Over the past week, there has been a surprising amount of chatter about the possibility of sign-and-trades, particularly as it comes to the top guys. While those discussions may be relevant in previous years, they prove to be largely misguided as we head into free agency.

Here is why that path is largely irrelevant:

1. Players can and will choose where they want to play.

This part of the game has not changed at all. At the end of the day, the players in question will hear their pitches (if they have not already made up their mind, and my best guess is that most have) and they won?t huff and puff and change their mind because another entity says 'no'.

2. The teams the big FA?s could jump to almost universally have plenty of cap space.

And here is where things get different than usual. In many other years, teams might have had the space to sign guys outright with a little room or may have even needed a little help. Even teams like the Orlando Magic used the "help" of the then-Sonics to get Rashard Lewis to town. While having space for one full max guy in a desirable location was pretty rare, this year has multiple teams with the space for two max contracts, including Chicago who could easily pull it off with a move and still have Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah on the roster. This cap space leads to the difference in leverage which should be the real story of free agency.

3. The teams currently possessing the rights to the big FA?s have little to no bargaining power.

To reference political science, what fuels the negotiations between players and teams when it comes to free agency is who the veto players are. Said differently, the people who shape the transactional world are the entities that can kill a deal in its tracks.

With free agents, the athletes themselves are always veto players, though Restricted Free Agents have a smaller range because of their status. In a practical sense, this means guys will not go somewhere they do not want. Typically, the current team can act as a gatekeeper because the potential new team would need some help making the deal. Now, the only leverage the current team has is the possibility of paying the player more money in terms of raises and years- they cannot stop them from heading out the door if that difference is minor or unimportant. However, even if that money matters, they still are limited.

4. The current teams, when faced with the prospect of the player leaving, will have to take something over nothing.

Unless teams get swindled the way Otis Smith did by Sam Presti a few years back, they will realize that under the current system, a player's soon to be former team has no leverage. In these situations, they can offer the previous team that by doing a sign-and-trade, they can garner a trade exception worth more than the cap space they have.

This avenue is open to potential suitors of LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Joe Johnson, and Carlos Boozer since their teams would gain more flexibility than if they rejected the deal and forced the player to take less money. Few owners and GM?s have the freedom to make their own team worse to spite a player who spurned them. Poaching an Al Jefferson or an Andre Iguodala (or a lesser player, of course) would not be the preferred solution, yet some teams will likely calculate that it is better than their other reasonable options.

5. The new teams know this dynamic and have a massive incentive to use it.

Any team that is adding max contracts this year (other than the Bulls) has a pretty barren roster as of now, so they do not even possess the players to satisfy crazy demands anyway. Look at the Heat- the only player they have on the books that is movable is Michael Beasley, and I?m sure they would offer him to the first team that is willing to sign-and-trade their guy, since they apparently offered him up for Ryan Gomes last week.

The only exception to this could be Luol Deng, as the Bulls could easily trade him as a part of the sign-and-trade to a team (let?s say the Cavs) since it would open up their cap more and give the other, likely cap-strapped team a useful player they could not get otherwise. Beyond him, it is hard to see any of the teams flush with space even having the players to give if leveraged.

6. The only exception- Players whose #1 team is one without cap space.

For the sake of completeness, this is the area where a team currently possessing rights would have real power. If one of the major FA?s wants to go to a team like the Mavericks or the Lakers, the current team could easily wield some power and get something substantial out of the deal since they have become a veto player with power. This is largely why the Bosh-for-Bynum rumor came about.

As such, the 2010 off-season should be one that runs in two separate cycles:

First, the big-ticket free agents choose their destinations, with any now-spurned teams getting a massive trade exception they can use for one calendar year for their trouble.

Second, those teams can look to the teams like Philadelphia that are close to or over the luxury tax and get a better player than is available in the remnants of the free agent market without having to woo them or make the same sort of long-term commitment.

From there, it is hard to see how the comparatively minor pieces shake out, but we will have time to sort all that out in about two weeks. For now, let?s just sit back and enjoy the show with the understanding that as of now, no one who knows anything is saying it, so those who are pontificating do not know the truth.

Feel free to e-mail Daniel at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/DannyLeroux.