Don't speed it up: Wolves sign Slo-Mo Kyle Anderson (2yr/$18M)

[shrink]

I asked about whether we don’t get a TPE, or whether we get one and can’t use it unless we drop under the second apron.

In this case, I believe that it’s specifically an outgoing sign and trade. The rules disallow a 2nd apron team from acquiring a player contract by signing and trading away a player. Thus, no TPE. I believe if the player was already under contract and traded away, Minnesota would create a TPE but be unable to use it until they were under the 2nd apron (and would then hard cap themselves at the 2nd apron from using it).

I just wanted to add that teams can’t officially sign free agents until July 6. If there were any legs to a KAT-Lauri swap, it would need to happen before the Anderson S&T, so that Connelly could generate a useful $9 mil TPE.

[shrink]

I asked about whether we don’t get a TPE, or whether we get one and can’t use it unless we drop under the second apron.

In this case, I believe that it’s specifically an outgoing sign and trade. The rules disallow a 2nd apron team from acquiring a player contract by signing and trading away a player. Thus, no TPE. I believe if the player was already under contract and traded away, Minnesota would create a TPE but be unable to use it until they were under the 2nd apron (and would then hard cap themselves at the 2nd apron from using it).

I just wanted to add that teams can’t officially sign free agents until July 6. If there were any legs to a KAT-Lauri swap, it would need to happen before the Anderson S&T, so that Connelly could generate a useful $9 mil TPE.

And now Dunc’d On reports the way I initially said, that a TPE is created, but we can’t use it if we’re over the second apron!

I should amend that slightly. Using a TPE would hard cap us at the Second Apron. So if we wanted to use the whole $9 mil TPE, we’d have to be $9 mil under the Second Apron. We are $16 mil over the Second Apron already, so that would mean cutting $25 mil.

This inconsistency between interpretations sometimes happens when a new CBA makes a rule that we haven’t seen tested in real life.

[Klomp]

This inconsistency between interpretations sometimes happens when a new CBA makes a rule that we haven’t seen tested in real life.

I found the actual CBA document when we were trying to initially clarify this situation. It's clear as mud, written in "legalese".