Iguodala TPE -> Player X -> Aaron Gordon

[Scoot McGroot]

McD Pacers can add the FRP. Pushes into low 20’s.

I don’t understand this statement. McDermott makes $7.3m so he can salary match up to $12.3m. He can’t be combined with the TPE to acquire a $20m-ish salary.

No one said combine with TPE. Combine him with the draft pick salary. Which will be like 8 or 9mil depending on where it falls. Either do they agreed upon draft day but traded when draft pick counts) see Love trade) or pacers find trade partner later on. Even add in other filler and Pacers can land something high 20’s.

Oh, that’s really confusing and had no way to guess you were saying that. It also requires signing the pick, waiting the requisite 30 days and then finding someone in August that’s available. But the 1st pick is projected to make $8.6m, so with Doug, they could salary match up to a total of $21m.

So again, for $21m, and these picks, which starters at the 3 and 4 are they acquiring? And are they better than the starters and backups we will have traded away in Myles, Warren, and Doug?

[K_chile22]

Theoretically legal but the league could say no and you're stuck with James Johnson and they'd probably put some trade restriction on him if they really didn't want you to do it. It would be taking a chance much like the Rockets did with the Nene deal

WTF? That's bull.

Are you not familiar with the Nene thing with Houston? they lost their full MLE and got stuck with the no longer favorable nene deal because the league said, while technically legal, they won't allow the contract as is

[Klomp]

Normally I'm not in the business of bumping six-month old threads, but this post was linked to me today and I felt the need to respond to something.

Remember, usually July 1-6th or 7th is the moratorium, so theoretically, with Iggy’s TPE expiring 7/7, the deals would have to happen the same day.

It’s technically illegal, but has happened. However, it’s possible the league may not allow it if the trade happen on the same day as there’s no argument that “we would’ve kept the guy but another offer to flip him came along and we couldn’t resist” if you’ve been in line on hold with the league office post moratorium to process all your deals you made. But, we could probably operate as if it’d be allowed in this forum Until we see otherwise

A trade could easily happen 'after' the season in May or June. There's no need to wait for a trade to happen in July.

Also, the trade scenario is NOT illegal. The league offices go by the written CBA agreement of what is allowed or not. They don't have some hidden agenda where they say 'we don't like this , so we're not going to allow the trade to happen'.

It's legal or not... very black & white. Just because you don't understand the rules doesn't mean they aren't clearly defined.

This is incorrect.

The CBA and the league handbook of rules spell out what is legal. They also spells out what is illegal. They spells out is illegal to do something that is intended to circumvent the rules intentions... even if it is technically legal individually.

This isn't uncommon. Some tax rules have a similar setup, whereby doing multiple things that are technically legal to do something that is explicitly illegal is ruled illegal; even if all the individual steps are themselves legal.

Fundamentally the situation is:
Trading for JJ via TPE --> legal
Trading JJ for AG --> legal

Trading TPE for (directly) AG --> illegal.

If the league says you did two legal steps to avoid one illegal one, the net effect is the same and therefore it is illegal; they can. It is in the rules. On the other hand, they could shrug, and not hassle enforcing the rule.

Similar to jaywalking rules. It is illegal but very very few people get arrested for it.

What recently happened with Nene is Houston did something technically allowed --> offer big (mostly) unguaranteed salary with the idea to use him as a non guaranteed deal in a trade. Which would be fine but non guaranteed deals are only matched as the guaranteed portion and thus not useful as trade ballast.
So Houston offered the non-guarantee instead as a "likely" bonus, even though it was clear it was not going to happen (League rules set up what is likely so no value judgment can be added to apply commonsense on what is likely).
And thus Houston had found a perfectly legal loophole ... to do something that is illegal.

Summarizing:
Sign someone to a deal with bonuses that are listed as likely --> legal
Use those likely bonus as part of salary in a trade --> legal

Trade someone using a matching salary higher than they will get 'likely' paid --> illegal.

