RealGM

Suppose the Knicks waive Alexi Shved. Suppose Denver claims Shved. Is there a point the league says no? If so when?


So, I suggested this elsewhere pre March 1st, but:

Denver is under the salary cap floor by over 2.5m (looks like almost 2.7m). As has been established, the salary floor is off team salary and not actual payroll paid. Which would mean that if Denver waiver claimed Shved they would save money, to the tune of (2.7m obligation removed - remaining salary). Right now that looks like it would be about 1.9m. By the last week of the season, it would be almost the full 2.7m.

{Philadelphia did something similar, waiver claiming Ish Smith, T. Robnson, and G. Robinson for a combined 5m bringing them 200k over the salary floor while only paying the prorated remainers of their salaries.}

As such, Denver has a strong financial incentive to waiver claim Shved, it would make the franchise money and any obligation ends after the season.

If he is waiver claimed, the Knicks would similarly reduce their amount over the luxury tax by 3.3m -- saving the team just under 5m in taxes. As such, so long as the restricted free agent rights of Shved are not worth 5m to the Knicks, and they are reasonably comfortably Denver would want to save money, it would make sense to waive him and hope Denver claims him.

Obviously agreeing with Denver to claim him would be a cba no no. Before the March 1st deadline, it could have reasonably looked like a move made where Shved had a chance to help a playoff team in the playoffs. But does there come a point to close to the end of the season, where such a move would be disallowed as violating the cba in spirit?

If the Knicks waived Shved with 5 days left in the season, and Denver claimed him (saving the two teams a combined 7.5m and not looking much like a basketball move by either team), does the league stop the transaction? If so, how far out would it need to be to look acceptable?

HartfordWhalers wrote:Suppose the Knicks waive Alexi Shved. Suppose Denver claims Shved. Is there a point the league says no? If so when?


So, I suggested this elsewhere pre March 1st, but:

Denver is under the salary cap floor by over 2.5m (looks like almost 2.7m). As has been established, the salary floor is off team salary and not actual payroll paid. Which would mean that if Denver waiver claimed Shved they would save money, to the tune of (2.7m obligation removed - remaining salary). Right now that looks like it would be about 1.9m. By the last week of the season, it would be almost the full 2.7m.

{Philadelphia did something similar, waiver claiming Ish Smith, T. Robnson, and G. Robinson for a combined 5m bringing them 200k over the salary floor while only paying the prorated remainers of their salaries.}

As such, Denver has a strong financial incentive to waiver claim Shved, it would make the franchise money and any obligation ends after the season.

If he is waiver claimed, the Knicks would similarly reduce their amount over the luxury tax by 3.3m -- saving the team just under 5m in taxes. As such, so long as the restricted free agent rights of Shved are not worth 5m to the Knicks, and they are reasonably comfortably Denver would want to save money, it would make sense to waive him and hope Denver claims him.

Obviously agreeing with Denver to claim him would be a cba no no. Before the March 1st deadline, it could have reasonably looked like a move made where Shved had a chance to help a playoff team in the playoffs. But does there come a point to close to the end of the season, where such a move would be disallowed as violating the cba in spirit?

If the Knicks waived Shved with 5 days left in the season, and Denver claimed him (saving the two teams a combined 7.5m and not looking much like a basketball move by either team), does the league stop the transaction? If so, how far out would it need to be to look acceptable?

I guess I am a little confused as to how this violates the spirit of the CBA. So long as the Nuggets and Knicks have not agreed to some sort of additional transaction, this seems like a perfectly reasonable series of events, and, frankly,should have been very foreseeable when the changing of the wording of the cap floor was agreed to in the last CBA.

If you don't like this result, then change the wording in the CBA. Making some sort of "spirit of the agreement" ruling would be lazy IMO. The less ad hoc type rulings like this, the better IMO.

Really I probably wouldn't even have a problem with the Knicks (or Nuggets) approaching the Nuggets (Or Knicks) and pointing out that they could save money this way. Could be missing something though.

I would draw the line if the Knicks gave the Nuggets some sort of kickback to even out the savings.

Sixerscan wrote:I guess I am a little confused as to how this violates the spirit of the CBA. So long as the Nuggets and Knicks have not agreed to some sort of additional transaction, this seems like a perfectly reasonable series of events, and, frankly,should have been very foreseeable when the changing of the wording of the cap floor was agreed to in the last CBA.

If you don't like this result, then change the wording in the CBA. Making some sort of "spirit of the agreement" ruling would be lazy IMO. The less ad hoc type rulings like this, the better IMO.

Really I probably wouldn't even have a problem with the Knicks (or Nuggets) approaching the Nuggets (Or Knicks) and pointing out that they could save money this way. Could be missing something though.

I would draw the line if the Knicks gave the Nuggets some sort of kickback to even out the savings.

Yeah, I think it is entirely possible its not viewed as ever violating the spirit. On the other hand, if both teams within the last day of the season managed to change their roster's team salary and avoid paying money to the team players and the league (respectively), does it seem to financial engineering with no basketball purpose that the league says its not allowed? I'm open to any answer on that, but last I looked the CBA basically has a provision in it that violating the cba in spirit can be ruled violating the cba in practice, and it seems the closest example to that I can think of that is plausible.

Maybe it will happen and then we will know. Otherwise, it will remain anyone's guess imo.