What is the ideal way for a player to handle not wanting to sign?

I would like someone to explain to me why telling them so isnt it.

Its been happening for 50+ years with mostly positive results.

Its the people who dont say a word and then walk who leave franchises scrambling.

Lets us visit several...

And for now I will ignore those before unrestricted free agency started since those players technically couldnt walk without a judge being involved. late 70s 87 you could sign somewhere but the teams had to work out a compensation package or have the league do it for them. Which is why Moses Malone was "traded" to the 76ers when it was really a free agent signing. Lets stick to demands after somewhat modern CBAs kicked in.

I'll cover those I can remember with articles to refresh any I dont assume we all remember clearly"



Chris Paul:

[QUOTE]Chris Paul's agent has told the New Orleans Hornets that Paul will not sign a contract extension and wants to be traded to the New York Knicks, Yahoo! Sports has reported, citing league sources.

But Hornets general manager Dell Demps, who has heard several trade overtures for the All-Star point guard, wants to meet with Paul and hear that from him, once lockout-related restrictions on front office contact with players are lifted, according to the report.

Demps declined to meet with reporters on Thursday, but has said that his top priority is to work on an extension.[/QUOTE]

Of course he actually went to LA...after the basketball reasons situation im sure you dont need a refresher on.





Tmac:


[QUOTE]Tired of carrying a mediocre franchise, McGrady vowed to
exercise the opt-out clause in his contract that was to go into
effect at the end of next season. But Orlando did not want him to
leave without the team receiving compensation -- like O'Neal did
eight years ago.[/QUOTE]

He admitted he asked out:

[QUOTE]

Baron Davis supposedly told the Hornets he wouldnt come back which is how he was traded for Speedy Claxton and Dale Davis(burn).







Dwight Howard:



[QUOTE]Howard, in an interview with Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo! Sports, reiterated his demand for a trade request from Orlando and shot down an ESPN story that cited sources saying he accused the Magic of “blackmailing” him into signing away his right to enter free agency this summer:

“I never used the word blackmail in reference to any of my dealings with the Magic,” Howard said. “I never said that. It’s defamatory and it’s inaccurate. I know what blackmail means and any report that I used the term incorrectly is inaccurate.”

Howard met with new Magic general manager Rob Hennigan on Friday in Los Angeles, and said he told Hennigan of his desire to be traded. However, Howard insisted he was merely repeating a position he had made clear to Magic officials since waiving his ETO in March.

“This was not the first time [that I asked for trade],” Howard said. “I communicated this to [Magic president] Alex [Martins] and [former general manager] Otis [Smith] way before Friday that I wanted to be traded – months before this meeting with Rob Hennigan. That was all way before Stan [Van Gundy] got fired.”[/QUOTE]



Ended up moving for Vucevic and the pick that ended up Dario Saric and the resulting tank got them the pick that would be Victor Oladipo. They didnt keep them all but id say a sulking Dwight for another all star center, a lottery pick, and a rebuild that landed them the #2 pick isnt bad.



Carmelo you all remember. Got the Nuggets:

[QUOTE]Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, Timofey Mozgov, a 2014 first-round pick and the swap rights in 2016.[/QUOTE]

The 2016 Swap? Thats how the Nuggets got Jamal Murray at #7. That was supposed to be the Knicks pick.


Kyrie you remember. Cavs got nothing of note back since IT never got healthy. They could have told him he had 2 full years left then traded him this week but....whatever.



VC demanded out with 3 full years and an option year left:


[QUOTE]After months of biting his lip, Raptors guard Vince Carter says he wants out of Toronto. According to Thursday's Toronto Star, Carter has discussed his feelings with Raptors general manager Rob Babcock and first-year coach Sam Mitchell, saying "it's just time for me to look after me."

Carter, rumoured to be on the move since the end of last season, added he went public because he's frustrated Babcock hasn't moved quickly enough to send him elsewhere.

Babcock on Thursday told the Associated Press that Carter won't be moved. "He's under contract with our team," he said. "We expect him to fulfil all obligations of the contract."

Numerous reports over the summer claimed Carter was unhappy with the direction of the NBA team and with not being consulted in major Raptor decisions such as the hiring of Babcock and Mitchell.

