SideSwipe wrote:DBoys wrote:SideSwipe wrote:-you said it was "CLEAR" It is not "CLEAR" ...
Ah, so your objection to my point is not over the point itself, but rather over whether it was clear to you. Gotcha. Can't argue that - if it's unclear to you, you would know.
Maybe I should have said the rule pertaining to extensions from rookie scale contracts was clear to me. And yes the wording of the CBA can be a challenge because it has to be read carefully, but to me that's not a haziness or lack of clarity, but rather just the opposite as it uses precise language, and is simply the nature of the beast in complex contracts (as the CBA is).
Hopefully my summary of the rule will help its meaning come into better focus for you.
Wow, what a truly dizzying intellect you have. Your summary has done nothing for this thread, but derail it into some kind of attempt at feigned condescension. You only quoted what I did in my original post. Clarity comes from specificity in contracts, not from obfuscation. Coon does not address trading of rookie extensions except in absence of information. The CBA is the same. There was confusion on the trade board and Suns board because I was thinking they were allowed based on the language, and many others were confused and you have not added clarity, only combativeness, and a plain lack of knowledge in this domain. Maybe take a peak at the CBA from time to time, there is a wealth of information there for you.
Alright guys. Enough. No reason to make this personal. Just move along.