Paps and Cisco. They've already signed but the Rockets haven't submitted in the papers to the NBA. If they had they wouldn't have been able to play in the FIBA world cup because of insurance costs.
Although somewhat aribitrary, you'd think that the 60 day holding period to aggregate salaries would be sufficient for the leagues purposes. Also, I don't see why the league couldn't just make a rule that for a certain period of time, the player acquired acts as a TPE. Once that period passes, the player could be traded using the various salary exceptions ($5 million, 150%, 125%).
Personally, I would rather have Lowry than Bledsoe... I think the majority of people would agree... Therefor, his agent should have used Lowry's contract as a basis for his expectations... unless he thinks Lowry's agent is an idiot and got lowballed....
That is basically what happens according to Coon. We just don't know the time period before the player can be stepped up. On another note, I found it interesting that Coon KNOWS the league would disallow the trade under the circumvention statute but he DOESN'T KNOW the time period that would need to pass to suffice the league office so that they wouldn't disallow for circumvention. This speaks to the arbitrary whim of the league office in the Circumvention Article. Did I tell you I hate the Article on Circumvention, I think it's Article XI? Did I tell you I hate it? This is one of the reasons why. Not definitive.
My take on the "non-circumvention" case is that a team SHOULD be prohibited from, for instance, making a Terry trade and then a "step-up-in-basis" trade (nearly) SIMULTANEOUSLY. I agree that this would be a clear circumvention of salary cap rules, since the same trade done as a three-team deal would not work under the CBA. However, if another trade came along, say, 10-15 days later, I'm not so sure the league office would disallow it. This would be a highly fact-specific matter, and I imagine the league applies its judgment on these matters on an ad hoc basis. I understand your frustration with the non-circumvention language in the CBA, and I'm certain many NBA front offices are similarly frustrated by it. It is extraordinarily broad. But the alternative is to specifically list EVERY POSSIBLE THING that is against the spirit of the CBA. That would be impossible to do; so the league (with the blessing of the owners) and the players union have agreed to this broad language.
Or Lowry felt the pull to go back to Toronto and did it in a way he could comfortably live with. Players can, and sometimes do, have some say in where they sign. My favorite example is when Scott Boros had FA Jason Varitek. Varitek told Boros to make a deal with the Red Sox. They left $$$ on the table, yet Varitek was served the way he wished.
So, the CBA is not an exact line-for-line document, eh? Your knowledge and insights are ever valuable. Thank you, BT!
Well.............in the CBA's purest form.......if a trade came along within another day or two or hour or two..............there's nothing in the CBA (besides CIRCUMVENTION) that says it can't be done. And when you look at the CIRCUMVENTION language, 10-15 days ain't gonna matter if they want to say it's circumvention. And lastly.....you're pulling 10-15 days out of your hat because it suits you. Obviously the league applies it's judgment on an ad-hoc basis on every trade or free-agent signing. Let us not forget the BOS/LAC-DOC/KG/PP mess of last summer. Just another example of the league office overdoing it. "against the spirit of the CBA" is a very arbitrary term and it allows for the league office and Adam Silver to arbitrarily determine what is against the spirit of the CBA and what isn't. If no compounding of trades is allowed like we described above, or is only allowed after 60 days, it wouldn't be a big deal to add a line or two the the gargantuan CBA document anyways. And it keeps everything above board even if it requires updating on an on-going basis. Frankly, I can't imagine Morey or any other GM even attempting a trade without talking to the league beforehand to find out the legality of what they are trying to do with this new CIRCUMVENTION article unless it's a clear-cut trade. IOW, there's no way Morey would go into a stacking transaction or "moving up the basis" transaction without knowing how the league feels about it beforehand. After the Chris Paul debacle a few years back and the BOS/LAC debacle of last summer there's simply no sense in trying anything without knowing all the consequences beforehand. I imagine the league office deals with a ton of "IS THIS CIRCUMVENTION" (And this was the inspiration behind my Circumvention thread a while back that most of the posters here thought was a joke. But it wasn't.) questions from NBA Team offices on an ongoing basis. Those decisions, if they are deemed to be circumvention, should go ahead and be spelled out and added to the Circumvention Article. That provides precedent so the league office can't arbitrarily rule differently on 2 similar transactions just because their coffee was cold one morning.
I never argued that the league couldn't claim ANY period was or was not circumvention. The league has broad discretion over such things. You have claimed that there is some unwritten required time period of 60 days. I'm just saying that there is no set required time period and that a "step-up-in-basis" trade COULD POSSIBLY be allowed in less than 60 days. As for the "10-15 days" figure, I was simply offering up a RANDOM example of a time period that MIGHT not be deemed circumvention. I "pulled that figure out of my hat" not "because it suits me" but because I was trying to find a random time period in between 0 days and 60 days. I'm sorry that I didn't commission a panel to come up with a more appropriate time period that was to your liking. I don't know why you're getting all touchy about me taking a different interpretation of an ambiguous CBA nuance. But congratulations. Now we're both getting touchy about it.
I'm not touchy about you. I'm touchy about the ambiguousness of the Circumvention Article. I was simply making a point that you saying 10-15 days isn't any different from my little niece saying 3 days. As far as my 60 days comment goes....the reason why I brought up 60 days is because 60 days is the amount of time needed to aggregate recently traded players with other players and re-trade them, presumably being allowed to use the 150% rule and the $5 million rule again at that point. But now I even type that hesitantly. Perhaps 60 days wouldn't do it either. I don't know. Hey, if Larry Coon don't know I sure don't. And he's not willing to state the time period. But it does get unreasonable after a while. And that's what sucks about Circumvention. IT IS TOO UNDEFINED! It is absolutely ridiculous that we don't have this clearly defined by now. After all, the agreement was in 2011. And surely if we've thought up these kinds of situations then surely, surely......at least 1 NBA GM has thought of it too.
It's amusing because jpotamc is finally right, but can't help himself from coming across in his usual cheerful manner.
Still a ways away from the 15,329 posts from the Dwight Howard FA thread. That said, not bad. For worthless speculation, it has passed threads such as "Basketball Reasons" (Gasol to Houston), Fire McHale, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, and Jeremy Lin is a joke.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say we're getting one of Faried/Millsap/Ilyasova/Brandon Bass. You heard it here first. If things don't pan out as planned though, just remember trade talks are fluid.
