[CBA Circumvention Article] Question(s) for Bima or any attorney that can decipher legal docs

Were you not around for 'basketball reasons'? You think Stern and Silver are going to be sitting in their NY offices looking at this trade and saying, 'that sneaky Morey pulled a fast one here, but there's nothing we can do to stop it because the circumvention clause is ambiguous on this trade"? They might not raise an eyebrow, but if they do, they can stop the trade. We saw it before.

And it sounds like your fight is with Larry Coon. Mana posted Coon's answer, and he's considered the authority. If you don't think he's right in his characterization, send him an email.

 

semantics. He's just explaining it wrong. I'm saying it's an illegal simultaneous trade, because you aren't allowed to make future trades.

It's only legal if it's two separate trades. Then all are legal. Each of those types of trades happens all the time.

Trade A = Trade PFs for nothing (our cap is lowered)
Sign Howard
Trade B = Trade future draft assets for a 2013 Lottery pick (our cap increases by the cap hold on the pick)

All legal. We temporarily drop cap space and gain it back in Trade B.

What is not legal is two teams making a binding agreement to execute a trade in the future.

His Howard signing cannot happen (if the cap savings was required), because Trade A and Trade B don't reduce capspace as simultaneous trades (well, not significantly). For his plan to sign Howard to work, they cannot be simultaneous trade. But CBA won't allow non-simultaneous trades. The two teams cannot agree to execute trades separately like that. There can be no future agreement to do Trade B that is binding.

 

I just linked you to a passage from Larry Coon, someone who has read and translated the NBA CBA for non-lawyers, aka EXACTLY what you wanted in this thread. Multiple posters here have told you that the CBA exists as a document to outline what is legal, and any time you do something that isn't specifically mentioned, you run the risk of getting penalized.

Again from the CBA FAQ:

The way you are describing your transaction, the teams would have to agree to a series of transactions on draft night, execute a trade call, and withhold the information that they had agreed to multiple trades from the league office (as well as from the 28 other teams). They probably wouldn't get caught, but again, how would the Rockets in your hypothetical scenario guarantee that the other team execute the second deal? There is literally nothing preventing the other team from just saying "we're good with T-Rob and Motiejunas for our non-guaranteed contracts, we'll just keep our lottery stud as well". Thanks for the free prospects!

It seems needlessly complex to attempt it your way. I outlined a very simple way the Rockets could execute what you're attempting to do here, which is acquire a first rounder after the use of cap space to sign a free agent. I still can't for the life of me understand why you need to get rid of everyone on draft day; you can easily dump the salary during a sign and trade transaction involving Dwight.

 

Also, I believe drafted players must wait 30 days to be traded, unless it's a draft day deal.

 

No, not at all. What's the big deal then, if that is your trade? How could you not know that is legal? Maybe I'm not following something. What part of that series of completely separate trades do you feel might be illegal?

I've always agreed that each trade is legal. I only wonder why on Earth would Morey trade both TRob and DMo for nothing. That part of the trade would never happen.

Explain to me where you trade is not legal. And explain to me why anyone would trade TRob and DMo for nothing.

 

Article XIII, Section 1(a).

Hi Mana's right.

Also, it is highly confusing to most of us that you couch your question in the context of the Rockets' GOAL to execute both trades to accomplish their purposes. By the very nature of the hypothetical, that is a circumvention of the CBA. Yes, it may be "semantics" for the most part, but you've essentially defined what you are doing as circumvention and then challenged others to tell you why it is circumvention.

The league has significantly broad authority when it comes to non-circumvention of the CBA. The first trade (TRob and DMo for nothing) could possibly be rejected, although I couldn't say for sure. The second trade with the same team, in which the other team is trading a valuable asset to the Rockets after the Rockets previously gave up valuable assets for nothing in a prior trade, would quite LIKELY raise suspicions with the league office.

I imagine that the general types of arrangements (not necessarily involving trading players for nothing and then later getting a great draft pick) have happened. The Aaron Brooks situation--which you were all over--might be (emphasis on MIGHT) an example of this. But the league has broad enough authority to crack down on any "shenanigans" by teams. Given how close the Rockets are to having legitimate max cap room, I doubt they get TOO cute with their trades. They have enough options open to them to avoid the ire of the league office.

 

You've gotten answered. But I'm trying to make sense of this trade, because I'm confused whats being proposed here and just want to know what situation is being answered.


Basically first off - how would the other team soak in Robinson and Motiejunas into their cap space? Without the Rockets getting anything back? The Dwight part doesnt matter much, how exactly would Robinson + Motiejunas be dealt in your scenario where it wipes them off the Rockets books?

 

@basketballholic

Your obsession with getting draft picks this year (especially cody zeller) and circumventing the CBA so it doesn't count against our cap is both admirable and disturbing. We've had numerous conversations on the GARM about this too.

Your assertion that the use 'binding' and 'non-binding' terms as just semantics is ignorant. Agreements, even verbal ones, are binding if they satisfy all the conditions for a legally binding contract (I will spare you the details).

Your example:

Houston make an agreement with Team B over a secret shoe phone...

1) to trade T-Rob and White to Team B for a future 2015 draft pick

2) Team B use their 2013 draft picks to draft players that Houston wants

3) at a later date, after Houston has signed Dwight with the available cap room, Houston trades back the future 2015 draft pick for the 2013 draft picks Team B selected for us.

I am not a practicing lawyer in the U.S.A. but my opinion is that this agreement satisfies all conditions of a legally binding contract and is effective on the date it was agreed to. The structure of this contract is for the purposes of circumventing league salary cap rules to allow Houston enough cap room for Houston to sign Dwight Howard to a maximum contract. This agreement is likely to be disallowed by the league and would also jeopardise the Dwight Howard signing.

 

I have absolutely no clue what your revised trade proposal accomplishes.

First off, the first trade INCREASES the Rockets' total team salary, not the other way around.

Second, why would a team agree to waste its ENTIRE 2013-14 Maximum Annual Cash Limit just so that the Rockets could pull some cap shenanigans?

Third, why wouldn't you just execute those two trades as one trade, since you haven't opened any cap space with the first trade?


Look, I admire and respect your creativity. I really do.

But you need to give this stuff a rest already.

 

I don't understand your response to 1. above. No need to explain it further, though.

I also don't see how staying above the cap will ultimately benefit the Rockets more than just using their cap space. Almost any conceivable sign-and-trade that keeps the Rockets above the cap would need to involve Asik. I think the Rockets value Asik more highly than anyone they could get with the (Non)Taxpayer MLE (remember, the Room Exception is bigger than the BAE).

I know how much you like to have the last word. I promise you I am not trying to get the last word in, and I'm sure I will look at any response you have. But I'm done posting back and forth with you on this.

 

All well and good, yes in order to learn circumvention rules you have to throw out scenarios to see the outline of it.

But you didnt answer my question. I'm not trying to say "WHY would you DO that?" and guaging the worth of the trade as though its real. The question is RELATING to the topic and trying TO LEARN about it JUST AS MUCH as you are.

But since its about "no trade talk" and is this desire to learn, though you've tossed out many trade ideas, then go ahead with it.