Babcock acknowledged the trade demand is an "issue" for the franchise, but he said "it's not really an issue" because he's under contract. "Is it the ideal way going to camp? No," Babcock said. "But it's really not the nightmare that other people think it is."

Carter reportedly wants to go to an Eastern Conference team, ideally the New York Knicks, Miami Heat or Orlando Magic.

However, dealing Carter won't be easy, given the fact he has three years

uhhh....meltdown?

But ya I agree though.

Telling them over a year early is easily the best way to do it in terms of looking out for the franchise.

Anyone who says otherwise is foolish.

AD did the Pelicans a solid and in turn they acted childish and unprofessional and continue to do so.



I don't think guaranteed contracts should go away, but I do think players being locked into 5 year deals needs to go away. The players should just have player options every single year of their deals... but they should come at great financial cost.

So say something like... you get a player option every single year after your rookie deal on any contracts going forward... BUT you can only sign for like half annually on what you would for another team...

Or maybe... declining salary the more times you opt out in any given year...

There are plenty of ways to address it to minimize movement but all the "trade me" drama needs to just end. Just make it so players can opt out yearly and give them heavy financial incentives to remain where they are.

i think players have far too much control and the team that drafts a player should have their rights for as long as they're willing to extend them


whatever amount they're eligible for as long as the team matches it they keep that player


if they get upset and demand a trade the team has the right to keep paying them and basically sitting them for as long as they want. or the player can quit the nba/forfeit his contract and go to a different league to play basketball

Telling the team as early as possible and doing it privately, not publicly.

While also telling them your preferred teams list that you'd most likely sign with.

[QUOTE]uhhh....meltdown?

But ya I agree though.[/QUOTE]

Its...mostly quotes from articles from things many likely forgot. Quite a few of them said a lot more than Anthony Davis has. And I forgot one..

Shawn Kemp and Vin Baker both wanted out. Bucks got Terrell Brandon, Sonics got Vin Baker, and Cavs got Kemp.

One drank himself out of the league, one ate himself out, and one got injured but nobody really ended up any worse off.

Trade demands are really the best thing you can do once you know youre leaving. The earlier the better. With years left on your deal the team should get a solid haul.

The Raptors getting an injured/no kidney Zo as contract filler, Aaron Williams, and two non lottery first rounders for prime 27 year old VC with 3 years left was pretty awful....but thats just bad management.

You would get a whole new future for that under most situations.

[QUOTE]There are plenty of ways to address it to minimize movement but all the "trade me" drama needs to just end. Just make it so players can opt out yearly and give them heavy financial incentives to remain where they are.[/QUOTE]

Baron Davis said a few days ago hed take half the money to play in LA over NO. I dont know if he said it to them when he asked for the trade....but he did get traded to California for peanuts. He said NO isnt a basketball town. Plus...hes from LA.

Hes a bit of an exception im sure but no doubt a lot of guys would leave half the money on the table to get out.

Demanding a trade a year out is how most players have done it if they were in a nightmarish situation. Most players I believe have it in their heads that by the time free agency rolls around that they will leave (Shaq, KD, Lebron, among others).

AI had a love-hate relationship with Larry Brown and sometimes a player's attitude towards their franchise (Melo, Kawhi, Barkley, Jimmy Butler, Kareem too iirc) can practically force the front office's hands to move you in order to get rid of a headache.

I think the better question is: what is the [B]worst[/B] way to deal with it?

The worst way is to go on national television and say "I'm not going anywhere" (Dwight) and then leaving anyways.

Or to go on national television and make a spectacle out of you refusing to resign (Lebron)

Or to keep your franchise and teammates in the dark about your intentions until it's too late (KD)

Or finally to have your agent release the information to the public [B]before[/B] the front office can catch wind of it (AD)

The scenarios above are just asinine stunts to pull and is quite frankly unprofessional in my mind. It's like leaving your job without putting in your two week's notice. You'll never be able to list that job as a future reference that's for sure. And it's why when those players leave their loyalty is always in question.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Baron Davis said a few days ago hed take half the money to play in LA over NO. I dont know if he said it to them when he asked for the trade....but he did get traded to California for peanuts. He said NO isnt a basketball town. Plus...hes from LA.

