Scenario involving Eric Snow: Trade/Retirement/Coaching$$

[St.Nick]

We are having a discussion on our board regarding Eric Snow. I'd appreciate some CBA info on this, specifically involving potential salary cap circumnavigation.

Some of the fans are saying that we should do a deal of Stephen Jackson for Eric Snow + a 1st rd pick. They say that we could get immediate cap room, as part of the deal would be an agreement that Snow retire right after the deal is struck.

Of course, why would Snow give up his $7.3M salary, just to give us some cap room and give Cleveland a good deal? In response, these fans believe that Snow could retire and then re-join the Cavaliers as a $7M/yr coach.

So Snow gets paid the same, GS gets it cap room, and Cleveland gets a good player cheap. Nice in theory, but is it legal?

How do you guys think the league office would handle this one? And do they need to PROVE that there was a conscientious attempt to circumnavigate by both sides or simply BELIEVE that an attempt was made?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[FGump]

1. It requires TWO teams to collude together to violate the rules, which makes it easy to get caught.
2. It's so illegal that the league would slaughter the teams in penalties.
3. It's obvious circumvention of the cap rules, in that you are in essence paying a player non-cap money to reduce your cap obligation to him.
4. For all of the above reasons, it's not going to even be something they'd consider.

It won't take Monk to put the pieces together - my 12 year old niece could figure this one out if they tried it. What makes it so obvious are two items. First, if a player says, "Yawn, I think I'll quit and you can keep my 7 mill" everyone would know he'd be getting paid under the table in some way or another. Second, paying an asst coach 7 mill is also going to be like a neon sign saying "we're cheating" because raw assistants might make 100,000 or so, not 7 mill.

[Chris Cohan]

The more likely scenarios for Snow are either that he is not part of a deal but is a medical retirement the Cavaliers get insurance coverage and a cap reprieve for, or that he is dealt as a standard expiring contract while the injury issues are sorted out. The league will be in a dicey situation if it blocks use of an expiring contract unless the Cavs have (yet again) screwed up their flexibility by initiating formal insurance claims already. Some reports suggest that they have but others suggest that they have not and that the team is now proceeding as though nothing has been settled.

The largest problem now is that the time has simply passed and now Snow will either have to forego his coaching position for the time being or he'll have to go the formal retirement route and rule out a move of his contract.

[FGump]

Rowell, what's your point? I don't see any "problem" for the league in anything you said, nor does any of it validate or legitimize some sort of illegal move by the teams.

But the bigger question is, why is anyone thinking GS should even consider this? What's the benefit to other than a mundane payroll reduction? It's not a deal that bestows them with over-MLE cap room, nor does it somehow avoid tax problems (they don't have any either way), so all they done is given away one of their key players.

[Chris Cohan]

Jackson's days as a key player are numbered, especially considering that this Warriors season is on very thin ice now and the mandate for a full bore youth transition is effectively issued. Acquiring an expiring contract and draft considerations, at the worst, is an excellent liquidation before Jackson's value descends at all from its relative high (his market remains very thin). You might have asked the same question about mundane payroll reductions with regard to the Pau Gasol trade, which I'm sure you would have deemed a never-happen impossibility before it happened, though I think Marc Gasol is interesting for them.

Had you watched a healthy share of Warriors games this year, particularly the second half of the season, you would appreciate how little Jackson will contribute to a youth transition team. He is already convinced he should take all shots. He has not played defense like he did against Dirk Nowitzki in the playoffs since the playoffs. I think your overaggressive certainty on this reflects a complete lack of insight into the Warriors' future trajectory and a completely out of touch overstatement of Jackson's future value.

To return to Snow's issue, Snow represents a marked savings opportunity to a team that acquires him if he retires at any point this season. I'm not satisfied by a misrepresented scenario launching a thread like this and not being expanded to a more nuanced and realistic discussion of the actual moves possible and being considered. I don't consider the OP and your response to at all exhaust this topic, so my post SHOULD open onto a more comprehensive discussion of what IS realistic, not what is stated from the start as an apparently collusive arrangement.

But if you're happy keeping this in the land of make believe collusion...

[FGump]

Rowell, I still don't see anything in your post offering any benefit to the Warriors if they made this attempt to skirt the rules, other than a marginal payroll reduction.

Your assertion that "Snow represents a marked savings opportunity to a team that acquires him if he retires at any point this season" exhibits an ignorance of the rules (in that he'd still be on the acquiring team's cap regardless, per the rules). But even IF they could find a different means to erase Jackson's money with nothing on the cap rolls for this season, what have they gained other than some sort of cash benefit to Cohan? They'd still be over the cap.

As far as the parallel to Memphis, there isn't a parallel in the illegal angle. The LA-Mem deal was merely a deal for an expiring contract by the Grizz, and GS wouldn't have to go through all the shenanigans to trade Jackson for an expiring contract if that's what they are wanting to pursue.

