Clarification of Terms

Lately, I've seen two new terms I am unfamiliar with in the sports world and can't seem to get a clear definition from the press/internet who thinks we all know these terms like the back of our hands.

1) What does it mean for the owners/NBA to "contract" the Hornets? Is it con'-tracting or con-tract'-ing? My guess is that they would be talking about eliminating them in legal-eze. Why would that even be an issue with so many suitors interested outside of NO. What is Stern up to? Is he trying to eliminate the outside offers and keep the team in NO?

2) NFL and now NBA are using term "franchise tagging" and some other "tagging" term. It sounds like this means teams are paying their top players an average salary if and when an ensuing lockout occurs, owners saving something/someone while a work stoppage is looming to make sure they come out on the other end still in place, etc. Is that the proper understanding of this term?

Thanks, everyone.

Not sure what Premier Stern means by "contracting" the Hornets franchise.
The franchise tag in the nfl was put in place in the early 90's. What it means is that the teams can designate (franchise) 1 player who is eligible to become a free agent with an offer of a 1 year contract that will pay the player the average salary of the 5 highest paid players at the designated players position. This does not preclude the team and player from negotiating a long term deal nor does it stop the player from reaching a deal with another team. In the event that the player does sign with another team his original team has the right to match the offer and retain the player or if they choose not to match the offer they will receive 2 first round draft picks from the other team. There is talk that the nba owners would like to have something similiar in the next cba with the players. That would conceivably hinder the players efforts to build their 3 man superteams. If the nba had the franchise tag in effect last year there is no way the Miami troika comes together, Gilbert would have matched the Heat's offer and you know who would have stayed put. There is more to be said on the subject but this is the gist of it.

Sort of adding another "restriction" to the definition of restricted free agent? Or is this a stand alone category by itself?

The franchise tag can only be applied to an unrestricted free agent. There are "exclusive" and "non-exclusive" franchise tag designations. The exclusive tag does not allow a player to negotiate with other teams, the non-exclusive is the one described in my earlier post. Either way the contract is guaranteed, which is a big deal in the nfl where most if not all contracts are not.

Dbrown,

By "contracting," Stern is indeed referring to eliminating the franchise. This has happened in the past, primarily in a natural way when a franchise went bankrupt and closed up shop on its own. In this instance, Stern is using it purely as a negotiating ploy, and not even a serious one. I think he's mostly using it as a public relations/media tactic, because the players know full well that it's not a serious possibility.

Consider the circumstances. If you're Memphis, Minnesota, or whichever franchise would be "contracted," you're not actually bankrupt. Your franchise has considerable value, as demonstrated by the recent sale of the Warriors for $450 million. You want to contract my franchise, fine -- where's my $450 million? To shrink the league down to 24 teams, for example, all the other owners would have to chip in $2.7 billion. Even if they only eliminate two franchises, that's $900 million. That's just for starters.

On top of that, the NBA develops relationships with sponsors in each city, and those sponsors are crucial to the financial success of individual franchises and the league as a whole. As a sponsor, how are you going to feel if the league gets rid of the franchise you tied your company to? Do you think you'll continue the relationship with the NBA? Or are you more likely to sue the franchise and league for breach of contract and recovery of sponsorship fees paid?

Like I said, it's all a ploy on Stern's part, and a weak one at that.

Very well put, outside. Thank you for the clarification and illustration. Very helpful. db