5 star thread... because chuck norris has the ability to trade a player from another team to a player on his own team.. epic...
ok rookie-in-disguise-aka-noob-member did you freckin have to start a new thread for this??? as if the flood of new threads popping up right now wasn't enough... its very simple...Ariza was a free agent also...unrestricted one at that...so who do we sign and TRADE artest for Ariza to??? Ariza's mom??? No one owned Ariza and he didn't have a contract we could trade for anyways which makes it impossible to trade for Ariza with one of our free agents..
Seriously why COULDN'T we sign and trade for him? No one's signed a contract yet, we have Artest's bird right they have Ariza's. We each sign our on player and trade him to the other team and we BOTH keep our MLE.
It's been discussed in some other threads. Two reasons, that I can gather. (1) Due to Base Year Compensation stipulation, Ariza will only be worth half the money he signs for, for trading purposes. So, if the idea is sign Ariza for the full MLE, for the purposes of the trade he'd only be worth 3 million or so. That means the Lakers would have to add another player to make it work, and they probably wouldn't be willing to do so. (2) The Rockets probably don't want to spend more money anyways. They're trying to shed salary at this stage to be a player next offseason if it comes to that (they can't get a big name player in a trade before then). Getting Ariza and spending the MLE on another player makes that very difficult.
IIRC, Lakers don't have Ariza's bird rights. Ariza is an unrestricted free agent. Of course, we might possibly force them. Say, we match, Artest has no choice but to go to us. Then we'll tell them sign Ariza with your MLE and give us him for Artest.
I though they had his bird rights, he wanted 7-8 mil a year they would have to have his bird rights to sign him for that amount right?
I don't think the Lakers have his Bird Rights... but it doesnt even matter...Artest and Ariza were both free agents...how can you trade one free agent for another???
Yes we have have his Bird rights, but that has nothing to do with the ability to match an offer. Bird rights simply allows you to exceed the cap to sign your own player. Restricted free agency is what allows you to match an offer. Artest is an unrestricted FA.
According to Jonathan Feigan, Rockets offered that idea to Lakers. Lakers wanted no part of it. http://blogs.chron.com/nba/2009/07/artest_gone_mcgrady_and_yao_ou.html Makes sense. The Lakers, after getting Odom back are over the luxury tax limit (by a signifiant amount, I think), and wouldn't be spending the MLE on another guy anyway. The Rockets, on the other hand, might want to spend at least a part of the MLE on-- if nothing else, signing the rookies to 3 year contracts.
You can sign and trade a free agent. It's done all the time. That's the definition of a sign and trade. That's how we got Scotty Pippen. That's how Orlando got Grant Hill, etc... Both teams could sign and trade their own free agent to each other. The issue is that Ariza is getting a big raise and will be a BYC player which makes it difficult to match salaries.
It is not feasible; it involes the Lakers helping us for free. We are not willing to throw away talent for this to happen. It is also something that we can't force since Artest is an unrestricted FA.
Base Year Compensation is the right answer. For example, if both Rockets and Lakers use their bird rights to sign Artest and Ariza for the same price of 5 million,then if they want to exchange the 2 guys, in the trade, Artest is just equal to 2.5 million to trade for Ariza who is equal to 5 million or Ariza is just equal to 2.5 million to trade for Artest who is equal to 5 million.The 2 teams have been over the cap, so the 2 guys can't exchange.
Sign and Trades cannot be forced. The whole notion is that a team asks the free agent if they are willing to do this, and the team signing the free agent doesn't have the cap space to do it. Essentially it being mutually beneficial to LA and Houston (both preserving the MLE) LA and Houston could force their respective signed free agents to do this. LA would rather eat their MLE than let Houston have theirs, why? Free agents like Odom could see Houston as a potential stopping ground. I'm not saying Odom would come here, but if we gave up the entire MLE and somehow got some money from trading Tmac, we could make a hefty offer at him or an equivalent player. LA wants no part in this, even though it helps us both (Houston moreso).
Sign and Trade for Ariza? If we signed Artest, I would've kept him rather than trade him to LA for Ariza.