Hes a bit of an exception im sure but no doubt a lot of guys would leave half the money on the table to get out.[/QUOTE]

If you're literally willing to leave half of your salary on the table, then you shouldn't be forced to play in that situation anyways. Just my opinion.

The NBA has a lot of dogshit franchises that aren't really interested in being anything other than dogshit so long as they're making money.

They pretend like making money isn't the number one priority, but that's just pretend. They're pretending... SO that they can make more money... a lot of these franchises don't give a **** about winning.

The league has too many franchises period. And a ton of them are clueless dogshit. Forcing players that actually do care about winning into those situations just sucks.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Baron Davis said a few days ago hed take half the money to play in LA over NO. I dont know if he said it to them when he asked for the trade....but he did get traded to California for peanuts. He said NO isnt a basketball town. Plus...hes from LA.

Hes a bit of an exception im sure but no doubt a lot of guys would leave half the money on the table to get out.[/QUOTE]

Well, yea, and this is where markets do matter.

Well run franchises matter more, but markets still matter and will continue to matter.

[QUOTE=kennethgriffen]i think players have far too much control and the team that drafts a player should have their rights for as long as they're willing to extend them


whatever amount they're eligible for as long as the team matches it they keep that player


if they get upset and demand a trade the team has the right to keep paying them and basically sitting them for as long as they want. or the player can quit the nba/forfeit his contract and go to a different league to play basketball[/QUOTE]



And that is how you get Curt Flood and Oscar Robertson trying to take you to the supreme court.

You should watch the NBA players testify to congress about it. There are some videos from the 70s showing how it worked out. The had some guys from the Hawks explaining the problems of your system. It was found to be an antitrust violation limiting competition. The law literally would not allow the NBA to merge with the ABA because it removed the only option players had to force competition. The lesser leagues were not deemed viable enough to avoid the conflict. It was pretty much deemed an anti competitive merger and blocked for 6 years.

The reserve clause will never be back in any major American sport. I think the MLS has it right now but they will beat it too. Those days are over.

The players do not have too much control.

Restricted free agency is team friendly and you basically get 5 years for sure out of a player...and most likely 7 total at least.

If you can't build a solid team or relationship around a player in 5 to 7 years...you don't deserve to keep them.

The Pelicans did a shit job overall by rushing the process (although they made some solid moves the last couple years) and the Cavs with Lebron probably couldn't have done worse during his first 7 years.

Teams have enough control....either do something to keep them or be prepared to lose them or trade them....and that is how it should be.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]If you're literally willing to leave half of your salary on the table, then you shouldn't be forced to play in that situation anyways. Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]


You get a lot of emotion involved when guys are trying to get home. Melo and Baron for example. Kareem too in the 70s. He originally wanted to go home to NY because of the much larger muslim population.

Its one reason the Raptors better hope they make a great playoff run. Leonard has two teams in his home area going all out for him.

If I had 100+ million already and I can play at home for 150 million more or elsewhere for 180? Eh....

Outside of winning the title, I don't see Leonard staying on that team with a declining Lowry, but who knows...

We all thought PG was gone.

But Leonard with a home in San Diego is problematic to say the least.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Telling the team as early as possible and doing it privately, not publicly.[/QUOTE]


Same thing now.

You have GMs like Dumars who was sending secret NBA emails straight to WOJ.

And you know he wasnt the only one. 10 minutes after a trade request too many people know about it. Even if the GM only tells his owner it gets out. Family...friends. Once you call another team thats a wrap. Its gonna get double confirmation and be run with by legit news sites instantly.

Well the difference between 150 and 180 is practically nothing when we're talking about numbers this big. If you're responsible with money, you're set for life at either number.

The gap has to be higher than that to see if they really want out, to allow them the mobility they deserve, AND to safeguard the teams.

We can't just have player mobility at any given moment on a whim without some protections for the teams.

Right now, the teams are too protected.

We need a balance and the league has yet to figure it out.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Same thing now.

You have GMs like Dumars who was sending secret NBA emails straight to WOJ.

And you know he wasnt the only one. 10 minutes after a trade request too many people know about it. Even if the GM only tells his owner it gets out. Family...friends. Once you call another team thats a wrap. Its gonna get double confirmation and be run with by legit news sites instantly.[/QUOTE]

No doubt the likelihood of a leak is high, but some teams won't leak stuff.