The league stepped in and said that all your legal steps are aimed to make a mockery of another rule, and therefore not allowed... despite being legal.

This absolutely could happen with GS laddering up the TPE. Or it could not. As mentioned, the steps are legal. Using the steps intentionally to do something not allowed is itself illegal. Whether that illegal is enforced, is unknown.

These two scenarios are not the same. The league did not create a ruling to change anything with the Nene contract. It was already written into the CBA as a stipulation.

If either the league or players association feels that the previous season does not fairly predict the performance in the current season, then a jointly-selected expert determines whether the default classification should be overruled. This can happen when the player was injured the previous season. The determination can also be referred to a jointly-selected expert when the player did not play in the NBA in the preceding season, or when incentives are based on team performance and the team is an expansion team in its first season.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q74

There is no such stipulation in the CBA regarding trade exceptions.

[HartfordWhalers]

Normally I'm not in the business of bumping six-month old threads, but this post was linked to me today and I felt the need to respond to something.

A trade could easily happen 'after' the season in May or June. There's no need to wait for a trade to happen in July.

Also, the trade scenario is NOT illegal. The league offices go by the written CBA agreement of what is allowed or not. They don't have some hidden agenda where they say 'we don't like this , so we're not going to allow the trade to happen'.

It's legal or not... very black & white. Just because you don't understand the rules doesn't mean they aren't clearly defined.

This is incorrect.

The CBA and the league handbook of rules spell out what is legal. They also spells out what is illegal. They spells out is illegal to do something that is intended to circumvent the rules intentions... even if it is technically legal individually.

This isn't uncommon. Some tax rules have a similar setup, whereby doing multiple things that are technically legal to do something that is explicitly illegal is ruled illegal; even if all the individual steps are themselves legal.

Fundamentally the situation is:
Trading for JJ via TPE --> legal
Trading JJ for AG --> legal

Trading TPE for (directly) AG --> illegal.

If the league says you did two legal steps to avoid one illegal one, the net effect is the same and therefore it is illegal; they can. It is in the rules. On the other hand, they could shrug, and not hassle enforcing the rule.

Similar to jaywalking rules. It is illegal but very very few people get arrested for it.

What recently happened with Nene is Houston did something technically allowed --> offer big (mostly) unguaranteed salary with the idea to use him as a non guaranteed deal in a trade. Which would be fine but non guaranteed deals are only matched as the guaranteed portion and thus not useful as trade ballast.
So Houston offered the non-guarantee instead as a "likely" bonus, even though it was clear it was not going to happen (League rules set up what is likely so no value judgment can be added to apply commonsense on what is likely).
And thus Houston had found a perfectly legal loophole ... to do something that is illegal.

Summarizing:
Sign someone to a deal with bonuses that are listed as likely --> legal
Use those likely bonus as part of salary in a trade --> legal

Trade someone using a matching salary higher than they will get 'likely' paid --> illegal.

The league stepped in and said that all your legal steps are aimed to make a mockery of another rule, and therefore not allowed... despite being legal.

This absolutely could happen with GS laddering up the TPE. Or it could not. As mentioned, the steps are legal. Using the steps intentionally to do something not allowed is itself illegal. Whether that illegal is enforced, is unknown.

These two scenarios are not the same. The league did not create a ruling to change anything with the Nene contract. It was already written into the CBA as a stipulation.

If either the league or players association feels that the previous season does not fairly predict the performance in the current season, then a jointly-selected expert determines whether the default classification should be overruled. This can happen when the player was injured the previous season. The determination can also be referred to a jointly-selected expert when the player did not play in the NBA in the preceding season, or when incentives are based on team performance and the team is an expansion team in its first season.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q74

There is no such stipulation in the CBA regarding trade exceptions.

Good catch on the Nene details with the provision for overseeing if he likely is reasonable.

Doesn't change the set of rules on laddering a TPE.

