I can understand there being something in place to prevent teams from sacking a player to bring in an absolute superstar to try to make the playoffs and win themselves a championship, but surely there's a difference between that and having two injured players go down and not being able to replace them with a player of a similar level... It's the same thing that screwed the Kings over when Corin Henry went down, isn't it? I remember having this annoyance previously...
It's not a case of making the playoffs for the Kings or buying a championship, it's a matter of being able to compete at a level that isn't 8 on 10. It's a case of being able to finish the season for the fans and sponsors without getting unfairly blown out nearly every game. TO go even further, you'll be over working existing players, risking possible injury.
Kind of a pointless transaction for Sydney though.
It really is a waste of money for the Kings as they are unable to make the playoffs, nor would the new import qualify if they did...so perhaps in a roundabout way the NBL is protecting Sydney from themselves?
As a fan I would rather my team save the cash for spending next year.
It's not pointless at all... Ultimately, they'll be playing 8 on 10 for the remaining 6 games. This risks getting blown out nearly every game, which will have a negative effect on crowd numbers and can quite possibly a negative effect on being able to draw sponsors for next season, which won't be being played in the CBD at the SEC, so they will have their backs against the wall as it is. Being able to sign a similar level player to Childress will keep interest in the team, help make them competitive and keep interest in the team.
But when you've got owners of competing teams in charge, teams that need to beat the Kings to make their playoff chances more viable, the likelihood of that getting approved is less than me shagging Miranda Kerr (again) :)
There's another issue between Adelaide and the NBL that should have precluded the Sixers being able to sign him.
Which is?