The Clippers, for example, seem to always be able to work mostly in secret.

But yea...reality is exactly what you say.

Still though, from the team view...you'd rather know privately first than publicly.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]And that is how you get Curt Flood and Oscar Robertson trying to take you to the supreme court.

You should watch the NBA players testify to congress about it. There are some videos from the 70s showing how it worked out. The had some guys from the Hawks explaining the problems of your system. It was found to be an antitrust violation limiting competition. The law literally would not allow the NBA to merge with the ABA because it removed the only option players had to force competition. The lesser leagues were not deemed viable enough to avoid the conflict. It was pretty much deemed an anti competitive merger and blocked for 6 years.

The reserve clause will never be back in any major American sport. I think the MLS has it right now but they will beat it too. Those days are over.[/QUOTE]


its a business. the owners run the business. if you don't like where you're positioned then quit


what other business gives its employees the right to choose where they work


when i worked i couldn't just call up a district manager and demand they move me to another location


the location (team) i worked for had a boss ( GM ) that controlled my fate. sure i did all the work and sold all the merchandise for them. it was my blood and sweat making sales. but that doesn't make me an equal partner.. for that to happen i would need to become an investor/share holder


if these players want say in the direction of a franchise then they can try and find a way to raise 1.5 to 2 billion dollars. go to the owner and get a 50/50 share

George no doubt shocked some people in LA but we forget how young he is. Hes gonna be a free agent again when hes like 30. His deal only has 2 seasons after this one till hes got a player option. He will be able to sign anywhere when hes the age Durant will be entering next season. If he wants to go home hes got plenty of time.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]Well the difference between 150 and 180 is practically nothing when we're talking about numbers this big. If you're responsible with money, you're set for life at either number.

The gap has to be higher than that to see if they really want out, to allow them the mobility they deserve, AND to safeguard the teams.

We can't just have player mobility at any given moment on a whim without some protections for the teams.

Right now, the teams are too protected.

We need a balance and the league has yet to figure it out.[/QUOTE]

I don't know, it seems pretty balanced now....

Teams don't actually have to trade players when there is a demand and some of these problems simply are impossible to fix as long as some markets are more desirable and some franchises are much better / worse at building teams than others.

[QUOTE=kennethgriffen]its a business. the owners run the business. if you don't like where you're positioned then quit


what other business gives its employees the right to choose where they work


when i worked i couldn't just call up a district manager and demand they move me to another location


the location (team) i worked for had a boss ( GM ) that controlled my fate. sure i did all the work and sold all the merchandise for them. it was my blood and sweat making sales. but that doesn't make me an equal partner.. for that to happen i would need to become an investor/share holder


if these players want say in the direction of a franchise then they can try and find a way to raise 1.5 to 2 billion dollars. go to the owner and get a 50/50 share[/QUOTE]

Without getting too deep into it, for an extremely large percentage of businesses, they could lay off their entire staff, suffer the growing pains for a few years, and just move on no problem as if nothing ever happened.

If the NBA wiped the slate of every current NBA player and those players formed another league, the NBA would be out of business in short order.

This is not an apples to apples comparison when you compare the NBA to a regular business.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]George no doubt shocked some people in LA but we forget how young he is. Hes gonna be a free agent again when hes like 30. His deal only has 2 seasons after this one till hes got a player option. He will be able to sign anywhere when hes the age Durant will be entering next season. If he wants to go home hes got plenty of time.[/QUOTE]

True, but he took a discount and signed for 3 full years with a player option in year 4.

Giving the Thunder 3 years at a discount was a pretty shocking outcome.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I don't know, it seems pretty balanced now....

Teams don't actually have to trade players when there is a demand and some of these problems simply are impossible to fix as long as some markets are more desirable and some franchises are much better / worse at building teams than others.[/QUOTE]

Players shouldn't be locked into playing for a team for ANY number of years greater than 1 except on a rookie contract. The PA and NBA need to figure out a way to heavily incentivize players to not opt out... but players should be allowed to opt out annually.

This allows player mobility and freedom and protections for the franchises.

