Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Preds
The Team that owns a player has 2 options, match or decline. The bidding team hopes they've bid high enough to force a decline or they can sweeten the pot to ensure a decline with another deal.
In the case of Barlow, the 3rd rd comp didn't cut it for me. I was absolutely going to match.
FYI, last year I declined Mason and sent the comp to Jim as part of the deal for Aaron Brooks. It wasn't "officially" part of the package (as this isn't), but if I don't decline on Mason that deal wouldn't have been done. This deal is more complex, but no different.
|
I think it is less of an issue when it is part of a larger deal. There is nothing really stopping you from saying the decline on Barlow wasn't part of the deal. There is no way to police that. My issue is setting a precent that a decline can be negotiated in and of itself and traded for value. Could the Derby Cars have traded you a 2005 rookie pick straight up for your decline? I would strenuously argue no, because you are not giving up value, as you previously have indicated is a strict requirement of a trade. In order for Barlow to have value for you, you would have to match the high bid. If you decline the high bid, the only value to you is the compensatory pick, which you retain, and thus you surrender no value. Again, that is my only issue, and what I want to make sure we are clear on. If this is not clear and not agreed, I'll add it to the list of items for 2006.