NJ-Hou-LA ...can someone explain the trade math?

DBoys · Post #1 » by **DBoys** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:50 am

In the rumored 3-way trade ....

NJ gets Vujacic
NJ trades away Williams and Smith

Using Sham's numbers, I don't see how that is allowable for NJ under the trade rules. Can anybody enlighten me?

Post #2 » by **Three34** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:04 am

Keyon Dooling isn't on their cap after all. That's how.

Post #3 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:45 pm

Sham wrote:Keyon Dooling isn't on their cap after all. That's how.

So his deal was structured so the buyout went into last season's salary?

Post #4 » by **Three34** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:32 am

No, it's because of the right to set-off.

Biff Cooper · Post #5 » by **Biff Cooper** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:03 am

Even taking this into account, I'm getting NJ about $45K over the cap.

Dunkenstein · Post #6 » by **Dunkenstein** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:43 am

Teams under the salary cap may make trades as they please, as long as they don't end up more than $100,000 above the salary cap following a trade.
--Larry Coon's CBA FAQ

Post #7 » by **Three34** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:36 pm

Biff Cooper wrote:Even taking this into account, I'm getting NJ about $45K over the cap.

So you should.

http://blog.shamsports.com/2010/12/fina ... ergei.html

answerthink · Post #8 » by **answerthink** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:05 pm

In case it is helpful, the language supporting the notion that teams under the cap can end up at most $100,000 over the cap following a trade can also be found in Art VII, Sec (h)(2).

Biff Cooper · Post #9 » by **Biff Cooper** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:37 am

Thanks for the explanation. Never would've guessed a 100K rule existed, or thought to look for it.

Dunkenstein · Post #10 » by **Dunkenstein** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:41 pm

Sham wrote:http://blog.shamsports.com/2010/12/finances-of-terrence-williamssergei.html

Sham, I read your excellent analysis of the trades, but I have one question. In discussing the set-off of Dooling's contract you say, "Dooling still got his money, but the Nets got some cap relief." Is it your belief that the Nets still had to pay Dooling $500K?

My reading of Art XXXVII is that the right of set-off means that not only does the team get cap relief, but the set-off also reduces the amount they owe the player. So by signing Dooling to a $2M contract, Milwaukee erased New Jersey's $500K obligation to Dooling.

Post #11 » by **Three34** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:49 am

Article XXXVII's the one about wristbands and kneepads.

Post #12 » by **Three34** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:51 am

Heh, no but really though. I see what you're saying. I just don't think it makes a great deal of sense that way around. There doesn't seem any value in Dooling or anyone getting the $500,000 in the first place if he's just going to lose it.

The language looks unequivocal, though, so whoops.

Dunkenstein · Post #13 » by **Dunkenstein** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:20 am

Sham wrote:Heh, no but really though. I see what you're saying. I just don't think it makes a great deal of sense that way around. There doesn't seem any value in Dooling or anyone getting the $500,000 in the first place if he's just going to lose it.

The language looks unequivocal, though, so whoops.

He would have gotten the $500K from NJ if John Hammond wasn't such an idiot by giving him a $2M contract.