Maybe at year 4 or 5 of playing for a franchise a player still has hope but maybe at year 6 or 7 he's completely given up hope. He should be allowed to leave without there being a circus about it.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]Players shouldn't be locked into playing for a team for ANY number of years greater than 1 except on a rookie contract. The PA and NBA need to figure out a way to heavily incentivize players to not opt out... but players should be allowed to opt out annually.[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't is a bit of a tough word...

If the goal is to build out a league with 30 teams....teams need to have some type of control of their assets, especially the players they draft because that is easily the best path to building a 10 plus year span of being good.

If players can opt out annually...it would be a nightmare imo....long-term planning just goes out the window and it would just be madness.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Shouldn't is a bit of a tough word...

If the goal is to build out a league with 30 teams....teams need to have some type of control of their assets, especially the players they draft because that is easily the best path to building a 10 plus year span of being good.

If players can opt out annually...it would be a nightmare imo....long-term planning just goes out the window and it would just be madness.[/QUOTE]

Not if you give them extreme financial incentive to stay put. And I mean extreme. Do you really want to leave or do you just want to eat your cake and have it, too? See what I mean? I'm not in support of the players trying to eat their cake and have it, too. I'm in support of them getting SOME level of choice beyond what is currently offered.

Additionally, the league needs to contract probably 6 franchises at least but that'll never happen because overall revenue would decrease, heh.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]Not if you give them extreme financial incentive to stay put. And I mean extreme. Do you really want to leave or do you just want to eat your cake and have it, too? See what I mean?

Additionally, the league needs to contract probably 6 franchises at least but that'll never happen because overall revenue would decrease, heh.[/QUOTE]

What is extreme?

Because the current financial incentive is pretty big, and it isn't working...and if you did that, you'd have rookies posturing constantly to try and get to certain franchises.

Also, while I agree that contraction would greatly help to go down to 12 per conference...it isn't happening.

The following franchises are complete dogshit...

Cleveland
Orlando
Atlanta
New Orleans
Charlotte
Brooklyn

The Clippers should also be on the list.

[QUOTE=kennethgriffen]its a business. the owners run the business. if you don't like where you're positioned then quit


what other business gives its employees the right to choose where they work


when i worked i couldn't just call up a district manager and demand they move me to another location


the location (team) i worked for had a boss ( GM ) that controlled my fate. sure i did all the work and sold all the merchandise for them. it was my blood and sweat making sales. but that doesn't make me an equal partner.. for that to happen i would need to become an investor/share holder


if these players want say in the direction of a franchise then they can try and find a way to raise 1.5 to 2 billion dollars. go to the owner and get a 50/50 share[/QUOTE]



But then we return to the real world where this was settled long ago. Curt Flood actually challenged it using the 13th amendment claiming that a contract to play....that you have no choice but to honor or quit...is both a violation of the involuntary servitude section and an anti trust violation used to reduce wages by not allowing competition. It went to the supreme court. He didnt exactly win but it ended up in arbitration and he essentially won in time. Years later we got what was called the Curt Flood act. Congress passed a law officially saying pro sports leagues are held to the same monopoly laws other big businesses were in the 1914 Clayton act.

Essentially.....Curt Flood took one for the team, got blackballed from the sport, and got federal laws changed so your plan...would simply never happen again. He even got automatic no trade clauses after being on a team 5 years or just in baseball for 10.

The NBA wants no part of the lawsuit that would result from trying to bring back the reserve rule. The only way MLS gets away with it is because it was founded as one central owned league without independent teams. ITs technically one giant company with different branches. You dont own an MLS team like you own an NBA team. You just operate it like a franchised restaurant. Its set up to specifically avoid the reserve clause lawsuit.

Once its strong enough to have real value for its teams and private owners really fighting eachother that shit is over.

NBA owners compete. They would never put themselves under one umbrella and lose out on the massive profit from being able to sell your team for 2-3 billion dollars whenever you want. NBA teams get handed down through families.

NBA....NFL...MLB?

No reserve clause will ever return.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]What is extreme?

Because the current financial incentive is pretty big, and it isn't working...and if you did that, you'd have rookies posturing constantly to try and get to certain franchises.

