GVC
Well-Known Member
Players will demand trades either way. Extend-and-trade allows teams in less desirable locales to get something (instead of nothing) in return for their disgruntled players. These teams still can tell the player no, and do so again when it comes to sign-and-trades. The rich, big spending teams rarely, if ever, have cap space, and players like Chris Paul will be forced to stick around in New Orleans or go someplace other than the team they really want to play for (unless they take a massive paycut).If Chris Paul tells the Hornets he is going to the Knicks whether he's extended or not, and the Hornets are forced to believe him, then they are forced to take hardly anything back instead of nothing at all.
Look, I see your point, I really do. But the issue is much larger than that one time a superstar forced his hand in this way, and treating every extend-and-trade as such is simply bad for the quality of the NBA and basketball in general. If players know they can do this, they will do this if everything isn't perfect (and it never is).
If players know they can force their hand in this way, they will, even if they are bluffing.
With the cap rules as they are, how do sign-and-trades and extend-and-trades hurt small market teams? If the owners were willing to man up and refuse to capitulate, this wouldn't be an issue. As it stands, I'm glad the Jazz were able to get something instead of nothing in return for Carlos Boozer, and also were smart enough to move Deron before the situation deteriorated as it has with Chris Paul in New Orleans.