Re: Stupid Idea-Franchise player

[Douglas342@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/23/98 5:02:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
celticky33@hotmail.com writes:

> 
>  *** and would not this cause internal problems? Everyone would surely 
>  want to be the designated franchise player in order to have a larger 
>  piece of the pie. 
     Absolutely.  And if one is FP on one team, would he demand to be FP on
any other team to which he might be traded?  Do FPs have to attend all
practices?  Can FPs wear special patches on their jerseys?  If your FP is
hurt, can you have an interim FP? Who would be the franchise player of the
Clippers? Stojko, of course!  If your FP does a Sprewell, is there a procedure
by which the FP can be ... impeached?
    A slightly more serious question.  The "Garnett money" issue is dramatic
in his case (as it was in the Glenn Robinson case a few years back) because
those players are so young, raw and unproven.  In the opinion of those on the
list, will this problem be alleviated if the Bird rule applies only to those
who have been in the league a certain number of years (5?  6?) or who are a
certain age, like 24 or 25?  Which is more important, age (maturity) or
experience?  Is the lengthening of the rookie contract apparently a done deal?
How long?  How many years would you want Walker to play before you were
willing to make the decision as to whether to break the bank for him?
--- Doug in Clipperland, lobbying to be FP for no pay