Also, while I agree that contraction would greatly help to go down to 12 per conference...it isn't happening.[/QUOTE]

Extreme is your salary being cut in half by going elsewhere. Rookies get locked in, I already said that. They don't get a choice.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]Extreme is your salary being cut in half by going elsewhere. Rookies get locked in, I already said that. They don't get a choice.[/QUOTE]

There is no way something like that ever gets into the CBA...

And, again, it would create havoc in the draft and you'd see players go overseas.

You can't reward shit franchises like that. You would start to see owners make more cost saving moves because there wouldn't be a huge reward to compete. You get lucky and draft a stud...and know that he essentially can't leave unless he wants to make hundreds of millions of dollars less over the course of his career?

That is way too much power in the hands of owners / franchises.

I think the best way is for the player to say they will explore free agency once his contract expires. That way the franchise will look to trade him instead of having him ask for a trade. Seems like people are not ok with players asking for a trade specifically. The worst thing is for the player to have a small list of destination teams.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]The following franchises are complete dogshit...

Cleveland
Orlando
Atlanta
New Orleans
Charlotte
[B]Brooklyn[/B]

The Clippers should also be on the list.[/QUOTE]They're good now though.

[QUOTE=kennethgriffen]i think players have far too much control and the team that drafts a player should have their rights for as long as they're willing to extend them


whatever amount they're eligible for as long as the team matches it they keep that player


if they get upset and demand a trade the team has the right to keep paying them and basically sitting them for as long as they want. or the player can quit the nba/forfeit his contract and go to a different league to play basketball[/QUOTE]

Teams have control over a player for 7 years. And yet you want them to have more control? Silly

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]Without getting too deep into it, for an extremely large percentage of businesses, they could lay off their entire staff, suffer the growing pains for a few years, and just move on no problem as if nothing ever happened.

If the NBA wiped the slate of every current NBA player and those players formed another league, the NBA would be out of business in short order.

This is not an apples to apples comparison when you compare the NBA to a regular business.[/QUOTE]


sorry but how many anthony davis situations are there... that would never be an option.

and no... the players cant just make their own league because for that you need billions of dollars
then they would need 30 of the top stars to own their own team. then who pays the players. who gets the tv deals. are the contracts guaranteed? what kind of stability is there. wouldnt they choose a much shorter season. then how do you make as much money. how do you strong arm the networks into forking over billion dollar deals with no leverage.

starting a league is very very very hard. just look at AEW the new start up wrestling company. they have a billionaire owner and even he cant afford more than 5 big name guys right now without a lucrative tv deal. they have one show planned in the future. how many guys would be out of work for years before it became anywhere near as good as the nba


so many guys would choose to stay behind because the money would still be there in the nba. rookies coming up would still enter the nba draft and within a few years youd have all new stars


the nba needs to say enough is enough and if they wanna go on strike for years then so be it. bring in replacement players until they agree to a deal where the owners have the power again

[QUOTE=sammichoffate]They're good now though.[/QUOTE]

And the Clippers are probably about to be really good with Jerry West but that doesn't mean it's not a dogshit franchise overall.

[QUOTE=kennethgriffen]


what other business gives its employees the right to choose where they work


when i worked i couldn't just call up a district manager and demand they move me to another location


the location (team) i worked for had a boss ( GM ) that controlled my fate. sure i did all the work and sold all the merchandise for them. it was my blood and sweat making sales. but that doesn't make me an equal partner.. for that to happen i would need to become an investor/share holder


if these players want say in the direction of a franchise then they can try and find a way to raise 1.5 to 2 billion dollars. go to the owner and get a 50/50 share[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of companies who will allow an employee to transfer to a different location, if they have an opening available. And even if they don't, there's nothing to keep an employee from quitting their job and moving, then finding a new job in the same industry. NBA players don't have that option.

[QUOTE=baudkarma]There are plenty of companies who will allow an employee to transfer to a different location, if they have an opening available. And even if they don't, there's nothing to keep an employee from quitting their job and moving, then finding a new job in the same industry. NBA players don't have that option.[/QUOTE]



you said it... "allow"

its up to them. its their business

This is like the people who propose ending entitlements as a solution to the budget issues. Yes...it might work. But it wont happen in the real world so why go into it?

Reserve clauses are dead and will never ever ever return.