|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jun 30, 2007 3:44:46 GMT -5
Looking at the trade board there are a ton of sign and trades, but if they are for less than the max we need to do something about further trades by those teams.
For example, Miami assumes he has 8 mil in cap roomfor the walker trade, but if Pietrus signs for 6 mil or more he doesn't
Not to pick him out but it's the first one I saw.
For cap purposes if you have a sign and trade in action you should have to be able to make any future trades even if the S& T guys get the max. It will be bad if we go to do the actual signing and have to unravel trades that weren't possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Jun 30, 2007 3:48:45 GMT -5
Looking at the trade board there are a ton of sign and trades, but if they are for less than the max we need to do something about further trades by those teams. For example, Miami assumes he has 8 mil in cap roomfor the walker trade, but if Pietrus signs for 6 mil or more he doesn't Not to pick him out but it's the first one I saw. For cap purposes if you have a sign and trade in action you should have to be able to make any future trades even if the S& T guys get the max. It will be bad if we go to do the actual signing and have to unravel trades that weren't possible. I agree. I think we should take it one step further and say that a sign and trade should not even be allowed if it wouldn't work if the person being signed received the max. They can always post it later if it ends up working out. |
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Jun 30, 2007 4:13:07 GMT -5
I'm going to sleep on this and think about it for tomorrow, but I might implement a new rule effective immediately:
You can only submit a sign and trade if it involves resigning the player to a max deal.
Anything less causes way too much problems around here, with submitting multiple trades that won't all be able to go through under certain circumstances.
This would affect some already submitted, and they would be sent to rejected trades.
If you have any suggestions, post them here and I will consider them.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Jun 30, 2007 9:03:26 GMT -5
I highly disagree. I think we just have to have GMs be more aware of their cap situations. To do this would limit what we can do as General Managers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Lakers on Jun 30, 2007 11:26:45 GMT -5
I think we just have to have GMs be more aware of their cap situations. "Be more aware of their cap situations" is not enough..... One GM makes mistake may cause the collapse of tons of other trades, which I think will definitely happen when our free agent signing period begins. Just my opinion though.... |
|
|
|
Post by Player Agent 3 [Clippers] on Jun 30, 2007 12:58:21 GMT -5
Sign and trades shouldn't be allowed unless it is a RFA who can be matched no matter what. The problem is the team that previously had a players rights in this league isn't getting the clause that you can go over the cap and re-sign like you can in real life. It also completely screws up our FA system b/c then basically the arbitrators will have to sign them over to the team that has already made the trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Jun 30, 2007 14:26:34 GMT -5
I highly disagree. I think we just have to have GMs be more aware of their cap situations. To do this would limit what we can do as General Managers. I think sign and trades, that dont involve giving the max, limit extremely what the Player Agents can do. What if they thought their person wasn't a good fit for either team involved in the deal? But now they pretty much have to accept the contracts to let the trade go through, especially because other factors - like draft picks, have been involved? Sign and Trades involving draft picks especially should have never been allowed, because you can't begin discussions with your free agents until after the draft. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 3, 2007 21:07:55 GMT -5
plus anyone I see in a sign and trade deal I can throw a max contract offer just to make their cap go higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Jul 4, 2007 2:12:42 GMT -5
That's true, and the original team invovled in the trade doesn't care because he won't be paying the contract, the team that already agreed to the deal will.
However, they might choose not to match it and you will be stuck with that player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 4, 2007 14:35:19 GMT -5
but maybe they shouldn't have accepted the deal.... don't they take on that risk that someone will offer them that kind of contract?
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Wizards on Jul 4, 2007 14:41:26 GMT -5
So are all these sign & trade deals still going through?
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 4, 2007 18:16:00 GMT -5
if they go through.... any trade involving a draft pick since the draft occured must go through pending the price of the sign and trade contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 5, 2007 18:22:49 GMT -5
Charlotte brings up a good point, since the trades were posted they can't be backed out of unless the cap wouldn't work. Therefore you could bid the max that would work in the deal and they would be forced to accept, for example, the Darko deal, if I offered Darko the max, Seattle would have to match, and Sactown would have to accept the deal, and lose all his cap on a marginal player, killing him for 5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Jul 5, 2007 18:33:44 GMT -5
That's the gamble they were willing to take, I assume, when trading for a restricted free agent like that
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 5, 2007 19:15:27 GMT -5
SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 5, 2007 19:16:38 GMT -5
we should seriously just give them maxes because that is what I will offer to every player that was involved in sign and trade since the trades can't be revoked it would speed up the whole process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sacramento Kings on Jul 5, 2007 19:48:50 GMT -5
we should seriously just give them maxes because that is what I will offer to every player that was involved in sign and trade since the trades can't be revoked it would speed up the whole process. Thats the most honest thing Ive ever Heard. Too Bad it was wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 5, 2007 19:51:16 GMT -5
uh once you traded a draft pick and made the selection.... that is your trade... you can not back out of trades after that.... trades posted are accepted and approved.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Player Agent 3 [Clippers] on Jul 5, 2007 22:17:07 GMT -5
we should seriously just give them maxes because that is what I will offer to every player that was involved in sign and trade since the trades can't be revoked it would speed up the whole process. You can try and do this but Im pretty sure it might screw up your off season plans, your not going to have the cap to bid everybody up at the same time and if someone doesn't match then your stuck with a big contract. Which would be completely ironic. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 5, 2007 22:39:57 GMT -5
we should seriously just give them maxes because that is what I will offer to every player that was involved in sign and trade since the trades can't be revoked it would speed up the whole process. You can try and do this but Im pretty sure it might screw up your off season plans, your not going to have the cap to bid everybody up at the same time and if someone doesn't match then your stuck with a big contract. Which would be completely ironic. how can someone not match when they have a trade processed already.... we can not allow a processed trade to be unprocessed, gm's should have thought about that before they accepted and processed a trade, they can't be revoked no matter what. |
|
![Player Agent 3 [Clippers] Avatar](http://www.amincousa.com/zcart/images/nba/nba-n24.gif)