[chrbal]

I can’t see why it wouldn’t just be set up as a 3 team trade. James Johnson to Orlando who sends Gordon to the warriors who send the exemption to the wolves. Probably picks involved.

Didn’t Luke Ridnour get traded like 4 times one year

[Resistance]

I can’t see why it wouldn’t just be set up as a 3 team trade. James Johnson to Orlando who sends Gordon to the warriors who send the exemption to the wolves. Probably picks involved.

Like this with pick compensation as needed?

Minnesota
In: Pick Compensation?
Out: Johnson

Orlando
In: Johnson, Pick Compensation
Out: Gordon

Golden State
In: Gordon
Out: Pick Compensation


Gordon will be paid more than the Iguodala TPE +$100,000 and that is why the league would say no. A TPE isn't traded, so Minnesota would get a newly created TPE specifc to the salary details on the Johnson contract rather than something carved from the Iguodala TPE.


Breaking it down into spearate trades like this:

Trade #1

Minnesota
In: Pick Compensation?
Out: Johnson

Golden State
In: Johnson
Out: Pick Compensation?



Trade #2

Orlando
In: Johnson, Pick Compensation
Out: Gordon

Golden State
In: Gordon
Out: Johnson, Pick Compensation


gets past the issue of violating the CBA, but raises the issue of whether the league will alow the CBA work around.

[DeathLineup]

Normally I'm not in the business of bumping six-month old threads, but this post was linked to me today and I felt the need to respond to something.

A trade could easily happen 'after' the season in May or June. There's no need to wait for a trade to happen in July.

Also, the trade scenario is NOT illegal. The league offices go by the written CBA agreement of what is allowed or not. They don't have some hidden agenda where they say 'we don't like this , so we're not going to allow the trade to happen'.

It's legal or not... very black & white. Just because you don't understand the rules doesn't mean they aren't clearly defined.

This is incorrect.

The CBA and the league handbook of rules spell out what is legal. They also spells out what is illegal. They spells out is illegal to do something that is intended to circumvent the rules intentions... even if it is technically legal individually.

This isn't uncommon. Some tax rules have a similar setup, whereby doing multiple things that are technically legal to do something that is explicitly illegal is ruled illegal; even if all the individual steps are themselves legal.

Fundamentally the situation is:
Trading for JJ via TPE --> legal
Trading JJ for AG --> legal

Trading TPE for (directly) AG --> illegal.

If the league says you did two legal steps to avoid one illegal one, the net effect is the same and therefore it is illegal; they can. It is in the rules. On the other hand, they could shrug, and not hassle enforcing the rule.

Similar to jaywalking rules. It is illegal but very very few people get arrested for it.

What recently happened with Nene is Houston did something technically allowed --> offer big (mostly) unguaranteed salary with the idea to use him as a non guaranteed deal in a trade. Which would be fine but non guaranteed deals are only matched as the guaranteed portion and thus not useful as trade ballast.
So Houston offered the non-guarantee instead as a "likely" bonus, even though it was clear it was not going to happen (League rules set up what is likely so no value judgment can be added to apply commonsense on what is likely).
And thus Houston had found a perfectly legal loophole ... to do something that is illegal.

Summarizing:
Sign someone to a deal with bonuses that are listed as likely --> legal
Use those likely bonus as part of salary in a trade --> legal

Trade someone using a matching salary higher than they will get 'likely' paid --> illegal.

The league stepped in and said that all your legal steps are aimed to make a mockery of another rule, and therefore not allowed... despite being legal.

This absolutely could happen with GS laddering up the TPE. Or it could not. As mentioned, the steps are legal. Using the steps intentionally to do something not allowed is itself illegal. Whether that illegal is enforced, is unknown.

These two scenarios are not the same. The league did not create a ruling to change anything with the Nene contract. It was already written into the CBA as a stipulation.

If either the league or players association feels that the previous season does not fairly predict the performance in the current season, then a jointly-selected expert determines whether the default classification should be overruled. This can happen when the player was injured the previous season. The determination can also be referred to a jointly-selected expert when the player did not play in the NBA in the preceding season, or when incentives are based on team performance and the team is an expansion team in its first season.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q74

There is no such stipulation in the CBA regarding trade exceptions.

