What's new
By:

Hayward has agreed to an offer with Hornets

Core4 said:
We can't sign and trade him to Charlotte, but he could be dealt to another team with his consent.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. He's signed a contract with Charlotte, so the only options now are either match or don't match.
 
colton said:
It's shocking to me how many people don't understand this. I was listening 1280 The Zone on the radio yesterday, and one of the radio guys (can't remember who) was saying the same thing--that the Jazz should do a sign & trade. Sorry, not possible!!
Click to expand...

That is one of my pet peeves and why I have general disdain for guys like Bolerjack. Some media guys have no clue how this stuff works and just show a general lack of basketball knowledge. It is their frickin job to talk about this crap intelligently.
 
Damn, I (obviously) had no idea. Can GVC or Kenwood confirm if this is true, that we can not do a S&T with Charlotte involving Hayward?
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];868647 said:
I think we can still extort some assets from CHA. For example, we agree not to match if they send us Zeller and a pick for JLIII.
Click to expand...

Can't do separate trades with consideration to prior agreements... Boston tried this with LA during the Doc stuff and almost got nailed.
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
Damn, I (obviously) had no idea. Can GVC or Kenwood confirm if this is true, that we can not do a S&T with Charlotte involving Hayward?
Click to expand...

Go check Larry Coon's twitter timeline.... Someone asked him yesterday.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];868655 said:
you don't think JLIII is worth that? You don't think he's forcing his way to CHA to be with his boyee Hayseed?

Where've u been braugh?
Click to expand...

I believe it... Veteran leadership and all that... Would silver believe it though?
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];868667 said:
I'm just saying that there are ways around this. You can make it smell significantly different than the Doc "deal".

But, for real, I'm just holding on to last hopes. We're probably about to end up with an extremely over-paid, sulking, streaky shooter.
Click to expand...

Yeah as long as they don't announce their intentions like in the doc deal, but I don't think we ever really investigated the sign and trade. Good news is I doubt he sulks now that he's overpaid.
 
r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t said:
He won't sulk when everyone is complaining how overpaid he is? Serious?
Click to expand...

I hope not... I think his frustration last year was not about his contract... Think Corbin's game plans and losing a lot while trying to play a number one role was the sulking cause.
 
colton said:
I don't think so. He's signed a contract with Charlotte, so the only options now are either match or don't match.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we can match. WE then hold his contract. So with his consent (likely waiving the trade kicker), he could then be traded to another team. Again, it would only be IF he wants to be traded.
 
Core4 said:
Yes, but we can match. WE then hold his contract. So with his consent (likely waiving the trade kicker), he could then be traded to another team. Again, it would only be IF he wants to be traded.
Click to expand...

Somehow I thought there was a time moratorium on trades like that, but apparently that's only if the player doesn't give consent.

"If a team matches an offer sheet and retains its free agent, then for one year they cannot trade him without his consent, and during that year cannot trade him at all to the team that signed him to the offer sheet. They also can't trade the player in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 90)." https://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q47

So you are correct, sir.
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
Damn, I (obviously) had no idea. Can GVC or Kenwood confirm if this is true, that we can not do a S&T with Charlotte involving Hayward?
Click to expand...

They don't need to confirm. Just go to the cbafaq.com site.

There can be no compensation given to a team in return for their submitting or not submitting an offer sheet, or for matching or not matching an offer to a restricted free agent. For example, Houston could not sign Golden State's restricted free agent to an offer sheet, then send Golden State a draft pick in exchange for their not matching the offer.

If a team matches an offer sheet and retains its free agent, then for one year they cannot trade him without his consent, and during that year cannot trade him at all to the team that signed him to the offer sheet. They also can't trade the player in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 91). A restricted free agent's resulting contract (whether with the new team or the contract is matched by the player's prior team) cannot be amended in any manner for one year.

So no, there can't be a sign and trade done now that the offer sheet has been signed and submitted. There is kind of a way around this, but it would draw suspicion. We could make a lopsided trade with Charlotte, ostensibly so they'd clear some additional space to use now that they'd be at the cap with Hayward's deal. But it would raise eyebrows unless Charlotte had another hot deal on the table.

As mentioned, we're restricted from trading Gordon for one year WITHOUT his consent. But he could meet with Lindsey, shout "why the hell did you match the offer?" and tell Dennis to trade him to Boston. In that scenario he gives his consent and a trade can be made. I know kickers have been waived, so not sure if that applies to the statement regarding amendments. Since he's at the max, I don't think the kicker applies anyway in Year 1.
 
colton said:
Somehow I thought there was a time moratorium on trades like that, but apparently that's only if the player doesn't give consent.

"If a team matches an offer sheet and retains its free agent, then for one year they cannot trade him without his consent, and during that year cannot trade him at all to the team that signed him to the offer sheet. They also can't trade the player in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 90)." https://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q47

So you are correct, sir.
Click to expand...

I never hear that in my house, even when I AM right?

Are you married?
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I hope not... I think his frustration last year was not about his contract... Think Corbin's game plans and losing a lot while trying to play a number one role was the sulking cause.
Click to expand...
No. Since money is the most important thing to Hayward, he was sulking last season because he thought his horrible play ruined his chances for a huge payday. Fortunately for him, his ****ty play last season did not prevent him from reaching his ultimate goal in life. I don't anticipate any sulking from Hayward next season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top