Roster limit and trades

[kosmovitelli]

We all know that before the beginning of the season, all NBA rosters must be trimmed to 15.

The Knicks have 15 guaranteed contracts right now. Their roster is full.

My understanding is the team can only make a one for one trade (or 2 for 2, etc...). Basically they cannot take more players back in a trade than the number they give away.

What happens if the Knicks immediatly waive one of the players they acquired ? Will the trade be legal ?

For example, let's say the Knicks want to trade Zach Randolph and Randolph Morris for Eduardo Najera, Chucky Atkins, JR Smith and Kleiza.
It's a 6 players swap, the Knicks trade 2 players and receive 4. They have two many players so they waive Atkins and Smith for example.

Will the NBA Office veto the trade considering the Knicks had 17 players on their roster at one time (the period between the trade was consumated, papers sent to the NBA and the moment they officially waived Atkins + Smith) ? Or will the trade go through without any problem ?
I think the concept here is similar to a sign and trade (two transactions in one). The Knicks would have to acquire and waive some of the players in the same transaction. As this kind of transaction don't exist in the CBA I think the trade would be blocked by the NBA Offices because the Knicks would technically have 17 players after the trade but I'm not sure I'm right.

I tried to find something in the CBA or Larry Coon's FAQ but I couldn't find any answer for my question.

[Three34]

There's a small period of time - 24 or 48 hours - in which a team can receive one or two extra incoming players concurrently with the trade to make it work, as long as it's just a precursor to other roster moves being made.

So yes, they could make the deal.

[shrink]

Is it still like this under the current CBA?

I heard an intricate story that no one ever confirmed that when the 2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement did away with the injured list, it inadvertantly made it more difficult for team to make unbalanced trades because of roster limit restrictions.

The story goes that in the past, if a team wanted to do a trade that put them over the roster limit, they would simply put one of their players on the IL with a phantom injury to create a roster spot. The trade would be performed, and the team would never exceed its roster limit. Once they waived the incoming player, the player they stuck on the IL would have a miraculous recovery, and fill the roster spot of the waived player.

I don't like to believe stories without some form of confirmation, but the intricacies here makes it sound plauable, particularly since it doesn't involve setting aside roster limits for a brief amount of time. Have their been unbalanced trades since then that would prove this story false?

[raleigh]

So, is 17 the temporary roster limit for trades?

Looking at a possible Bibby to Atlanta scenario...

[shrink]

I was waiting for a test case like this

Also on Saturday, the Kings requested waivers on forward Justin Williams and guard Dahntay Jones.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7805 ... ayer-trade

I think this may demonstrate that you have to waive first to create the roster space, then trade under the 2005 CBA. I would assume that a rebuilding Kings team would have prefered to waive the incoming Lorenzen Wright to Justin Williams.

[raleigh]

Absolutely agree, shrink.

[Three34]

I agree that it never happens, but that doesn't mean that it can't. Who knows, though. What I said to open this thread was the conclusion that we came to in a thread with much the same title further down the page.

[FGump]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7805 ... ayer-trade

I think this may demonstrate that you have to waive first to create the roster space, then trade under the 2005 CBA. I would assume that a rebuilding Kings team would have prefered to waive the incoming Lorenzen Wright to Justin Williams.

Actually I think what happened today demonstrates clearly you can do it at the same time and do NOT have to clear roster room in advance.

The Kings had a 14-man roster and made a 1-for-4 trade which would make them 2 players over the limit of 15. They had of course already figured out before the trade which 2 players out of the 17 they'd end up waiving, and it appears they turned those waives in to the league as they submitted the trade. They didn't have to clear space in advance.

In addition, I suspect that when selecting which 2 of the 17 to get rid of, they could have selected from the incoming players, if they preferred.

So rather than this demonstrating there being some sort of impediment to making lopsided trades, to me this demonstrates just the opposite. Sacramento was able to trade 1-for-4 with ease, and without doing anything in advance to clear roster room.

[shrink]

Actually I think what happened today demonstrates clearly you can do it at the same time and do NOT have to clear roster room in advance.

