This deal is fine, although because of Pittsburgh's lack of desire to compete this past offseason, it does make it a borderline sign-n-trade issue. If Pitt was trying to compete and failed, there is absolutely no problem with the fire sale, no matter how many years he gave any player. However, Pittsburgh was fire selling themselves in the offseason, which leads me to believe the signing of Martinez was for the purposes of getting value in a deal for him, not the purposes of winning. Now there's no problem with that, but in that case you should have to follow the hard one-year guideline because you blocked a potential contending team of signing that player.
For this reason, and the fact that Pittsburgh clearly stated they made this deal with the intentions of getting prospect value and clearing cap space, like all strictly rebuilding teams with no intention of winning do, this deal should be canned. It will further create the "But you let that PIT-NYM deal go through" situation when a veto is decided on the same type of trade.
For this reason, and the fact that Pittsburgh clearly stated they made this deal with the intentions of getting prospect value and clearing cap space, like all strictly rebuilding teams with no intention of winning do, this deal should be canned. It will further create the "But you let that PIT-NYM deal go through" situation when a veto is decided on the same type of trade.