Morey lost an asset for nothing? Not the first time, won't be the last time. And after all, he did try. Unlike a lot of the vocal folks here, I think DMo is emensely talented and feel like he would have been a great fit in DAntoni's system. But the injury issue is legit. Funny the way all this played out though in the end.
Your sources are wrong. Nets wanted him all summer and finally signed him to an offer sheet that they hoped the Rockets wouldn't match street giving him a physical. Rockets matched it and then renegotiated a deal giving him more money up front. Both teams wanted him even with his alleged broke back.
The Nets fooled around all summer talking sign and trade and didn't execute. They weren't penalized because this offer sheet was bad or illegal. They were penalized because they didn't out the offer sheet on the table that they, the Rockets, and DMo's team had been discussing all summer.
Once you broke it down, I can see why the league was mad. It essentially goes against the spirit of RFA.
I have never not embraced the idea that teams cannot circumvent. I've read the clause many times. And understand it. Did you see David Stern's recent interview about the Gasol/CP3 trade? That deal wasn't quashed because of circumvention. In this case........Morey attempted to control DMo and preclude any other teams from possibly making an offer to DMo by negotiating the new deal, releasing him back into rfa and then signing him before the other teams even knew DMo was available again. He was trying to avoid a Boozer/Cavs scenario. And he got caught. This case went way beyond circumvention. It went to collusion.
This does not make sense. It takes two parties to sign a contract. Nothing could or would have stopped DMo and his agent from letting every other team know he was available again. Their bigger problem is that nobody else had offered a bigger contract.
What is the motivation to do that, though? You have to walk through that in your mind, and try to rationalize why the player and incumbent team would go through all those machinations, when they can just sign without an offer sheet team never getting involved. And the player is in a really bad spot by doing it. They would be completely at the mercy/trust of the ROFR team to hold out. And the ROFR team would be back at the mercy of the player to tear up the offer sheet and make him RFA, with new teams have more info at their disposal wrt what they will match. We've been through this before. Many thought the player would bolt to Utah. If it is a "loophole", it didn't work, nonetheless...clearly.
the nets offer was totally team-friendly and easily matchable (unlike the parsons deal structured for the rockets not to match) and was made like 2 months into the season. their actions run contrary to what youre saying
Here's a scenario. The player wants to come back. The team doesn't want to overpay. The team tells the player to get an offer sheet and they'll match AND GIVE HIM SLIGHTLY MORE. The player gets an offer. The team matches. The player waits past the deadline to show up. They void the contract and draw up another one that both parties agree. In this case, the offer sheet team is just a tool for the team and the player to get the market value of the player. Another scenario. A team uses a poison pill contract to discourage matching. The team matches. Tell the player not to show. Then they draw up a non-poison contract with slightly better overall money. The player gets more money. The team gets a more team-friendly contract. Anyway, it is just not right if you signed a contract and then someone else can just give you a better one and you can void the first one.
Too much 'holic in this. Don't go to that darkside of believing a bunch of trickery and complexity....you'll never come back. Don't you risk getting caught. I'm not going to discuss this scenario. imo, team/agent will know market pretty well, so you just sign directly if both player and team want to stay together. You don't need all these machinations that could result in being susceptible to lies, second thoughts, and buyer's remorse. But they can't draw up a non-poison pill contract with more money. That's the whole point of the poison pill, to prevent the ROFR from being over bid by teams with more capspace than them. In Poison Pill, by definition, the new team has more to spend than the incumbent team, due to cap restrictions. So, forget this scenario
Morey is careful...he would not intentionally break the rules. I doubt the league forced him to make dmo an ufa. The league would have announced it if that were the case. Jopat/bballholic you are unsurprisingly totally wrong
@Easy Also, if Silver intervened (which I don't rule out), then we should see new wording in the CBA...something like "if player refuses to sign the match and the ROFR team voids the FREN (ie the offer sheet), then the ROFR still retains RFA rights, but player cannot sign another contract or offer sheet for X-amount of days, with the ROFR team or any other team." I feel we will find out what happened one way or another.
I thought the poison in a poison pill contract is the heavy front load in the first year to ruin the matching team's capsapce. But the old team could still match because it was their RFA. If the matching team could restructure the contract, spreading the money over the length of the contract evenly but give the player a little more overall money, then both parties would be happy with the un-poisoned contract.
If they do change the wording, then it shows that they have found that this is a loophole they want to close.
Poison Pill is back loaded. The first year *must* fit within the capspace/exceptions available to the incumbent team. It is meant to fix 2nd-rounders from getting snatched away like Arenas, because the drafting team only had a mid-level exception to use on 1st year...then there are huge jumps later in the contract to match the total compensation of the offer sheet team who had more capspace available for the first year.
