(02-15-2023, 01:09 PM)omahen Wrote: League would not look positively at the new salary Indy gave Turner if they would just trade him on accusations of potential cap shenanigans. They would likely interfere. Indy can trade him in the summer and league would have a hard time saying something was wrong with the cotnract. This was analysed by several writers, for example Hollinger (too lazy to find the article).
After the renegotiation, Indy could have traded MT had they wanted to. The rules allowed it.
What was confusing is that "renegotiate-and-trade" per se is not allowed. But there's no specified waiting period after a renegotiation until you can trade that player.
So it would have been disallowed if renegotiate and trade were all linked together as one inseparable entity, in the way that sign-and-trade or extend-and-trade are. In those latter transactions, the player is able to designate his destination as a condition of signing or extending, and if he's not traded there, the contractual commitment doesn't exit. But with a renegotiation, he can't play that game -- he has to commit to the team who is doing that deal for him, independently, and whether they then opt to later trade him, or where, is entirely at their discretion.
Once MT had signed the renegotiation, without a trade attached to the contract, he could have been traded.