Quick Question - Over in the UK, in Football (Soccer) if someone wants another player the player himself decides if he wants to play for that team and if he doesn't he won't sign any forms for that team so it won't go through....
In Talibs case would this not matter?
In the NFL, once a player signs a contract with a team, that team ("Team-A") owns the right to do pretty much whatever they want with him for the length of the contract, as long as they either continue to pay him or release him from the contract.
Thus, if Team-A trades a player-under-contract to Team-B, and said player doesn't want to play for Team-B, his only recourse is to retire from the sport, more or less permanently.
However ...
Since Team-B has to give up something to Team-A in exchange for the player, and then the player immediately retires after the trade, things can get very ugly, fast. So, to avoid such unpleasantness, when Teams A & B are negotiating such a trade (mostly with high-profile, expensive players), it's pretty much SOP for the teams to include the player in the discussions in recognition of his "nuclear option" veto power, even though there's no NFL or bargaining agreement requirement that they do so.
In cases where a substantial salary is involved (which gets transferred with the player to Team-B), as is the case with Talib, Team-B may refuse to complete the trade until and unless the player has formally agreed to an immediate, downward contract adjustment that reduces the cap cost to Team-B.
Conversely, the player himself may refuse the trade if Team-B hasn't formally agreed beforehand to extend the length of his contract, and at much higher wage then he was previously making.