So it's legal for the Warriors trade TPE for player X then trade player X to Aaron Gordon?

[Scoot McGroot]

Normally I'm not in the business of bumping six-month old threads, but this post was linked to me today and I felt the need to respond to something.

This is incorrect.

The CBA and the league handbook of rules spell out what is legal. They also spells out what is illegal. They spells out is illegal to do something that is intended to circumvent the rules intentions... even if it is technically legal individually.

This isn't uncommon. Some tax rules have a similar setup, whereby doing multiple things that are technically legal to do something that is explicitly illegal is ruled illegal; even if all the individual steps are themselves legal.

Fundamentally the situation is:
Trading for JJ via TPE --> legal
Trading JJ for AG --> legal

Trading TPE for (directly) AG --> illegal.

If the league says you did two legal steps to avoid one illegal one, the net effect is the same and therefore it is illegal; they can. It is in the rules. On the other hand, they could shrug, and not hassle enforcing the rule.

Similar to jaywalking rules. It is illegal but very very few people get arrested for it.

What recently happened with Nene is Houston did something technically allowed --> offer big (mostly) unguaranteed salary with the idea to use him as a non guaranteed deal in a trade. Which would be fine but non guaranteed deals are only matched as the guaranteed portion and thus not useful as trade ballast.
So Houston offered the non-guarantee instead as a "likely" bonus, even though it was clear it was not going to happen (League rules set up what is likely so no value judgment can be added to apply commonsense on what is likely).
And thus Houston had found a perfectly legal loophole ... to do something that is illegal.

Summarizing:
Sign someone to a deal with bonuses that are listed as likely --> legal
Use those likely bonus as part of salary in a trade --> legal

Trade someone using a matching salary higher than they will get 'likely' paid --> illegal.

The league stepped in and said that all your legal steps are aimed to make a mockery of another rule, and therefore not allowed... despite being legal.

This absolutely could happen with GS laddering up the TPE. Or it could not. As mentioned, the steps are legal. Using the steps intentionally to do something not allowed is itself illegal. Whether that illegal is enforced, is unknown.

These two scenarios are not the same. The league did not create a ruling to change anything with the Nene contract. It was already written into the CBA as a stipulation.

If either the league or players association feels that the previous season does not fairly predict the performance in the current season, then a jointly-selected expert determines whether the default classification should be overruled. This can happen when the player was injured the previous season. The determination can also be referred to a jointly-selected expert when the player did not play in the NBA in the preceding season, or when incentives are based on team performance and the team is an expansion team in its first season.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q74

There is no such stipulation in the CBA regarding trade exceptions.

So it's legal for the Warriors trade TPE for player X then trade player X to Aaron Gordon?

No. The Nene explanation doesn't affect the stepping up the base of the GSW TPE. It's illegal. But is it possible the league might ignore the stepping up the base or TPE ladder if GSW makes it look the part? Maybe???

[HartfordWhalers]

Normally I'm not in the business of bumping six-month old threads, but this post was linked to me today and I felt the need to respond to something.


These two scenarios are not the same. The league did not create a ruling to change anything with the Nene contract. It was already written into the CBA as a stipulation.

If either the league or players association feels that the previous season does not fairly predict the performance in the current season, then a jointly-selected expert determines whether the default classification should be overruled. This can happen when the player was injured the previous season. The determination can also be referred to a jointly-selected expert when the player did not play in the NBA in the preceding season, or when incentives are based on team performance and the team is an expansion team in its first season.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q74

There is no such stipulation in the CBA regarding trade exceptions.

So it's legal for the Warriors trade TPE for player X then trade player X to Aaron Gordon?

No. The Nene explanation doesn't affect the stepping up the base of the GSW TPE. It's illegal. But is it possible the league might ignore the stepping up the base or TPE ladder if GSW makes it look the part? Maybe???

