Who did the Lakers miss out on due to waiting on Kawhi?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:51 pm    Post subject:

Laker_Dynasty_01 wrote:
LakerMindLA wrote:
Laker_Dynasty_01 wrote:
LakerMindLA wrote:
Laker_Dynasty_01 wrote:


The Qualifying Offer was never rescinded, and the trade was agreed to before July 6th. No one could offer more than the Nets, who had Russell's rights, so once max money was in play, it was a done deal. DLo had no clauses preventing a trade without his consent


You’re making up CBA rules. Just because max money was offered, it doesnt mean DLo loses his rights. If DLo wanted to, he could have rejected the max money and signed for the QUalifying Offer or not signed at all.

DLo still had to agree to a S&T, the Nets couldn’t do it without his explicit consent.


DLo hasn't actually signed an NBA contract since his rookie year.

There's nothing in the CBA that says a Restricted Free Agent can opt out of a sign and trade.

DLo essentially agreed to this deal when he signed his rookie contract with the Lakers, and didn't sign to play under the QO when it was tendered to him. Once he doesn't do that, his Restricted Free Agency begins, and ends the moment the Nets give him max money. No other team's potential offer can hold up the Nets re-signing him.

If I'm wrong after reading through the CBA rather extensively these past few hours then I'm an idiot. I can't find any loopholes that would allow a player going into RFA to dictate his immediate future, provided the team in question has the capspace to give said player the max. The Nets needed two max slots for KD and Kyrie, but since it was KD's Warriors who wanted Russell, the Nets had no need to renounce DLo.

If the Warriors wanted him and the Nets agreed to the trade, no one can stop the deal, outside of Kevin Durant.


DLO.

Let me bold the important part for you. He is a Restricted Free Agent.. He is a Free Agent, the only difference is the Nets have the right to match any offer, which is why he is restricted, however, he is still a Free Agent.

He still has to sign a deal to be traded. That is why it is called a sign and trade. Dlo says no, there is no trade to GSW.


UFAs are the only true Free Agents.

He's already signed, it's essentially a three year team option being exercised, with a fourth year player option. The deal only needs the signature of the front office members. It's not the same as a veteran being extended on the condition of being traded to a team of his choice.

You keep ignoring the adjective "restricted" before "free agent", which means "free to negotiate max money", not "free to choose where he plays".

After all, RFAs don't have to agree to be "matched" and may be retained against his will, and doesn't get a no-trade clause unless he plays under the QO. The only other way a player (with fewer than 8 years in the league) can veto a trade is when he signs a one-year deal coming off his rookie contract, a la KCP.

If I'm wrong, can somebody educate me, rather than just going with popular opinion?

somebody put up the Bardsignal!

This is the dumbest (bleep) I've read on this board and the clearest argument for abolishing restricted free agency around.
_________________
Under New Management
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Laker_Dynasty_01
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 1703

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:16 am    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Laker_Dynasty_01 wrote:
LakerMindLA wrote:
Laker_Dynasty_01 wrote:
LakerMindLA wrote:
Laker_Dynasty_01 wrote:


The Qualifying Offer was never rescinded, and the trade was agreed to before July 6th. No one could offer more than the Nets, who had Russell's rights, so once max money was in play, it was a done deal. DLo had no clauses preventing a trade without his consent


You’re making up CBA rules. Just because max money was offered, it doesnt mean DLo loses his rights. If DLo wanted to, he could have rejected the max money and signed for the QUalifying Offer or not signed at all.

DLo still had to agree to a S&T, the Nets couldn’t do it without his explicit consent.


DLo hasn't actually signed an NBA contract since his rookie year.

There's nothing in the CBA that says a Restricted Free Agent can opt out of a sign and trade.

DLo essentially agreed to this deal when he signed his rookie contract with the Lakers, and didn't sign to play under the QO when it was tendered to him. Once he doesn't do that, his Restricted Free Agency begins, and ends the moment the Nets give him max money. No other team's potential offer can hold up the Nets re-signing him.

If I'm wrong after reading through the CBA rather extensively these past few hours then I'm an idiot. I can't find any loopholes that would allow a player going into RFA to dictate his immediate future, provided the team in question has the capspace to give said player the max. The Nets needed two max slots for KD and Kyrie, but since it was KD's Warriors who wanted Russell, the Nets had no need to renounce DLo.

If the Warriors wanted him and the Nets agreed to the trade, no one can stop the deal, outside of Kevin Durant.


DLO.

Let me bold the important part for you. He is a Restricted Free Agent.. He is a Free Agent, the only difference is the Nets have the right to match any offer, which is why he is restricted, however, he is still a Free Agent.

He still has to sign a deal to be traded. That is why it is called a sign and trade. Dlo says no, there is no trade to GSW.


UFAs are the only true Free Agents.

He's already signed, it's essentially a three year team option being exercised, with a fourth year player option. The deal only needs the signature of the front office members. It's not the same as a veteran being extended on the condition of being traded to a team of his choice.

You keep ignoring the adjective "restricted" before "free agent", which means "free to negotiate max money", not "free to choose where he plays".

After all, RFAs don't have to agree to be "matched" and may be retained against his will, and doesn't get a no-trade clause unless he plays under the QO. The only other way a player (with fewer than 8 years in the league) can veto a trade is when he signs a one-year deal coming off his rookie contract, a la KCP.

If I'm wrong, can somebody educate me, rather than just going with popular opinion?

somebody put up the Bardsignal!

This is the dumbest (bleep) I've read on this board and the clearest argument for abolishing restricted free agency around.


After reading the CBA FAQ again, it does seem DLo could've just sat on his thumbs and not accepted the max money (Section 42 "If he doesn't sign a qualifying offer, a contract, or an offer sheet for one year, his prior team can submit a new qualifying offer [or maximum qualifying offer],"). Apologies to dcarter4kobe and LakerMindLA. (But there's no way we get him for less than the max after the Warriors offered to accept him at that price, so no Jeremy Lamb)

Of course, knowing the purpose of the previous CBA, owners would hate if DLo refused a max offer from the team with his RFA rights and would negotiate tougher restrictions on rookie contracts.

EDIT: Just noticed a player who signs an offer sheet with a new team and has it matched by his current team gets an automatic one-year NTC, which could be used as leverage against the Nets in this case. So, if DLo wanted to be a Laker and was given any offer sheet by the Lakers that he found acceptable, he could sign it and threaten to veto any trade should the Nets match (which the Nets couldn't afford).

Obviously we didn't want him at the max, or he preferred GS anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB