Players signing back with the team that traded them

[Ridders]

We've seen a bit of this in recent years. The most recent one I can remember, apart from the Jamison for Big Z deal(appears he is heading back to Cleveland), was Brent Barry getting traded by the Spurs to Seattle, then signing back 30 days later after getting released by the Sonics.

I understand that under most circumstances the team that eventually releases the player it traded for gets what they want (financial relief) but for some reason it bothers me that a team can trade a player away and then sign him back 30 days later as a free agent after he has been released.

Should there be a rule in place that if a team trades away a player then that team cannot sign that player back for the rest of the season?

 

[Tiger Hawk]

It would be tantamount to restraint of trade.

I've got no issues with it, in the whole scheme of what's wrong with the NBA (contracts, salary cap etc etc), this is barely worth mentioning IMO. Nobody is seemingly disadvantaged, except the team that gives up assets for a player that they have no plan on keeping - but then, that's their decision.

 

[Special K]

It has been happening for years I don't get why everyone is whinging only now.

It sucks but it is no worse than signing a retired player and trading him so he can be waived KVH style