Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi
The sticking point here is whether or not a trade can be made between two teams (here, Team A and Team B) with team A only "giving up" their right to match, and receiving something in return from Team B. No other players are traded. This would be against the spirit of the league, IMO. However, if a team wants to include a "not match" provision as part of a multiple player deal, then why not?
This is very different in my opinion. This borders on attempted extortion! Any owner has the right to increase a RFA bid at any point in the RFA period. It behooves the tendering owner NOT to disclose his intention prior to the point of sale. If another team tries to bully me by saying they're going to increase the bid on an RFA, then more power to ya! You run the risk of getting a player at an inflated price. This is not that big of a threat, IMO.
|
Jim, to the first point, I really don't care if it is part of a larger trade. I really don't think there is anyway to police it. I think it should be against the rules to include based on the principal that if you can't trade for it straight up, it should be allowed to be part of a larger package. That is just common sense to me, but I could be in the minority.
I think the second instance is rare. However, I can see something like this coming up. It could happen in a different way. Say a player (like HInes Ward) has reached a point where the tendering team has made it clear they aren't going to match. Of course they could be playing chicked, but what if Team C came in and wanted compensation from Team B (the team with the current high bid) that if they didn't raise, and Team B ended up with the player, then team B owed Team C compensation for not raising. Do you find this more analagous?