The first of the Ridnour trades was absolutely stepping up the basis and ignored, so there is precedent for it being allowed... despite it not being allowed. That said, I think there is more attention now and if I had to guess, I would say it would get shot down.

[Resistance]

87. What is a non-simultaneous trade?

In some cases, teams have up to one year to acquire the replacement player(s) to complete a trade. These trades are considered non-simultaneous. In a non-simultaneous trade, a team can acquire only up to 100% plus $100,000 of the outgoing salary1 (as opposed to a higher amount in a simultaneous trade). A trade in which salaries are aggregated (see question number 86) cannot be non-simultaneous.

106. Can teams find loopholes in the CBA and do things the league never intended to allow? What is circumvention?

As any league executive will tell you, the CBA isn't a list of the things teams can't do; it's a list of the things teams can do. The league operates in a "disallow by default" mode -- actions are not allowed except where the CBA specifically permits them.

In other words, teams aren't allowed to put anything into a player's contract that wasn't negotiated between the league and players association and included in the CBA. For example, a team signing a known drug offender can't insist on a "one strike and you're out" policy or that the player attend mandatory drug counseling -- instead they must follow the negotiated drug program (see question number 109).

In 2019 the league also approved new measures to reduce circumvention and tampering (see question number 111) such as inappropriate communications between teams and the agents of free agents to-be before the opening of free agency on July 1. Team executives are now required to save all communications with agents and other teams for one year, and the league now conducts random audits of five teams' communications each year. Penalties for violations can now include:

Fines up to $10 million
Forfeiture of draft picks
Suspension of team executives
Voiding of player contracts

The CBA also has a general prohibition on circumvention which states that the rules exist to preserve the benefit derived by the teams and players, and that nobody shall do anything to defeat or circumvent the intent of the agreement. The league can use this prohibition to disallow a signing or trade that they feel circumvents the CBA, even though it is not specifically prohibited by the agreement.

If Golden State would at least have the player (Johnson, Portis, Zeller, etc) that they initially traded for on the roster during the regular season, it would be easier to argue that it wasn't circumvention. It is much more difficult to defend when the moves are all done in the same offseason.

[HartfordWhalers]

Spoiler:

87. What is a non-simultaneous trade?

In some cases, teams have up to one year to acquire the replacement player(s) to complete a trade. These trades are considered non-simultaneous. In a non-simultaneous trade, a team can acquire only up to 100% plus $100,000 of the outgoing salary1 (as opposed to a higher amount in a simultaneous trade). A trade in which salaries are aggregated (see question number 86) cannot be non-simultaneous.

106. Can teams find loopholes in the CBA and do things the league never intended to allow? What is circumvention?

As any league executive will tell you, the CBA isn't a list of the things teams can't do; it's a list of the things teams can do. The league operates in a "disallow by default" mode -- actions are not allowed except where the CBA specifically permits them.

In other words, teams aren't allowed to put anything into a player's contract that wasn't negotiated between the league and players association and included in the CBA. For example, a team signing a known drug offender can't insist on a "one strike and you're out" policy or that the player attend mandatory drug counseling -- instead they must follow the negotiated drug program (see question number 109).

In 2019 the league also approved new measures to reduce circumvention and tampering (see question number 111) such as inappropriate communications between teams and the agents of free agents to-be before the opening of free agency on July 1. Team executives are now required to save all communications with agents and other teams for one year, and the league now conducts random audits of five teams' communications each year. Penalties for violations can now include:

Fines up to $10 million
Forfeiture of draft picks
Suspension of team executives
Voiding of player contracts

The CBA also has a general prohibition on circumvention which states that the rules exist to preserve the benefit derived by the teams and players, and that nobody shall do anything to defeat or circumvent the intent of the agreement. The league can use this prohibition to disallow a signing or trade that they feel circumvents the CBA, even though it is not specifically prohibited by the agreement.

