Would you feel that would cause more convulted CBA rules changes by the NBA?
We send AD out like the cancerous Trojan Horse that he is. He bails and the Lakers pull a Kobe/Dwight 2.0. Yet, this time... They don't have future assets to rebuild. So, the NBA largest market is stuck being a bottom feeder. Would such a large market team gain enough favor to create a Rob Pelinka/AD rule?
I guess if they did a rule. The only way to do it is go gauge import assets vs. Export assets in a trade in situations with contract length. Lakers have 6-8 outgoing assets while only gaining 1 asset. The rule would deny 1 year expiring to be traded for so many assets without a newly created contract extension litigation... I guess we can call it a trade extension of 1-3 years at market/bird right value before allowing the trade.
1-3 assets = 0 year
4 = 1 year minimum extension
5-6 = 2 year minimum extension
7+ = 3 year minimum extension
Pick swaps count as half assest
I think this only happens if the worst case scenario for the Lakers/ Best for Pelicans . As in... AD leaves and we won another Lottery through the Lakers while being top level contenders/ getting top level lottery odds/picks.
Which I honestly would hate to happen, but much like being unable to trade btb 1st round picks. It's another move to protect teams from bad moves by GMs.
Do you think in the worst case scenario for Lakers... Would Silver & NBA step in to create a new rule to protect teams from giving up the farm for a 1 year rental superstar?