|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 24, 2010 18:04:56 GMT -5
LOL, thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Feb 24, 2010 18:08:17 GMT -5
I had a conflict of interest the first time, this time there is no conflict of interest. I'm willing to help my client (Mr. Lewis) out by allowing him to become a FA. He will be the premier of this class and everyone knows it. As for what Boston said, you have two players right now. He's a similar player to Durant, and NONE of your players but Battier play any defense. Does he even like playing the 4? That's where you would have to put him. Since I know my team the best, I know Stuckey/AI/Shard/Milsap/D12 sounds a heck of a lot better to me than Brooks/Durant/Battier/Shard/Amare. Thank you for proving that you indeed have a conflict of interest. I have no conflict of interest, you are taking me out of context. I am simply saying there are BETTER options than Boston and how many f**king chances do you need to resign him? The rules pretty cut and dry, you GS, have a chance to resign him if you can outbid the other people. I knew I should have used another team, I'm sorry if I have a life and don't know other teams situations. |
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Feb 24, 2010 18:08:31 GMT -5
What "holding the rights" to and trading them away is essentially a sign and trade. You can't keep the guy, so you are going to dump him away to someone and get something in return. I think this is a little out of control with sign and trades and contract rights - you either have the money to resign the guy or you don't.
So I vote he's a free agent.. even though I'm not even going to take a shot at him. Theres no conflict of interest here. It's just logical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 24, 2010 18:11:33 GMT -5
GSW isn't signing him, I am. To Cleveland. If we have allowed sign and trades all off season, and stop now, how is that fair to myself or GSW. If you want to stop them after this season, fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Feb 24, 2010 18:15:47 GMT -5
I said it's essentially a sign and trade, but, in this case, there is also the issue of rejected extensions. He had his shot at resigning him, and now he has to let him go.
There should be no compensation for bad negotiation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Feb 24, 2010 18:16:00 GMT -5
GSW isn't signing him, I am. To Cleveland. If we have allowed sign and trades all off season, and stop now, how is that fair to myself or GSW. If you want to stop them after this season, fine. I can't believe OKC put someone on the TC that can't read, the rule is pretty clear... " If the terms of a new contract are not agreed on, the player becomes a free agent. This doesn't mean that you have lost your player completely. You still have a shot at signing your once rejected player in free agency where you will have to compete with other GM'S for his services." Don't believe me? ragas2134.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rules&action=display&thread=103If you speak another language I'd be very happy to go on a translation site and stick it in. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 24, 2010 18:17:52 GMT -5
GSW isn't signing him, I am. To Cleveland. If we have allowed sign and trades all off season, and stop now, how is that fair to myself or GSW. If you want to stop them after this season, fine. I can't believe OKC put someone on the TC that can't read, the rule is pretty clear... " If the terms of a new contract are not agreed on, the player becomes a free agent. This doesn't mean that you have lost your player completely. You still have a shot at signing your once rejected player in free agency where you will have to compete with other GM'S for his services." Don't believe me? ragas2134.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rules&action=display&thread=103If you speak another language I'd be very happy to go on a translation site and stick it in. Let me know when you get out of drama queen mode and I will resume our discussion then. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 24, 2010 18:18:50 GMT -5
I said it's essentially a sign and trade, but, in this case, there is also the issue of rejected extensions. He had his shot at resigning him, and now he has to let him go. There should be no compensation for bad negotiation. His negotiations don't effect mine though, 2 seperate issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Feb 24, 2010 18:22:55 GMT -5
I can't believe OKC put someone on the TC that can't read, the rule is pretty clear... " If the terms of a new contract are not agreed on, the player becomes a free agent. This doesn't mean that you have lost your player completely. You still have a shot at signing your once rejected player in free agency where you will have to compete with other GM'S for his services." Don't believe me? ragas2134.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rules&action=display&thread=103If you speak another language I'd be very happy to go on a translation site and stick it in. Let me know when you get out of drama queen mode and I will resume are discussion then. Let me make this simpler, True or False: This says once the PA rejects a player, he is becomes a FA? PS. You can smite me all you want, I don't care, seems kind of drama queenish to me though. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 24, 2010 18:26:52 GMT -5