If Golden State would at least have the player (Johnson, Portis, Zeller, etc) that they initially traded for on the roster during the regular season, it would be easier to argue that it wasn't circumvention. It is much more difficult to defend when the moves are all done in the same offseason.

As a counter point, Memphis got away with it by waiting 1 day:
https://www.nba.com/grizzlies/news/grizzlies-aquire-luke-ridnour-150624
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--grizzlies-acquire-matt-barnes-in-trade-with-hornets-141058734.html

My guess is I would want to wait at least 30 days if GS and trying it... Also, getting a guy who was non gtd like Ridnour meant you had nothing you could get 'stuck' with if he league said no.

[Resistance]

Spoiler:

87. What is a non-simultaneous trade?

In some cases, teams have up to one year to acquire the replacement player(s) to complete a trade. These trades are considered non-simultaneous. In a non-simultaneous trade, a team can acquire only up to 100% plus $100,000 of the outgoing salary1 (as opposed to a higher amount in a simultaneous trade). A trade in which salaries are aggregated (see question number 86) cannot be non-simultaneous.

106. Can teams find loopholes in the CBA and do things the league never intended to allow? What is circumvention?

As any league executive will tell you, the CBA isn't a list of the things teams can't do; it's a list of the things teams can do. The league operates in a "disallow by default" mode -- actions are not allowed except where the CBA specifically permits them.

In other words, teams aren't allowed to put anything into a player's contract that wasn't negotiated between the league and players association and included in the CBA. For example, a team signing a known drug offender can't insist on a "one strike and you're out" policy or that the player attend mandatory drug counseling -- instead they must follow the negotiated drug program (see question number 109).

In 2019 the league also approved new measures to reduce circumvention and tampering (see question number 111) such as inappropriate communications between teams and the agents of free agents to-be before the opening of free agency on July 1. Team executives are now required to save all communications with agents and other teams for one year, and the league now conducts random audits of five teams' communications each year. Penalties for violations can now include:

Fines up to $10 million
Forfeiture of draft picks
Suspension of team executives
Voiding of player contracts

The CBA also has a general prohibition on circumvention which states that the rules exist to preserve the benefit derived by the teams and players, and that nobody shall do anything to defeat or circumvent the intent of the agreement. The league can use this prohibition to disallow a signing or trade that they feel circumvents the CBA, even though it is not specifically prohibited by the agreement.

If Golden State would at least have the player (Johnson, Portis, Zeller, etc) that they initially traded for on the roster during the regular season, it would be easier to argue that it wasn't circumvention. It is much more difficult to defend when the moves are all done in the same offseason.

As a counter point, Memphis got away with it by waiting 1 day:
https://www.nba.com/grizzlies/news/grizzlies-aquire-luke-ridnour-150624
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--grizzlies-acquire-matt-barnes-in-trade-with-hornets-141058734.html

My guess is I would want to wait at least 30 days if GS and trying it... Also, getting a guy who was non gtd like Ridnour meant you had nothing you could get 'stuck' with if he league said no.

Yahoo SportsJun 25, 2015

Pre 2017 CBA


Yes, the unguaranteed part was important because it minimized the risk if the league said no to any of the series of Ridnour trades

Would Golden State ask for a ruling from the league before starting on that series of moves? It would be painful if they started down that path and the league said that it was circumvention and wouldn't be allowed.

[HartfordWhalers]

Spoiler:

87. What is a non-simultaneous trade?




106. Can teams find loopholes in the CBA and do things the league never intended to allow? What is circumvention?




If Golden State would at least have the player (Johnson, Portis, Zeller, etc) that they initially traded for on the roster during the regular season, it would be easier to argue that it wasn't circumvention. It is much more difficult to defend when the moves are all done in the same offseason.

