This helps to make it clearer but it doesn't really look good for the Rocks... From the Houston Chronicle: <i>The teams did receive clarification about the collective bargaining agreement rules about restricted free agents. If the Warriors match the contract, Jackson cannot be traded for 90 days, but Jackson would have to consent to any trade up to a year. If the Warriors match, the Rockets would not be permitted to trade for Jackson for a year. Now that Jackson has signed an offer sheet, the Rockets and Warriors cannot strike a deal involving him, and the Warriors are not permitted to negotiate a trade with another team for him. </i>
Hey 'pere, is there any chance of the Rockets renewing the Jahidi White talks? The Wizards have a glut of big men, and Kwame Brown will be the heir apparent at center, so maybe Jordan will dump his contract, I don't know if you can trade the medical exemption. Either way I'm getting a bad feeling that Marc Jackson isn't going to be a Rocket. The screwed up thing is that the Warriors could end up with ANOTHER big contract on their roster. How would they look giving a 6 year 24 million dollar contract to a guy who will possibly be their back-up center and who doesn't want to be there when they're trying to trim payroll, all to prevent the Rockets from getting him!? I doubt if another team will take that contract because of the length of it. Besides, if the Warriors match the Rockets offer and keep Jackson, they can't trade him until January, so they would be stuck with a guy they took shots at, and who took shots at them but is getting paid big bucks with the Warriors, and for what?
Jackson just needs to make it known publicly that he won't agree to any trade the first year & that if they match his contract, he'll dog it & do everything he can to disrupt the team. He could also make derogatory comments about the coaches, management, & players. What does he have to lose? He gets paid by either us or Golden State, no matter what. They'd have to let him go if he did that.
While that would probably help in the "staying in Houston" concept, it would do nothing for the "don't burn any bridges" doctrine. Remember that this is a relatively small league. People, players, coaches and reputations get around. No matter how much he may not want to play in GS, he has to remember that his attitude in this situation will be judged by other teams as well. He (and we) just has to play the hand he is dealt and let the chips fall where they may. Mmmmmmm, cliches.
I agree with what you say, but if he comes in here & performs like he did last year for the full 6 years, no one will remember what he said. I wouldn't be surprised if some teams would probably agree that GS is not & has not shown any common respect for Jackson & has actually dissed him by not even talking to him throughout the free agency period. I know that it's a business, but even in the toughest negotiations, you extend some respect to the other party. I'd have to say that GS has burn't the bridge long before this. If I were in Jackson's shoes, there is no way that I'd want to play for a team that has treated me like that. Just my opinion.
My knowledge base on NBA laws is just a little above zero, but this all just seems like it should be illegal... He signed an offer sheet already, right? It seems like we ought to have some sort of negotiating rights at this point, instead of being left out of the loop... He wants to come here. We want him. GSW doesn't want him, and he doesn't want GSW. What am I missing?
Yeah, this really is a goofy system. The team that steps out to make a commitment to a guy is then frozen out of any ongoing negotiations that become necessary. How is that good for Marc Jackson, the Rockets, or the NBA? It does seem to POTENTIALLY benefit the Warriors who can stiff-arm the team the played suitor to their player formerly under contract? It's one thing if that player is just using his options to force his former team to up the ante AND he wants to stay there. It's another thing entirely if the guy truly wants to leave-- as is the case of MJ. This kind of thing threatens the integrity of the league. It is ridiculous to leave the Rockets on the outside looking in and powerless to do anything about it.
Jeff...I agree with you, however, the same "burning bridges" doctrine can be applied to the Warriors as well. If they go out of their way to handcuff M Jax, then other players are going to see what kind of organization they are and cross them off of their list when they become free agents and when they are in S&T scenarios etc. (not that they'd be on many lists to begin with, but you see my point)
Why would GS match the offer and keep Marc on the team's bench for 90 days to a year. It only makes sense if they have an offer out there for him already, which seems highly unlikely since no one did anything prior to the Rockets offering the exception and him accepting it. It seems that a separate deal to compensate GS is what makes sense, which is what is being touted publicly by the Rockets. What concerns me is that the Rockets have also said that GS hasn't been responsive so far, which may indicate NY has made them a new offer of some kind.
