It seems unfair for the period between trade/re-signing be so long. I think a 3 or 6 month period would be fine to prevent abuse - or if the player ends up going through the same requirements as the Amnesty waiver claim process.
It seems like a gosh darned shame that if the Knicks indeed wanted JJ4 and Jorts (and they were the only team in the NBA interested!), that they are denied the ability to get a professional contract. I'd venture to say that this is against the law.
(Is this limitation waived if some other team intervenes in the middle (i.e. let's say the Warriors bring him in for a non-guaranteed camp contract then waive him - or if it's in the middle of the season and he's in for a 10 day contract, then not renewed))
technomaster wrote:It seems like a gosh darned shame that if the Knicks indeed wanted JJ4 and Jorts (and they were the only team in the NBA interested!), that they are denied the ability to get a professional contract. I'd venture to say that this is against the law.
They're still being paid the remainder of their contract, no?
I'd love to have Jorts back, but I don't mind the 1 year rule. Maybe a bit excessive, and 6 months would suffice, but it was an easy rule to exploit.
Seems strange that if a player clears waivers they can't get them again.
All teams should take a pass then player should be allowed to return.
Knicks didnt give 2 shits about Lin. Doubt they will bother to face an arbitrator for Jorts
The Knicks didn't fight for Lin's early bird rights - that was the player's association. I get the sense the Knicks weren't planning on keeping Lin in the first place, given how hard they pursued Nash... then Kidd.
No room for both a rising young star and an old veteran who speaks in terms of being in there at the end of games.
MaTT4281 wrote:technomaster wrote:It seems like a gosh darned shame that if the Knicks indeed wanted JJ4 and Jorts (and they were the only team in the NBA interested!), that they are denied the ability to get a professional contract. I'd venture to say that this is against the law.
They're still being paid the remainder of their contract, no?
I'd love to have Jorts back, but I don't mind the 1 year rule. Maybe a bit excessive, and 6 months would suffice, but it was an easy rule to exploit.
I saw a blog article on clutch city that said the contracts were not guaranteed and that both Jorts and Jordan would probably be moved ( old article). It also said rockets planned to keep toney. Poor guy is stuck backing up the most popular nba player on the planet again.
No. Then contenders will trade expiring contracts for good players and then sign back the player they just traded after he's waived. It's a good rule.
I agree. The rule became ridiculous. The two day waiver period was too short, fine. The one month seemed fair, but not enough... fine, two months, at most. Two months is enough to detract MOST players from bothering. Occasionally, someone wants to do it anyway. Look, if the player REALLY wants to be with that team enough to give up being with a team for two months, so be it. The one year rule is overkill.
Anyway, teams wouldn't be trying to find so many loopholes around the CBA if the CBA wasn't so complex and misguided. And then find out that no matter what you do, the top market teams will still spend. The small market teams ultimately want to have a system where the top market teams can't spend. Sorry, but it's nonsense. The big market teams are the backbone of the league and they are always going to have some advantage. Let's not forget that NY has among the highest tax rates and nobody is giving luxury tax or salary cap discounts for that fact. Losing free agents, etc... is a part of the game. Want to keep them? Build a good team. Enough of these nonsense rules.
Is it a fair rule from a player standpoint?
The Knicks might have league min contracts waiting to be offered... The cba is denying them the ability to get jobs in the nba. I guess the players association is okay with that.