As a counter point, Memphis got away with it by waiting 1 day:
https://www.nba.com/grizzlies/news/grizzlies-aquire-luke-ridnour-150624
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--grizzlies-acquire-matt-barnes-in-trade-with-hornets-141058734.html

My guess is I would want to wait at least 30 days if GS and trying it... Also, getting a guy who was non gtd like Ridnour meant you had nothing you could get 'stuck' with if he league said no.

Yahoo SportsJun 25, 2015

Pre 2017 CBA


Yes, the unguaranteed part was important because it minimized the risk if the league said no to any of the series of Ridnour trades

Would Golden State ask for a ruling from the league before starting on that series of moves? It would be painful if they started down that path and the league said that it was circumvention and wouldn't be allowed.

I cannot imagine asking for a ruling first. You are doing something technically illegal as long as you plan both steps, asking if you can do both steps invalidates the 'who knew a new deal fell into our lap once we had him' defense.

That said, I could see the NBA getting rid of the laddering is illegal position (eventually), in no small part because the new CBA made it riskier.

[Resistance]

Spoiler:

As a counter point, Memphis got away with it by waiting 1 day:
https://www.nba.com/grizzlies/news/grizzlies-aquire-luke-ridnour-150624
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--grizzlies-acquire-matt-barnes-in-trade-with-hornets-141058734.html

My guess is I would want to wait at least 30 days if GS and trying it... Also, getting a guy who was non gtd like Ridnour meant you had nothing you could get 'stuck' with if he league said no.

Yahoo SportsJun 25, 2015

Pre 2017 CBA


Yes, the unguaranteed part was important because it minimized the risk if the league said no to any of the series of Ridnour trades

Would Golden State ask for a ruling from the league before starting on that series of moves? It would be painful if they started down that path and the league said that it was circumvention and wouldn't be allowed.

I cannot imagine asking for a ruling first. You are doing something technically illegal as long as you plan both steps, asking if you can do both steps invalidates the 'who knew a new deal fell into our lap once we had him' defense.

That said, I could see the NBA getting rid of the laddering is illegal position (eventually), in no small part because the new CBA made it riskier.

But I find it difficult to just about impossible to use the a new deal fell into our lap defense when the first player acquired (Johnson, Portis, Zeller, etc) was gotten for free or a very nominal cost and then is flipped for Gordon (or similar) were Golden State has to send out something of serious value.


Would it be better to give a bit more freedom on a non-simultaneous trade rather than completely taking out the dislike/prohibition on laddering?


For a simultaneous trade, the numbers currently are:

86. How do simultaneous trades work? How much salary can a team take back in a simultaneous trade

Non-Taxpaying Teams

Outgoing salary....................Maximum incoming salary
$0 to $6,533,333..................175% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,0005
$6,533,334 to $19.6 million.....The outgoing salary plus $5 million
$19.6 million and up..............125% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000

Taxpaying teams can take back up to 125% of their outgoing salaries, plus $100,000, no matter how much salary the team is sending away. For example, a taxpaying team trading away $10 million in salaries can acquire one or more replacement players making up to $12.6 million.

Taxpaying Teams
Outgoing salary....................Maximum incoming salary
Any..................................125% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000

For a non-simultaneous trade:

87. What is a non-simultaneous trade?

In some cases, teams have up to one year to acquire the replacement player(s) to complete a trade. These trades are considered non-simultaneous. In a non-simultaneous trade, a team can acquire only up to 100% plus $100,000 of the outgoing salary1 (as opposed to a higher amount in a simultaneous trade). A trade in which salaries are aggregated (see question number 86) cannot be non-simultaneous.

Change it from TPE + $100,000 to maybe something like this:


Non-Taxpaying Teams

Outgoing TPE.......................Maximum incoming salary
$0 to $6,533,333..................150% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,0005
$6,533,334 to $19.6 million.....The outgoing salary plus $3 million
$19.6 million and up..............115% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000


Taxpaying Teams
Outgoing TPE......................Maximum incoming salary
Any..................................115% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000


There is more freedom/flexibility that the current TPE + $100,000 policy, but teams aren't getting the same flexibility of a simultaneous trade.