Feigan is being a little too vague about the rules. This thread clarifies it better: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22804 This basically states that all rumors were just talks before GS and Houston got the league to clarify the "no considerations" clause. Now they both know they can't pursue these rumors. GS can't talk about any compensation or any future trades with Marc. If they want to sign and trade him, they are supposed to just sign him first and discuss trades later. They definitely cannot get any trades agreed on, whether verbally or in writing. The Rockets also can't do anything to convince GS to not exercise the ROFR. The only CBA-allowed scenario to consummate any of the rumors flying is to rescind the Offer Sheet and start from scratch. However, all three parties (GS, Houston and Marc) must sign their OK to rescind the Offer Sheet.
It doesn't make sense for Jackson to rescind the contract just to be bantied about like a piece of meat. And, to get him to rescind you would have to already have some sort of trade scenario worked out you could present to him which isn't allowable. It makes more sense to let it go and just do something separate on the side.
Wait. How is this bad? Maybe it's just early, and I haven't had my coffee yet this morning, but I don't quite understand. Jax can refuse a trade up to a year. Here's a future typical conversation between GS management and Jax: GS: "Will you, could you, accept a trade to New York?" JAX: "I do not want to play in New York. Not eating some pork, while avoiding the torque." GS: "Will you, could you, play for Indiana?" JAX: "I do not Indiana. Not eating a banana with a girl named Brianna." JAX: "I do not like these trades, you see. For it is in Houston that I'd rather be. If he has a right to refuse a trade, what's going to stop him from doing it? Granted, he'd be in GS, and he's made it quite clear he hates it there, but he could make life very difficult for GS. Plus, GS would have to match the offer, then talk about trading him to another team. They can't match and trade at the same time, right? Another team could leave GS twisting in the wind with a disgruntled player (with a 6-year contract). It's not like they can agree to a trade, then match and trade him. If GS matches and things fall through for them, come 90 days later (or a year), you'll be looking at the Great Marc Jackson Fire Sale (contingent on Jax's agreement to any deal up to year, to boot). How does that help GS? On top of it, I agree with NJRocket. Free agents will avoid GS like a plague if that's how they conduct business with their players. Someone enlighten me on what I'm missing here. People say "It's not looking good for us," but what is the basis for that comment?
I guess one good thing is that Anthony Mason is asking for a deal starting at 4 years 18 million dollars, at least that is what RealGM is saying, so if the Warriors decide to match Jackson's offer the Rockets might be able to pry Mason away.
I agree with VeseySux, I don't see how we are not in a good/desent position. Unless GS makes another stupid mistake (Which is the only thing that scares me), we should have Jax. But, if it was any other team in the league other than the Nets(Griffin) or GS, I would not worry at all. CD has it under control.
I must be a jackass because I cannot see how this clarification is a bad thing. I have a lot of respect for OP but I have to believe that he is wrong this time. CC has a link to the SF Chronicle that seem to make more sense and represents good news for us. Also, someone in another thread had info from ESPN Insider which based on info from a league source said Jackson will be a Rocket. GS has a packed front court without MJ, the contract offer has six years, Jackson does not want to be in GS, and MJ has to okay trades for a year. All these suggest that MJ will be a rocket.
That would have him doing to Golden State what Pippen did to Houston and the Rockets. Has Pippens actions been forgotten??
I wouldn't say he was wrong at all. I am now believing (after 1 more hour to contemplate these articles) that all the journalists jumped the gun on the "Offer Sheet" announcement, as DoD alluded to in the SF article thread.... I think DoD nailed it. There never was an Offer Sheet until yesterday, meaning there were no restrictions for talking about trades. I'd say, there was a signed Uniform Player Contract with Marc. But, a signed contract is not an offer sheet yet, until the league accepts it as valid and it gets sent to GS. Only until it arrives at GS is it an official "Offer Sheet." So, what DoD assumes...I would concur....is that CD used these past few day as warning to GS that they had Marc signed and there will be an Offer Sheet arriving. Thus, CD would say something to the effect of, "Hey, do you want to do a deal before we send you the Offer Sheet that stops all negotiation of deals?"
