Quick Sign and Trade Question

[Dan Z]

If a team is under the cap and wants to sign a free agent then why don't they do it outright (provided that they have enough under the cap)?

Is it that the player wants to accommodate his previous team by helping them get something for him? Or is it that the player being signed gains more money that way? Or is it something else?

Just wondering.

[Dunkenstein]

If the player goes the sign and trade route, he gets to sign a six year contract rather than a five year contract. Also his yearly raises can be 10.5% rather than 8%. So yes, it's about money.

[Dan Z]

Thank you.

[FrenchieKS]

Not really the same question, but close enough that it probably doesn't need it's own thread. I know that if you use cap space to sign free agents, you can't then use your MLE to go over the cap. What happens if a team like the Nets, Bulls or Clippers filled their cap space solely through trades and/or S&Ts? Would they still be eligible to use their MLE?

[So Cal Blazer Fan]

Not really the same question, but close enough that it probably doesn't need it's own thread. I know that if you use cap space to sign free agents, you can't then use your MLE to go over the cap. What happens if a team like the Nets, Bulls or Clippers filled their cap space solely through trades and/or S&Ts? Would they still be eligible to use their MLE?

If a team has actual cap space, then that team loses all exceptions that have been generated up to that point (trade exceptions, MLE, BAE, etc.). So the answer to your question is no, since they would lose their MLE once they dropped below the cap this summer. Doesn't matter if they use the cap space for FA signings or uneven trades, in neither case would they have an MLE to use later.

[FrenchieKS]

Cool, thanks a lot!

[FGump]

Not really the same question, but close enough that it probably doesn't need it's own thread. I know that if you use cap space to sign free agents, you can't then use your MLE to go over the cap. What happens if a team like the Nets, Bulls or Clippers filled their cap space solely through trades and/or S&Ts? Would they still be eligible to use their MLE?

Actually the answer is "maybe" ("probably" ?) rather than "no."

Each expiring contract for a team will have a "cap hold" the same size or larger than that player's just-expired salary. Until that player signs somewhere, the old team is "charged" that amount on their cap, and in theory despite all the expirings virtually every team will start the off-season technically over the cap. That does include teams with lots of expirings like NJ, Mia, Chi, etc.

And the rule is, if you are over the cap, you have no cap space to sign free agents - but you do get MLE, BAE, retain your trade exceptions, and so on.

So if a team worked their summer in such a way where at all times their current Team Salary - ie the total of salaries, holds, and exceptions - stayed above the cap (such as by gradually either keeping their expirings or using them in SNT's for similarly salaried players) then they would at no point be able to add a player by a pure free agent signing (even though they could pursue FA's using sign-and-trades) - but they would indeed get MLE etc. At any point in time they could renounce those player rights and/or exceptions, and get rid of any or all of the cap holds and charges as needed, but until/unless they do so, they retain their MLE/BAE/TEs to use.

[FrenchieKS]

They would have to actually S&T the expirings though, right? If they renounce a guy to get rid of his cap hold, that can't be considered a simultaneous transaction as the acquisition that's replacing his salary. Players whose contracts have ended can't have their rights traded then waived the way Dampier's contract can be, and the first year needs to be guaranteed if the team is going to use them for S&T purposes.

EDIT: Although, would it be possible to extend, for example, Bobby Simmons for one more year at the maximum salary he can make, with only $1.5 million guaranteed? Simmons picks up an extra $1.5 million for cooperating and then hits the FA market like he would have anyway, the team (in this case the Nets) can send enough cash to cover the salary the new team would have to pay even if they were in the tax, and the new team is essentially unaffected by Simmons' inclusion in the deal.

[FGump]

1 The concept is this:

You need cap room in order to do a pure free agent signing bigger than the MLE. In order to have such cap room, you must first (ie, previously, not simultaneously) renounce the rights to some of those expiring players (or have them sign elsewhere) in order to get rid of those cap holds. At that point, you lose your exceptions.

2 Your analysis comparing Dampier vs a SNT player contract is correct.

3 The problem with using extensions in this context is they have to fit the rules for extensions. http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q51 Potential problems are,
a. Some free agents qualify but others may not.
b. The player may not want to cooperate on getting a single year, if he feels he can otherwise get a much better deal by simply become a free agent.
c. While I don't find it in the FAQ, I seem to recall that extensions have to be guaranteed in the same way as the last year of the old contract, so (assuming I recall correctly) you're unlikely to find an opportunity for a partially guaranteed one-year extension to be written.

[FrenchieKS]

I understand that concept, what I misunderstood was how you suggested a team use its cap space without losing its exceptions. Upon re-reading, I see what you meant.

Re: 3a and 3b, that's why I chose Simmons (coming off of the five year deal) and gave him the incentive that likely does not affect his FA search this summer. I didn't see 3c in the FAQ either, though that would of course make sense to prevent teams from doing what I suggested, since it would essentially be a loophole.