dice wrote:League Circles wrote:dice wrote:a "self imposed" no trade clause makes no sense when you can just write it into the contract. and writing it into the contract gives additional bargaining power on salary
"can i have a no trade clause?"
"no need. we don't trade anybody!"
"yeah, i'm gonna need that in writing. thanks"
Umm, you can't write it into the contracts for almost all players.
"umm"...as if that was common knowledge?
but if the league prohibits no trade clauses in the vast majority of cases, you should know that they're not going to take kindly to a team sending out the "bat signal" that they're offering *wink wink* no trade clauses for incoming free agents
Sorry, I actually would have thought it was common knowledge amongst hard core posters like you. It actually was 10 and 5 years rather than 8 and 4 until recently.
The obvious reason that this rule exists is because every player would want one and fans clamor for roster changes.
I've been suggesting that the Bulls use this tool to get guys like Derrick Rose (this summer) to sign for somewhat discounted contracts. Taj too would have been eligible.
But yes I realize the league office might not look on this favorably. I would have to consult my attorneys to see what legal ramifications the league has on my team before announcing such a policy.