The Kings had a 14-man roster and made a 1-for-4 trade which would make them 2 players over the limit of 15. They had of course already figured out before the trade which 2 players out of the 17 they'd end up waiving, and it appears they turned those waives in to the league as they submitted the trade. They didn't have to clear space in advance.

In addition, I suspect that when selecting which 2 of the 17 to get rid of, they could have selected from the incoming players, if they preferred.

So rather than this demonstrating there being some sort of impediment to making lopsided trades, to me this demonstrates just the opposite. Sacramento was able to trade 1-for-4 with ease, and without doing anything in advance to clear roster room.

I have to disagree with you. I think this provides no evidence whatsoever that they were choosing between 17 players, and in no way can picking two players on their original roster provide evidence that players not on their original roster were also eligible.

Maybe its the "in advance" that you take issue with. Perhaps you'd be OK with "simultaneously" must drop a player from your own roster.

[shrink]

I will say one thing though -- this is merely evidence, and doesn't disprove there is a 24-to-48 hour waiting period where a team can chose to pick a player they want to drop .. even one that they just traded for.

For example, just because in this trade the Kings didn't waive an incoming player, and didn't use the waiting period, doesn't prove its illegal -- this may have just been their choice.

So I guess the next step is to review old trades. Since the newest cba, have their been any mid-season trades that would take a team over the roster limit, where that team waived an incoming player to make their roster limits?

[FGump]

Shrink, you are putting words in my mouth very different from what I actually said, and disagreeing with something I never said.

I didn't say this somehow PROVES they could have picked from the incoming players. I just said this is evidence that the waive can be done at the same timeas the trade (rather than IN ADVANCE, as you and others were trying to say it somehow demonstrated).

Then, based on that, it looks to me like the door is also open for picking among the players received, though nowhere did I say it proves such a thing. To me it's the logical guess, however.

[Twinkie defense]

If the Blazer can trade for Steve Francis and then instantly waive him, why couldn't the Kings do the same with say, Tyronn Lue, if they preferred Justin Williams to him?

[Three34]

The Blazers acquired Francis in the offseason. Things are different then. You can have up to 20 players on a roster then.

[bgwizarfan]

One thing that is apparant, though, is that in order to sign Van Horn, the Mavs must release someone from their current roster, right? Even though the Mavs are trading more players away total than theyre receiving in return, since they have to sign Van Horn first, they'd have to get rid of someone in my mind

[Scoot McGroot]

ESPN.com (yeah, in all it's glory....jk) is reporting that Dallas will have to waive Nick Fazekas in order to sign KVH to trade him.

[Three34]

After the Kurt Thomas and Wally Szczerbiak trades, Seattle's roster now stands at 16, and it's not been reported that they've waived anyone concurrent to the trade. This looks like a shining example of how the leniency period thing still exists.

[FGump]

They waived Barry, per reports, in what may have been a necessary concurrent move.

[Three34]

Oh, didn't see that. And for a minute there I thought I'd made a point worth making.

[Dunkenstein]

I spoke yesterday to a guy who does this for a living and he confirmed that in oder to acquire a player or players that would trake a team over the 15-man limit, the team must first waive a player from it's own roster. He pointed to yesterday's waiving of Brent Barry as an example of this. A team cannot waive one of its newly acquired players to get down to 15.

Another NBA expert pointed out to me today that when the Magic traded Francis and Ariza for Penny Hardaway, the Magic had to waive Outlaw even though they planned on waiving Hardaway anyway. Hardaway was eventually waived and Outlaw later re-signed.

[LarryCoon]

Dunk, that makes perfect logical sense in that you can't waive a guy until you've acquired him, and you can't acquire him until you have a spot on your roster.
My last concern is now laid to rest. On 3/10/99 the Lakers traded Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell to Charlotte for Glen Rice, J.R. Reid and B.J. Armstrong, and waived Armstrong on the same day. This was nagging at me, but I just took another look, and discovered that the Lakers also waived Corie Blount that day. So it fits the same pattern. Mystery solved.