Author Topic: Why doesn't Pierce have no-trade clause?  (Read 3347 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Why doesn't Pierce have no-trade clause?
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2013, 02:41:37 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
It's just not that common because as a GM you don't want to give up your personnel control.

Right. This isn't on Pierce, this is on Danny Ainge. I'm sure Pierce's agent inquired about it, and I'm sure DA said no, and non-negotiable.

We have no insight into the possible deals Pierce could have signed, so it seems silly to me to blame him for something that, what little we do know about it, was the result of Pierce's agent and DA butting heads.

It's also worth pointing out that The Truth is, objectively, far and away the least essential player to his team if you include him with the four horsemen of No Trade-ocalypse.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Why doesn't Pierce have no-trade clause?
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2013, 05:48:41 AM »

Offline lightspeed5

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4111
  • Tommy Points: 283
Only 4 people in the league have this clause. it is not something discussed in contract negotiations. only superstar all time greats have leverage to even discuss it.