Over on Blazersedge I encountered a back-and-forth regarding the new CBA rules that was suggesting that a sign and trade for Batum was prohibited. At first, I thought the poster was full of nonsense and a few were calling him on it and others were debating the legal definition of "consideration" and yadda, yadda, yadda. So in an attempt at clarity, I headed to Larry Coon's FAQ, specifically his answers as they relate to a sign-and-trade deal.
Okay, since the news broke on our interest in Nic Batum I've been 100% on-board. This interest dates back to a February FanShot I posted regarding Monsiuer Batum. Over the past few days I've oddly been dampening everyone's spirits regarding the potential arrival of Batum with my suggestion that Derrick WIlliams may have to go out in a sign and trade. Needless to say, this hasn't been a terribly popular suggestion on my part. There's only one problem: it's no longer allowed and I'm surprised that no one has called me on it. More after the jump...
In response to a common question, "Can a free agent be signed and traded immediately?" Coon lists qualifiers that MUST be present to qualify for a sign and trade contract to occur. Most important is this new rule:
The player cannot be a restricted free agent who has signed an offer sheet with another team
That's Batum. He's a restricted free agent who (presumably) will sign an offer sheet from the Wolves. I've searched the FAQ over and over trying to determine another qualifier to this language but I find nothing. Worse, the interweb is maddeningly unclear. No one seems to be up in arms about this lost tool for teams to recover an asset for letting a RFA leave. Am I missing something? If not, this really will be a huge game of chicken between the Pacers, Blazers and Wolves. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however.