Interesting story about the Malcolm Brogdon signing

[Smartacus]

https://youtu.be/n8l4sH7Jwdo

Shout to Brian Windhorst on this one. In my opinion he's gotten a lot better since he has stopped obsessively clinging to LeBron. His reporting this year has been unique and fairly accurate.

I recommend watching the video but the long and short of it is that rather than trying to lock up Brogdon with a poison pill contract to try to steal him in restricted FA, the owner of the Pacers contacted the owner of the Bucks and created a good faith sign-and-trade where the Pacers gave up more assets than they might have needed to but locked up the security of knowing that they would get Brogdon and the good will that they weren't pillaging Milwaukee.

NBA upper management has been taking a beating lately but if you ask me this is a great example of how it can be done right.

Of course you could also argue that the Pacers gave up too much for a player that Milwaukee might not have matched.

What do you think was this honorable business practices or mismanagement of assets?

[footey]

Seems to have worked out for both teams, so I endorse it. TP for the post.

[Fafnir]

I think it probably allowed them to lower their offer to Brogdon. You can say the Bucks wouldn't have matched that deal, but they might have. The Pacers might have needed to go up even more to be "sure".

Sign and trades are three way negotiations with the team with the matching rights having the hammer to "win" at any point by matching.

[alt]

Herb Simon has had a policy of not signing Restricted Free Agents going back decades. Probably since restricted free-agency exists, I've heard about it a long time ago.

I never thought it makes any sense whatsoever. Rules are agreed by every team and that includes restricted free agency.

If anything, I find it's unethical as ceteris paribus it'll diminish competition for players and negatively affect their earning potential.

If he doesn't like RFA, he should lobby to remove it from the CBA.

What they did in this particular case of negotiating a trade (or a s'n't) is fine, but others have done it.

[Androslav]

Don't be fooled Smartacus, Windy is a snake.
Even if he drops some good info "For once in my life",
as Steve would sing.

[Smartacus]

Herb Simon has had a policy of not signing Restricted Free Agents going back decades. Probably since restricted free-agency exists, I've heard about it a long time ago.

I never thought it makes any sense whatsoever. Rules are agreed by every team and that includes restricted free agency.

If anything, I find it's unethical as ceteris paribus it'll diminish competition for players and negatively affect their earning potential.

If he doesn't like RFA, he should lobby to remove it from the CBA.

What they did in this particular case of negotiating a trade (or a s'n't) is fine, but others have done it.

Good points made by all but I think that this post nails that opposition I was looking for.

One man's ethical business practices is another man circumventing a collectively bargained negotiating practice.

Is this really more ethical than offering Brogdon $10 million more on a front-loaded contract? Probably better for the general health of the NBA teams but if anything you could argue that Brogdon might have been robbed of the extra value on his contract.

But then again he now gets to go to a stable team as opposed to the Bottom Feeders of the league trying to pick off the best players of well run teams through RFA.

Is Allen Crabbe better off because he got overpaid by the Brooklyn offer? Would he be looked at now as a good player on a good contract instead of an albatross if Brooklyn acted like the Pacers and gave up assets to sign and trade for him at a reasonable price?

Really interesting nuance of the situation.

[Fafnir]

Its not circumventing the CBA! You're allowed to negotiate sign and trades with the RFA rights holders team. The player has the option of refusing to do the deal if he doesn't like the salary number or the destination.

Its just a three way negotiation, all sign and trades are.

[tazzmaniac]

Herb Simon has had a policy of not signing Restricted Free Agents going back decades. Probably since restricted free-agency exists, I've heard about it a long time ago.

I never thought it makes any sense whatsoever. Rules are agreed by every team and that includes restricted free agency.

If anything, I find it's unethical as ceteris paribus it'll diminish competition for players and negatively affect their earning potential.

If he doesn't like RFA, he should lobby to remove it from the CBA.

What they did in this particular case of negotiating a trade (or a s'n't) is fine, but others have done it.

There's nothing unethical about it.  Trading for RFAs is allowed within the rules too.  Lots of teams don't make offers on RFAs because the team that controls the player can wait a couple days before deciding whether to match or not. 

[alt]

Herb Simon has had a policy of not signing Restricted Free Agents going back decades. Probably since restricted free-agency exists, I've heard about it a long time ago.

I never thought it makes any sense whatsoever. Rules are agreed by every team and that includes restricted free agency.

If anything, I find it's unethical as ceteris paribus it'll diminish competition for players and negatively affect their earning potential.

If he doesn't like RFA, he should lobby to remove it from the CBA.

What they did in this particular case of negotiating a trade (or a s'n't) is fine, but others have done it.

There's nothing unethical about it.  Trading for RFAs is allowed within the rules too.  Lots of teams don't make offers on RFAs because the team that controls the player can wait a couple days before deciding whether to match or not.

I didn't say there is something unethical about trading for RFAs. In fact, I literally and explicitly state that it "is fine" - please re-read the last paragraph of my comment.

I said that Simon's stance and policy of not singing RFAs to offer sheets is unethical. Imagine if all owners adopted it - that would mean there would be no market for RFAs, and the only options for RFAs would be to sign whatever contract their current team offers, hope for a sign'n'trade or play out their QO. It'd mean more risk and suppressed wages for the players.

It doesn't have a practical impact because it's just one owner doing it.

[gift]

Herb Simon has had a policy of not signing Restricted Free Agents going back decades. Probably since restricted free-agency exists, I've heard about it a long time ago.

I never thought it makes any sense whatsoever. Rules are agreed by every team and that includes restricted free agency.

If anything, I find it's unethical as ceteris paribus it'll diminish competition for players and negatively affect their earning potential.

If he doesn't like RFA, he should lobby to remove it from the CBA.

What they did in this particular case of negotiating a trade (or a s'n't) is fine, but others have done it.

There's nothing unethical about it.  Trading for RFAs is allowed within the rules too.  Lots of teams don't make offers on RFAs because the team that controls the player can wait a couple days before deciding whether to match or not.

I didn't say there is something unethical about trading for RFAs. In fact, I literally and explicitly state that it "is fine" - please re-read the last paragraph of my comment.

I said that Simon's stance and policy of not singing RFAs to offer sheets is unethical. Imagine if all owners adopted it - that would mean there would be no market for RFAs, and the only options for RFAs would be to sign whatever contract their current team offers, hope for a sign'n'trade or play out their QO. It'd mean more risk and suppressed wages for the players.

It doesn't have a practical impact because it's just one owner doing it.

Good point.

[No Nickname]

Its not circumventing the CBA! You're allowed to negotiate sign and trades with the RFA rights holders team. The player has the option of refusing to do the deal if he doesn't like the salary number or the destination.

Its just a three way negotiation, all sign and trades are.

Exactly. Brogdon could have still signed a higher-priced deal with say, New York if he wanted to. He wasn’t deprived of potentially signing for a better deal with another team. He didn’t have to agree to the trade to Indiana.