Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Preds
Again, I just don't see where these types of trades (decline as part of a package) are harmful to the league in any way.
|
You have stated numerous times in the Philly/Opihi thread that when a trade occurs, but sides must give up value. Say team A has the right to match or decline an RFA bid on player A. Team B had the high bid. Player A in and of itself holds no value to team A until the decleration is made of wether or not the high bid will be matched or declined. Once matched, the value of the Player A is just that, Player A at the bid contract. If declined, the value is the compensatory pick. If a trade is negotiated to send a draft pick so Team A declines the match, Team A's value (which I see as the compensatory pick once the decline is declared) remains with Team A, and thus Team A gives up no value, yet receives value in trade from team B. That's the way I philosophically look at it anyway.
What's the harm to the league? We have determined a level of compensation for RFAs based on four levels. If we allow trading of compensation to teams to decline a match, then we are adding a level of compensation not previously contemplated.
What's to differentiate the right to match/decline a player from the right to bid on a player? If you can negotiate your right to decline a player, can I negotiate my right to bid on a player? IE, say Team A has player A rfa'd. His 48 hour window is about to close. Say I know from previous conversations that I am confident that Team A will match at this level, can I go to Team A and ask for compensation in exchange for my not raising the high bid? Can you tell me why that would be different? You can say it is anti-competive based on the fact that the salary is affected, but I say your situation is anti-competitive because you are getting more compensation for an RFA than what the league previously determined to be a fair amount.