|
Post by Boston Celtics on Jul 28, 2007 14:17:52 GMT
I'm wondering what people think of a new rule outlined below:
I don't like the way some careless GMs try to sign someone/trade someone, and then discover that they need to release a player before they can make the move because their lineup would be over 15 players.
I'd like there to be a rule that would prohibit GMs from releasing players under these circumstances. I'm not certain, but surely this kind of activity doesn't happen in real life does it?
|
|
|
Post by redstorm177 on Jul 28, 2007 18:15:55 GMT
I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with what you just said so I'll give an example of what I think is fine:
Earlier this season, I had a trade with the Lakers where I was going to end up with 16 players after the trade. In the trade "contract", I specified that upon completion of the deal, Shammond Williams (a salary throw-in from LA) would be released to free agency to put my roster down to 15. I don't see why that would be a problem. It would be a problem, however, if I kept him on the team and realized down the road that I had too many players, only to release him then.
I didn't vote in the poll since I'm not sure what the above scenario would fall under.
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors on Jul 28, 2007 18:19:02 GMT
To me it means if you sign a free agent and then make a trade that puts you over the 15 player roster limit and then cut the guy you just signed as a fee agent.
|
|
|
Post by Erik Lassen on Jul 28, 2007 18:50:04 GMT
I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Jul 29, 2007 9:02:08 GMT
Earlier this season, I had a trade with the Lakers where I was going to end up with 16 players after the trade. In the trade "contract", I specified that upon completion of the deal, Shammond Williams (a salary throw-in from LA) would be released to free agency to put my roster down to 15. I don't see why that would be a problem. It would be a problem, however, if I kept him on the team and realized down the road that I had too many players, only to release him then. ^^Philadelphia's example would be ok. An example of a situation that wouldn't be ok is when a GM submits a trade and then realizes he's got to cut an original player on his team just so they can get the trade accepted. Or, like San Antonio did a few days ago, try and sign a Free Agent (Buford) whilst their lineup is full, and then have to release a player (White) to make sure the deal goes through. I'm proposing that in those situations, the GMs should not be allowed to release the player, and therefore the deal they were trying to get done wouldn't be done either. It's happened many times during the last few months that I've been in charge of the league and it reeks of poor planning, lack of enthusiasm and just bad management.
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 29, 2007 10:42:14 GMT
I voted "No", I think you have to give GM's the benefit of the doubt as they don't know if a trade or even a free agent signing is going to go through. If GM's are forced to waive someone first then they could end up losing a player for nothing, if the trade is rejected or the free agent player gets an overpriced bid they have already waived their rights to the player.
If you keep the rule as is, but only process trades and free agent acquisions where teams that go over 15 have specified in the original trade thread who they intend to drop, then things would run smoother and their wouldn't be any overlap. But the Mods have to get on top of it, always check if either team goes over 15, and refuse to pass judgement on a trade if so. If we decline to even pass judgement on such trades we'll set a precedent, and the GMs will catch on soon enough. After a month or so it will seem as normal as including salary details.
An alternative is to allow GM's to put a clause in waivers made to facilitate a trade or a FA acquisition allowing them to cancel the waiver if the stated trade or FA acquisition isn't successful.
J
|
|