Trade Question

[Brigante]

If a team has 16 players on their roster and needs to cut it down to 15 by the start of the season.......can they trade away a player who makes 3 million dollars for a 2014 2nd round pick in order to dump the players contract and not get a player in return? I know the 2nd round pick's future value will be far less than 3 million so I was wondering if a team could do something like that. Maybe even trade the player for two 2nd round picks or would the only option be to release the player to get down to 15 by the start of the season? Just curious and thanks for any info.

[DBoys]

Yes.

Depending on what cap category they are in, Team A can trade a $3M player for (a) $3.1M or less in players, (b) $3.85M or less in players, or (c) $4.6M or less in players. Clearly, $0 in players fits within all of those choices. Picks count as $0 so they don't impact the trade equation.

This might help http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q82

The only real issue would be whether Team B has a way to accept a $3M player while sending nothing back in return. (There are a variety of ways that can be accomplished.) But you asked about Team A, and what you have proposed would present no problem whatsoever for them, if they can find a willing trade partner with the cap latitude to do the deal.

[Brigante]

Thanks for the quick response!

Okay this where I was running into problems.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q81

Any trade which leaves the team over the salary cap requires an exception -- even if the team is moving downward in salary. For example, if the salary cap is $60 million, a team has a team salary of $65 million, and they want to trade a $5 million player for a $4 million player, they still have to use an exception. Even though their team salary is decreasing by $1 million as a result of the trade, the fact that they would finish over the salary cap ($64 million) means that an exception is required.

[Brigante]

Yes.

Depending on what cap category they are in, Team A can trade a $3M player for (a) $3.1M or less in players, (b) $3.85M or less in players, or (c) $4.6M or less in players. Clearly, $0 in players fits within all of those choices. Picks count as $0 so they don't impact the trade equation.

Okay I think I know how I was messing up on all my trade scenarios I've been doing. I was taking the low players salary and doing the 150% + 100K and if the high salary fell in that range then the trade would go. I didn't realize the or less was a part of it. So only the team taking back more money than it is sending away needs to reach the 150% + 100k. I've got a lot to learn that's for sure. I've read all through cbafaq.com. Now I just need to comprehend it better I'm sure I still don't have it completely right.

[DBoys]

Two principles:

1 When a team is over the cap, an "exception" to the cap is required in order to add another player. If, at the end of a trade a team will be over the cap, all of those incoming players will need some sort of exception to be added.

2 There is no restriction on sending away players when you are over the cap. (You are doing what the cap is designed to make teams do. You have lowered your payroll.)

For Team A, because they are not adding players, it's easy.

For Team B, they are adding players. They need some legal way to do so. Usually a team has created an exception within the trade itself - their sent away players create an "exception" they can use to take back incoming players, as explained in the FAQ items 81 and 82. Typically 150% rule or 125% rule is used. But Team B, sending away no players, has created no exception. 150% of $0 is $0.

However, there area couple of somewhat common solutions that could come into play. They could do the trade if they had $2.9M or more in cap room, as they would end up less than "cap plus 100K" after the trade and not be forced to add via an exception. They could also have a NS trade exception from a prior swap, in the amount of $2.9M or more, and use that NS TE as the means to add the $3M player to their roster.

[DBoys]

Yes, you are correct: the ability to take back $X "or less" has no minimum for what you take back.

[Brigante]

I understand it now. Thank you so much!