A bold idea to make the Bulls favorable with players: Self imposed no trade rule

[League Circles]

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.

[Michael Jackson]

The PR aspect of it is good. The reality of it isn’t though. Somehow Rich Paul calls Jerry a slaver because he won’t trade anyone for AD if AD wants to come here.

[JohnnyTapwater]

Nah. Players would be stuck with players they think should legitimately be traded. LOL.

I say work on the amnesties. (granted, I have no clue what they offer to begin with) Chefs. Oxygen chambers. Advisers that REALLY help with their money management and investment strategy. Cutting edge stuff to help players on the court and off the court in ways beyond the locker room.

[Axl Rose]

How about just be honorable in general?

Lets not grab coaches by their ties or get vindictive because they aren't playing your bad draft picks. Lets not hire assistant coaches to be spies in the locker room. Lets not act like a small market team with our finances.

[League Circles]

How about just be honorable in general?

Lets not grab coaches by their ties or get vindictive because they aren't playing your bad draft picks. Lets not hire assistant coaches to be spies in the locker room. Lets not act like a small market team with our finances.

How about let's not act like any of those ideas have anything to do with this idea?

[Axl Rose]

How about let's not act like any of those ideas have anything to do with this idea?

Its a counter and more sensible idea than a self-imposed no trade rule.

Which i don't think would even be attractive to a star player, knowing they are bound to the roster they are signing with. What if things don't mesh? This also severely limits our team building ability in general. I really don't see any upside, sorry.

[transplant]

As I think about it, many of the kind of players I'd most want on my team, players to whom winning is most important, might view a no-trade policy as a negative because it can limit a team's ability to get better and/or move on from players who are hurting team chemistry.

[HomoSapien]

I think this is just a terrible idea. We're the Chicago Bulls not the Rio Rancho Rattlesnakes. If we have to limit the way in which we can improve our team in order to attract free-agents, then there's an even bigger issue at stake.

Also, am I missing something? Has there been some accusation/complaint that trading a player is somehow similar to slavery?

[Wingy]

Kudos for trying a unique angle during the offseason. God awful idea in practice.

So you're basically saying - hey stars that don't wanna sign here anyway... you definitely don't wanna sign here!!

What star is going to want to come here if they know they're locked in...even if the team ends up being pure garbage?

It's taking the Harry and Lloyd chance we do have, and reducing that down to nothing.

[dice]

This is a terrible idea because the Bulls aren't losing out on players because they're some overly active trade partners. Additionally, players like trades in some cases because they want to get a better opportunity for playing time. Also, what if the team has a rash of injuries; are they not allowed to trade for anyone?

This is not an idea that helps the team in any sort of way.

I don't think he's suggesting that a team wouldn't trade a player who WANTS to be traded. that would just require him waiving his imaginary no trade clause

it could be beneficial to a team's image to avoid trades except in blatantly necessary situations. by asking itself "will there be any hard feelings and to what degree will that harm us going forward?" but teams ask themselves these kinds of questions already. for example, danny ainge surely factored in that it would look callous to trade IT for kyrie irving

I actually am suggesting that they don't trade players that want to be traded

i was referring to mutually beneficial trades, not to players under contract who demand out

a FO ingratiating itself to potential acquisitions does not require hard and fast rules such as the one you're suggesting. it only requires treating players with respect. as in the lakers not trading lebron after a season, as many people were suggesting. as in informing a player that a trade is in the works before they find out from their agent or through the media. as in being upfront and honest in contract negotiations. etc.

The obvious reason that [limitations on no trade clauses] exists is because every player would want one and fans clamor for roster changes.

you think it's to ENCOURAGE trades?

[dice]

I think this is just a terrible idea. We're the Chicago Bulls not the Rio Rancho Rattlesnakes. If we have to limit the way in which we can improve our team in order to attract free-agents, then there's an even bigger issue at stake.

