Naero
03-29-2020, 06:41 PM
Any franchise lucky enough to land a superstar will treat them untouchably. If the superstar ends up traded, it's at their volition much more than the front office's.
Then there are the lower, tradable tiers of stars—players who might serve as title-contention pillars but who you'd never grant a no-trade clause to. Whether it's because of dispensable skillsets (relative to the roster), an uneconomic contract, internecine chemistry, or other incompatibilities, there might be more to gain than lose by trading them away, because you'd never build a title-contender around them.
What such players come to mind?
The criteria is simple but needs defining:
-The player can't have requested the trade themselves or explicitly planned to leave come free-agency time (e.g., Kawhi).
-They must not have suffered a debilitative injury (e.g., Isaiah Thomas in 2017).
-The stage of their career matters; I'm sure you can think of many better players than 2008 Shaq, for instance.
Then there are the lower, tradable tiers of stars—players who might serve as title-contention pillars but who you'd never grant a no-trade clause to. Whether it's because of dispensable skillsets (relative to the roster), an uneconomic contract, internecine chemistry, or other incompatibilities, there might be more to gain than lose by trading them away, because you'd never build a title-contender around them.
What such players come to mind?
The criteria is simple but needs defining:
-The player can't have requested the trade themselves or explicitly planned to leave come free-agency time (e.g., Kawhi).
-They must not have suffered a debilitative injury (e.g., Isaiah Thomas in 2017).
-The stage of their career matters; I'm sure you can think of many better players than 2008 Shaq, for instance.