The question here wasn't about the merits of trading Jackson for youth or picks or the like. It was about whether some illegal angle would fly, and (a) it wouldn't, plus (b) why would you bother. That sort of analysis, of what Jackson gives GS going forward and whether you WANT to move him, is better on the GS board where fans know his pluses and minuses so well.

[Chris Cohan]

On the cap is fine - we're not talking about specific rules yet and I certainly have not suggested any "skirting" of rules. The OP set up a ridiculous scenario in which Snow would coach for the Warriors or something, when Snow and the Warriors have not had any talks about such an arrangement and will not - Snow is not on the radar for coaching positions and there are no openings in Golden State.

Perhaps a better Snow-related thread exists...

[Dunkenstein]

Rowell, I've read your posts several times in an effort to figure out what you would like us to discuss. You correctly reject the notion of the OP. So my question for you is: is there an area that relates to the CBA that you would like to discuss with the members of this board? If not, this may be a discussion more suited for the Warriors board.

Whether now is the time to trade Stephen Jackson is not really an appropriate discussion for this board.

Now that we have all agreed that the idea proposed by the OP would be rejected by the league, a discussion of whether the Warriors should trade for Eric Snow is also more appropriate for the Warriors board.

If, however, you do have a CBA-related topic for discussion, please present it.

[FGump]

The opening scenario was about how to in essence erase Jackson's salary from the CAP, by trading him for Snow. The answer was, the scenario he proposed didn't work under the rules, in some ways was clearly illegal and wouldn't fly.

The rest of the discussion of Jackson, Snow, and so on is probably best reserved for the forums where those players play and where the merits of such moves can be offered against the backdrop of fans who know those players and care about the team-related issues that will make them desirable or not.

[Chris Cohan]

When it interests you, you'll launch a discussion of potential Snow issues.
Once the real NBA world presents scenarios for you.

They will be very team specific, and they will inhabit clearly titled threads in the CBA forum.

[Scoot McGroot]

For GS to get Snow's contract in a trade and subsequently erased from the books would in essence require them to trade for him, have him play this season for them in one game, and then say he had a career-ending injury while playing for the Warriors and not the Cav's. Only the team that a player was injured with can reap any of the financial benefits of having their contract removed from the books. Cleveland is the only team that could erase Snow's contract from the books. Any team that traded for him would have to treat him as an expiring salary they would have to pay until the end of the year.

[Dekko1]

For GS to get Snow's contract in a trade and subsequently erased from the books would in essence require them to trade for him, have him play this season for them in one game, and then say he had a career-ending injury while playing for the Warriors and not the Cav's. Only the team that a player was injured with can reap any of the financial benefits of having their contract removed from the books. Cleveland is the only team that could erase Snow's contract from the books. Any team that traded for him would have to treat him as an expiring salary they would have to pay until the end of the year.

The 'play one game to get injured' is covered well enough in the rule for the league to say nope:

(6) Only the Team with which the player was under Contract at the time his career-ending injury or illness became known or reasonably should have become known shall be permitted to apply to have the player’s Salary excluded from Team Salary...

[FGump]

As Scoot notes, the rules say you can't trade Snow and have an injury that predates the trade.

But you can't create a USEFUL plan to have an injury date that is after the trade, either.

Once you move his injury date to "post-trade" there would be a one-year waiting period before his team can apply for cap relief. But he is in the final year of his contract, so under that scenario his contract would have already expired at the end of the waiting period and therefore there would be nothing to exclude.

So, at this point for every other team his value is as an expiring contract, but he cannot be one that can potentially immediately reduce another team's Team Salary.

[Dunkenstein]

This started out as a thread based on a stupid, unworkable scenario, but just as it looks like it will die, some new poster adds another equally unworkable scenario for the acquiring team to get cap relief by trading for Snow. And then several of us feel we have to explain why this is again an unworkable scenario.

Anybody with any understanding of the CBA knows that neither the Warriors nor any other team in the league is going to trade for Snow in order to get cap relief. The only way he gets traded is if a team wants an ending contract at the trade deadline.

Please. . . let this thread Rest in Peace.

[Scoot McGroot]

But you can't create a USEFUL plan to have an injury date that is after the trade, either.

Once you move his injury date to "post-trade" there would be a one-year waiting period before his team can apply for cap relief. But he is in the final year of his contract, so under that scenario his contract would have already expired at the end of the waiting period and therefore there would be nothing to exclude.

Yup. I was trying to say that, but forgot to essentially add in plain terms that once you try and have him play enough games for your team and get a "new injury" you could claim, you still have to wait longer than his contract actually runs to have him erased from the books, thus negating any value he'd have as a "retiring injured player".