RealGM

So i was wondering. The infamous CP3 deal had the Lakers trade out ALOT of salary in Pau + Odom and just getting back CP3. When all was said and done alot of pieces going to various teams didnt match the amount each sqaud sent out and in.

Just wondering if it could be applied to a hypothetical Lebron Opt-in trade or S&T

Repost from General Board, but i really need some cap expert opinion on legality.

CLE doesnt want salary coming back. Theyre deep in the tax and thus are better off just letting Lebron walk rather than taking back scrap contracts + picks. Those scrap contracts will count heavily in the lux tax bill. Better off trying to buy a late FRP than take back a huge amount of salary.

Basically if youre a capped out team and want Lebron, you need to add 3rd/4th parties in the deal to absorb the contracts you'd have sent to CLE in a normal trade, while also trading CLE more assets to be part of the deal.

Hmm i kinda wonder if this works under the cap. I've seen multiteam trades before that didnt fit the cap space rules. Like the infamous canceled CP3 trade where LAL was sending out ALOT of salary in Pau/Odom and only getting CP3 thus saving a MASSIVE amount on our lux bill at the time which made Gilbert and Cuban get all mega salty.

LAL trades
S&T Julius Randle
2 FRP
2 SRP
Cash

LAL recieves
Lebron

DAL trade
Nothing of real value

DAL receives
S&T Julius Randle
Jordan Clarkson
FRP
SRP
Cash

CLE trades
S&T Lebron James
Jordan Clarkson

CLE receives
FRP

Naturally this is assuming Lebron wants to force his way to LA and willing to do a S&T and stuff.

LAL uses DAL cap space as a trade lane for Lebron and tosses in assets to grease the wheels. DAL gets Randle for sure and ideally on a reasonable deal (like 15-16mil a year) that the Lakers dont match as part of the agreement, DAL also gets some young talent in Clarkson, and a FRP for their trouble. Essentially DAL cap space got zeroed out, for these 2 + FRP + SRP. Toss em some cash too, if Cuban wants some extra spending money.

CLE gets a FRP AND dump Clarkson's salary helping them to get further under the lux tax and able to make moves, like resign Hood, or go find a MLE, or just pocket the extra 24 mil in savings over the next 2 years while they go blow everything up as they wait for TT and JR to expire.

LIke i said, i dunno if this is feasible under the CBA, but I know we've had lopsided salary being passed around before in multi team deals.

Considering cavs need a rebuild, I could see this go through. And do teams still take cash in trades? I thought this was a thing of past.

btw, I'm really impressed by your nickname, I have been using it since 2007 in Runescape and am still using it today on gmail/youtube I also wanted to use it here, but it said it's taken, and i was like WTF
Woe to the vanquished!

Teams can always send out more money then they're taking back in a trade*. As long as the team or teams adding salary can do so there's no problem. This is the same as a simple salary dump trade (where a team with cap space or a big enough TPE takes back an unwanted contract for incentive (the role Dallas has in your example).

* There are a few, unlikely exceptions to this - either with poison-pill contracts or a S&T creating a hard-cap situation.

15-16M for Randle isn't enough. Need to figure out how much Randle needs to get here and would Dallas want to pay that much. The Lakers need to give him enough to be able to absorb Lebron's salary. Plus there may be BYC issues with Randle.

That trade makes no sense. If Lebron wants to go to Dallas and Randle wants to go to Dallas, here's how it works:

Lebron signs with LA
Randle signs with Dallas

The rest of it is really pointless. And if there's a scenario in which it's somehow needed, then it's probably quite cap-illegal anyhow, depending on the rest of the cap situation for the various teams.

DBoys wrote:That trade makes no sense. If Lebron wants to go to Dallas and Randle wants to go to Dallas, here's how it works:

Lebron signs with LA
Randle signs with Dallas

The rest of it is really pointless. And if there's a scenario in which it's somehow needed, then it's probably quite cap-illegal anyhow, depending on the rest of the cap situation for the various teams.

