I never understood this argument. A team would trade for him in order to guarantee they get him instead of entering a bidding war. This is with the assumption He signs a new contract as part of the trade
You just posted the/my Initial thesis. I tried to give some arguments further down in my post.
Yes your point is a good one. But i do think bidding wars are more of a myth or are way too overrated.
Of course when you have more buyers with a great need the price will go up. But the prices for a player are never openly handled. As a gm you never really know who is also interessed. You will have you information from the players side, that they have other teams who are interessted. That is a big factor.
So there is essentially no "open" market. Its more about gambling and who is the best liar (Poker player).
Then still salaries are bound to the cap. Teams will not overspent.
The myth of hitting the open market Is also used (thats especially the case with us) when players negotiate their new contrant at the end of their old one. We usually overpay for those players also because of that. So a player does not need to hit open market to use such effects.
Also in Prescotts case i already wrote the guy is not interessted in a long term contract. Would you give up a lot for guy who is willing to give you security for only 2 or 3 years?
Then also in Prescotts case: the guy wants to get the most money possible. So the difference between trading for him and then giving him a new Contract or getting him through the open market may be very marginal. Would you give up a first rounder to secure the right to negotiate a new Contract that could be in the end only 2-3 mils less then the one via open market? I would not.