I didn't smite you at all, LOL. I think this is funny how bent of shape you are. As far as the rule, you are being to simplistic. It could very well mean, players who don't agree to extensions will become a free agent. It doesn't say that only 1 team gets to negotiate with a player does it. It doesn't say after a rejected extension, a player can not further negotiations with another team does it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Feb 24, 2010 18:32:11 GMT -5
I didn't smite you at all, LOL. I think this is funny how bent of shape you are. As far as the rule, you are being to simplistic. It could very well mean, players who don't agree to extensions will become a free agent. It doesn't say that only 1 team gets to negotiate with a player does it. It doesn't say after a rejected extension, a player can not further negotiations with another team does it. I'm not bent out of shape I'm just trying to understand your argument. I guess I'm not "progressive" enough to understand complex issues of words. Like Jeremiah Wright for example, when he says "God D*** America, it's in the bible." I just don't get any other meanings of that, and I'm a sophomore history major, that's kinda what I do. Sorry I'm not as smart as you, but please enlightenment on how you became so smart...are you in the running for the noble peace prize this year? |
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Feb 24, 2010 18:33:49 GMT -5
I said it's essentially a sign and trade, but, in this case, there is also the issue of rejected extensions. He had his shot at resigning him, and now he has to let him go. There should be no compensation for bad negotiation. His negotiations don't effect mine though, 2 seperate issues. But once his contract runs up, you hold his rights until you re-sign him. Once he rejects the resigning however, you lose his rights. I don't think you should be allowed to retain his rights, he's not under contract anymore. Thats how I interpret it. |
|
|
|
Post by Sacramento Kings on Feb 24, 2010 18:35:01 GMT -5
GIVE BATMAN NY!!!!
VOTE FOR PEDRO!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Feb 24, 2010 18:35:53 GMT -5
I didn't smite you at all, LOL. I think this is funny how bent of shape you are. As far as the rule, you are being to simplistic. It could very well mean, players who don't agree to extensions will become a free agent. It doesn't say that only 1 team gets to negotiate with a player does it. It doesn't say after a rejected extension, a player can not further negotiations with another team does it. I'm not bent out of shape I'm just trying to understand your argument. I guess I'm not "progressive" enough to understand complex issues of words. Like Jeremiah Wright for example, when he says "God D*** America, it's in the bible." I just don't get any other meanings of that, and I'm a sophomore history major, that's kinda what I do. Sorry I'm not as smart as you, but please enlightenment on how you became so smart...are you in the running for the noble peace prize this year? If you were familiar with your Bible you would agree with me that the Old Testament God would damn America. straight to hell in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Feb 24, 2010 18:38:05 GMT -5
I'm not bent out of shape I'm just trying to understand your argument. I guess I'm not "progressive" enough to understand complex issues of words. Like Jeremiah Wright for example, when he says "God D*** America, it's in the bible." I just don't get any other meanings of that, and I'm a sophomore history major, that's kinda what I do. Sorry I'm not as smart as you, but please enlightenment on how you became so smart...are you in the running for the noble peace prize this year? Haha, PM me and I'll argue this with you if you really want too. The second I posted it I was like "Damn Cleveland is going to say something."  If you were familiar with your Bible you would agree with me that the Old Testament God would damn America. straight to hell in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 24, 2010 18:38:06 GMT -5
WTF. What are you rambling on about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 24, 2010 18:39:51 GMT -5
His negotiations don't effect mine though, 2 seperate issues. But once his contract runs up, you hold his rights until you re-sign him. Once he rejects the resigning however, you lose his rights. I don't think you should be allowed to retain his rights, he's not under contract anymore. Thats how I interpret it. The team holds the players rights until free agency begins. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Feb 24, 2010 18:40:37 GMT -5
Ughh not again clev and cha
|
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets on Feb 24, 2010 19:54:27 GMT -5
I hate to be a ball breaker but when a dude decline his team option he does become a unrestricted free agent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Clippers on Feb 24, 2010 20:44:09 GMT -5
It could very well mean, players who don't agree to extensions will become a free agent. It doesn't say that only 1 team gets to negotiate with a player does it. It doesn't say after a rejected extension, a player can not further negotiations with another team does it. As to your 1st sentence, that's exactly what it says. Your 2nd sentence is honestly just kinda weird. Only one team ever can technically do the negotiating on an EXTENSION. An Extension implies you are extending the previous contract. The player has only ever been on one team at the end of the season, so only that one team can extend him. So your 3rd sentence you're just not thinking clearly either...yes, after a rejected extension, a player CAN negotiate with another team. Problem for you is, that's called Free Agency. |
|