Also, am I missing something? Has there been some accusation/complaint that trading a player is somehow similar to slavery?

it's actually an offensive comparison. particularly given that trades have been happening in team sports long before blacks were even permitted to play in some cases

i'm not aware that actual slaves being swapped for each other was ever a big thing either

[Onibuh]

Lol to people acting like this is way out there merely weeks after the NBA abolished the term owner because it hints at our memories of slavery. This is along the same lines but it would be the Chicago Bulls organization taking the lead instead of being forced to by Adam Silver.

I’m not suggesting it’s “way out there.” I’m saying it’s a bad idea.

I know, thanks. Some others are implying otherwise though.

To me, the Bulls instantly frame 29 other teams as, you know, slave traders. In a certain very 2019 marketing sense of course.

don't you think this takes it way too far and too political?
It's not like only euros or black or white or chinese people get traded. All while getting lots of Money and Always have a Chance to just retire.

[kingkirk]

Seems like a great way to handicap yourself and lose competitive advantage among your rivals.

This would never work, and for players themselves, specifically for those that matter, having the ability to be traded is something they'd want up their sleeve too.

A very hard pass on this concept. It makes sense for no one.

[Dez]

Why is "slavery" being used in anything related to basketball?

[League Circles]

Why is "slavery" being used in anything related to basketball?

Ask Adam Silver.

[League Circles]

I don't think he's suggesting that a team wouldn't trade a player who WANTS to be traded. that would just require him waiving his imaginary no trade clause

it could be beneficial to a team's image to avoid trades except in blatantly necessary situations. by asking itself "will there be any hard feelings and to what degree will that harm us going forward?" but teams ask themselves these kinds of questions already. for example, danny ainge surely factored in that it would look callous to trade IT for kyrie irving

I actually am suggesting that they don't trade players that want to be traded

i was referring to mutually beneficial trades, not to players under contract who demand out

a FO ingratiating itself to potential acquisitions does not require hard and fast rules such as the one you're suggesting. it only requires treating players with respect. as in the lakers not trading lebron after a season, as many people were suggesting. as in informing a player that a trade is in the works before they find out from their agent or through the media. as in being upfront and honest in contract negotiations. etc.

The obvious reason that [limitations on no trade clauses] exists is because every player would want one and fans clamor for roster changes.

you think it's to ENCOURAGE trades?

I don't know about encourage, but the limits on who teams can give no trade clauses to are obviously made in part because most fans (think they) want more player movement.

[League Circles]

I’m not suggesting it’s “way out there.” I’m saying it’s a bad idea.

I know, thanks. Some others are implying otherwise though.

To me, the Bulls instantly frame 29 other teams as, you know, slave traders. In a certain very 2019 marketing sense of course.

don't you think this takes it way too far and too political?
It's not like only euros or black or white or chinese people get traded. All while getting lots of Money and Always have a Chance to just retire.

As I said in the OP, I don't think it's an appropriate analogy. But we're talking about a league that just announced they weren't going to call owners owners anymore. I wonder why that is?

[League Circles]

I think this is just a terrible idea. We're the Chicago Bulls not the Rio Rancho Rattlesnakes. If we have to limit the way in which we can improve our team in order to attract free-agents, then there's an even bigger issue at stake.

Also, am I missing something? Has there been some accusation/complaint that trading a player is somehow similar to slavery?

it's actually an offensive comparison. particularly given that trades have been happening in team sports long before blacks were even permitted to play in some cases

i'm not aware that actual slaves being swapped for each other was ever a big thing either

Who said anything about race? I don't think any human wants to be traded (like a commodity or slave).

You're not aware that the only uses of the term trade regarding human beings in the english language are slaves and professional athletes?

[greenl]

This is not bold, it's idiotic. There is no cogent argument to be made for limiting the avenues for roster construction.

[League Circles]

FWIW, this policy would be intended to coincide with declining many third year options for drafted players and also trading lots of picks before we use them (on other picks). Something along the lines of, every couple years trading both firsts amd both seconds for the highest first you can get. It would mostly be a free agency team perpetually, though a new rookie would be brought in every couple years or so. You'd have a rolling core of about 4-8 guys on multi year deals and 7-11 guys om ome year deals typically.