There are some opt-in and trade scenarios with LeBron. Though they don't involve the Lakers.

giberish wrote:

DBoys wrote:That trade makes no sense. If Lebron wants to go to Dallas and Randle wants to go to Dallas, here's how it works:

Lebron signs with LA
Randle signs with Dallas

The rest of it is really pointless. And if there's a scenario in which it's somehow needed, then it's probably quite cap-illegal anyhow, depending on the rest of the cap situation for the various teams.

There are some opt-in and trade scenarios with LeBron. Though they don't involve the Lakers.

"Other scenarios are out there for Lebron" really has absolutely nothing to do with this idea and its viability.

DBoys wrote:That trade makes no sense. If Lebron wants to go to Dallas and Randle wants to go to Dallas, here's how it works:

Lebron signs with LA
Randle signs with Dallas

The rest of it is really pointless. And if there's a scenario in which it's somehow needed, then it's probably quite cap-illegal anyhow, depending on the rest of the cap situation for the various teams.

In order for Lakers to be able to sign Lebron outright using straight cap, as in your example, we need to either A) Renounce Randle, Stretch Deng 36.8/5 or B) Find someone willing to take Deng + assets outright thereby allowing us to keep Randle's RFA caphold AND sign LBJ/PG13 or C) trade Deng + assets for a smaller dead money contract to stretch such as Omer Asik, Feliciano, etc, however in this case we wont have enough money to hold onto Randle's caphold and sign LBJ/PG13 to their respective maxes unless they take a small haircut.

The whole purpose of my scenario is find a way to get LBJ to LA without being forced to deal with Deng, since his contract may cost too much to get rid of in a trade. 36.8m in dead money aint nothing to scoff at and i dread the prospect of stretching him and having a 7.4m cap hit for 5 years. Also can potentially use Deng as salary ballast to try to get a 3rd star and using Ingram, Kuzma, or Lonzo as sweetener.

My current lopsided salary 3 way deal is the Lakers making this deal while still holding onto Deng and not stretching him while at the same time generating value from Randle's RFA status and DAL desire to acquire him at a reasonable salary.

Several factors must be true for my scenario to be feasible

A) Whether its illegal or not, hence me asking here for clarification

B) LBJ wants LAL and is willing to be patient to let Maginka work some cap fu

C) Dallas wants Randle on a reasonable deal, essentially anything under 18m

D) Randle is unable to find a squad willing to grossly overpay him via offer sheet (to in theory scare away the Lakers from matching), due to prospective suitors not wanting to pay him that much. Randle and his agent DO NOT want to get Noeled and sign for the piddly QO, and so take the best reasonable offer they can get. If i'm Randle push hard for something like 3 years 54 mil with 3rd year Player Option. Willing to take a coupla mil less a year since having a Player Option means if i play well i get another chance at a huge payday, at the tender age of 25/26 and hopefully a sweet mid range J or the makings of a 3pt (33%) shot.

E) CLE accepting the inevitable that Lebron is gone and they need to get whatever they can in his departure

Personally after looking at this deal some more, i think the Lakers can get out of this pickle paying out only 1 FRP. DAL might be getting enough value from getting Randle on a reasonable deal that they dont get an extra FRP. Or it can be argued that CLE is getting enough value out of the deal in dumping Clarkson outright and doesnt deserve a FRP.

Again my whole point asking is mostly for legality or salary incoming/outgoing limitations. BYC, which applies to Randle, i totally forgot about and need to read up more on it to make sure things are kosher. Value wise the above doesnt matter much, since we cant begin haggling if its an illegal trade

No it doesn't work. It's not even close.

And even though you don't want it to be the case, it's also not at all likely that ANY of the parties would want to bother with such a complex scenario, much less all of them, when each of them has better routes to what they want to do by simpler means.