<br> I'm sorry?? <br> However, most of the time before I click on a thread, I hover my mouse over it to see the first few lines...... <br> Just a suggestion...
I posted this possibility in another thread. Are there any rules against this happening? Scenario is between Hou and Sac: Landry can not be signed and traded, but I think we can get around this issue. If the Rox work out an agreement with the Kings ahead of time, SAC can sign Landry to an offer sheet with the agreement that we dont match, assuming SAC still has their MLE which I think they do. Then the deal is Brooks and Bjax for Artest. Salaries work and SAC gets an expiring contract almost as big as Artest's would be. Basically they get Landry, Brooks, and Bjax and we get Artest. I guess it could work with any team assuming they have their MLE. It is basically like we are signing and trading Landry. We could even throw some cash into the trade if that team is near the luxury tax and Landry's contract pushes them over it. Course it would have to be for a borderline superstar player to do that.
You Can't - piss and moan about stupid stuff like whether or not a title is misleading. If you were so busy that this title just royally messed up your day by clicking into it you wouldn't be wasting time here with the rest of us. If we all wanted to be nitpicked, we'd be spending time with wives and girlfrieds instead of reading stuff about the Rockets. You Can't - Continually pick undersized players at positions where you already have guys. You Can't - Make trade ideas "JUST" because the salaries matched up on Real GM.
Under the rules, no compensation can be given for agreeing not to match an offer sheet. http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#36
YOU CAN'T get that through people's heads. How about this? OK, we kidnap the kids of Sacramento's GM, and we don't let them go until we get Artest for whatever scrubs match up to his salary. Or, wait! We snatch David Stern, and we attach a bomb to him that explodes if he tries to take it off. Then, we get to spend however much money we want... Or, how about this - we sign Carl Landry, then trade him in three months to Sacramento. THAT is legal.
YOU CAN'T... "score the ball." It's impossible. You score points. WITH the ball. Not only the dumbest sports term EVER coined, but it even SOUNDS idiotic. And listening to some of these guys who have been covering sports for years, you can almost feel their pain as they're forced to say it because everyone else is saying it these days. "He's got handles" was pretty moronic, but this one is world-class bad.
What's to keep Sacremento from pulling a Boozer on us, especially since they hate Adelman? Also if there was anything written, Stern will come down on us like a ton of bricks (see Minnesota).
Talking about, I guess, semantics, I hate how "Jones draws the foul" is used both ways. Sometimes they say that when Jones commits the foul, other times when the foul is committed on Jones.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hijack this thread and turn it into one about forum etiquette, your original post was a good one. I'm merely suggesting that in the future, you may get more attention from people who actually are ignorant about NBA salary rules if you posted a title that said something like "NBA Salary Rules Correction" or something like that.
<br> Well, the thread wasn't about just that. If you want to know about NBA Salary Rules and the like you can go read the FAQ. This thread was meant to be about things that you are just tired of hearing, and that don't make sense/you don't like. And, anyways, if a person is ignorant about NBA salary rules, I don't think it would matter what the title was, they probably wouldn't check it anyways
I believe that you can make a wink wink deal if you meet certain conditions, even though it's illegal to do. First off, you'd have to be dealing with a GM that you have a good relationship with & a lot of trust. In other words, he needs to be able to keep his mouth shut. Secondly, the agreed upon trade has to be believable by everyone, especially the NBA front office. A Brooks/Bjax for Artest trade would set off so many alarms & red flags that you'd swear it was 9/11 all over again. Any trade for Artest would most assuredly have to include Battier & a draft pick or two. So, yes, I believe you can do a wink wink deal as long as it's believeable. Just don't write it down on a napkin (Joe Smith/Minnesota reference).
