RealGM

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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.

Article XXXVII's the one about wristbands and kneepads.

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.

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.