening again.

From what I have heard, the most realistic option is a sort of mutual franchise tag, where teams can choose 1 player as a franchise player, and can pay that one player significantly more than any other team can...but they won't be able to sign and trade that right, like they do in the current system.  

I don't think they will be able to get something like the NFL franchise tag, that actually restricts a player from leaving, but instead, it will be a provision that gives the player significant financial motivation to stay.

Another thing I heard they want to do is to get rid of the sign and trade.  


That way, the player has to take less then what his current team can offer if they leave.  

Yeah, I definitely think that will be part of it.  I really think they think that "Bird rights" should be used ONLY to keep a player on his current team, and reward that player for their loyalty to building the fanbase, rather than a way of getting around the system, which it had previously become.

BTW, I am not sure I understand why the players are so against a hard cap.  In every scenario I have seen, the players are always guaranteed their portion of the pie.  All the soft cap does it make it easier for there to be a lack of balance among the teams, but the players would still be getting the same amount of money, whether the cap is hard or soft.  Its just in a hard cap, the money is more likely to go to the guys who deserve it, rather than overpaying the guys who aren't very good.

Because there is always the chance more teams go over the cap and push the overall % up.

[Chris]

If the owners get their way, then yes.  One of the owners goals in the CBA negotiations is to make it so they can reward "franchise players" for staying with the teams that they came up with.  

Are they trying to close the loophole for players taking the hometown discount and then jettisoning on the team like LeBron did with Cleveland?  What are the incentives for staying with one team?

Well, nothing is agreed upon yet, but the owners have been pretty vocal that they want to find a way, that works for the players as well, to at least try to stop that from happening again.

From what I have heard, the most realistic option is a sort of mutual franchise tag, where teams can choose 1 player as a franchise player, and can pay that one player significantly more than any other team can...but they won't be able to sign and trade that right, like they do in the current system.  

I don't think they will be able to get something like the NFL franchise tag, that actually restricts a player from leaving, but instead, it will be a provision that gives the player significant financial motivation to stay.

Another thing I heard they want to do is to get rid of the sign and trade.  


That way, the player has to take less then what his current team can offer if they leave.  

Yeah, I definitely think that will be part of it.  I really think they think that "Bird rights" should be used ONLY to keep a player on his current team, and reward that player for their loyalty to building the fanbase, rather than a way of getting around the system, which it had previously become.

BTW, I am not sure I understand why the players are so against a hard cap.  In every scenario I have seen, the players are always guaranteed their portion of the pie.  All the soft cap does it make it easier for there to be a lack of balance among the teams, but the players would still be getting the same amount of money, whether the cap is hard or soft.  Its just in a hard cap, the money is more likely to go to the guys who deserve it, rather than overpaying the guys who aren't very good.

Because there is always the chance more teams go over the cap and push the overall % up.

But any salary paid over the 57% doesn't actually go to the players.  It goes in an escrow account, and at the end of the year, the money actually goes back to the players.  And if the owners pay the players less than the 57%, then they have to pay the players up to that 57%.

So, there really IS a hard cap right now when it comes to the amount of money paid to the players.  It just is not a hard cap for the individual teams.

[Employee8]

No wonder this lockout issue is messy.  There are a lot of issues, a lot of pros and cons.

But this sounds like there will be more franchise players in the future, which I am a big fan of.  I like the idea how each team is THAT franchise player's team.  Bogut's Bucks, Bosh's Raptors (used to be anyway), Monta's Warriors so I'm hoping that the new CBA deal will allow this to be more regular.

[Silent Storm]

Depends on how that Clippers pick pans out

[Marcus13]

Someday, maybe.  Obviously one-franchise guys are extremely rare.