German Athens wrote:GrandAdmiralDan wrote:JonHeist wrote:
if the salaries are right we could do 2 for 2 or 3 for 3 or whatever else
https://www.spotrac.com/nba/trade-machine/_/year/2024
Correct.
Confusion on what aggregating salaries means has been an ongoing nuisance since I started delving into the depths of the CBA. And the draconian restrictions now present in the current CBA have only exacerbated matters.
People equate restrictions on aggregating salaries as meaning that "the Bucks can only send out one player in a trade" while over the second apron.
Not true.
We can send out multiple players in a trade as long as we'd be able to break apart the trade into components that work on their own.
So if we would legally be able to do two trades of A for B, and C for D, then we would be able to do one trade of A+C for B+D. We can also receive more players than we are sending out, if, once again, the components of the trade would work if done separately. So if legally we'd be able to trade A for B and C for D+E, then we can do one trade of A+C for B+D+E. The second apron also restricts us from taking back even $1 more in a trade than we send out. We can take back less salary than we send out, but not more. We cannot send out two players for 1 if the player we are receiving makes more than just 1 of the players we send out. If we can legally trade A for B and C for no player in return (the other team would need a large enough traded player exception, disabled player exception, or enough cap space, to absorb the salary of player C, and then can send us a draft pick and/or cash instead of a player), then we can trade A+B for C+cash/pick(s).
Unfortunately, whatever team we would be trading with might have their own restrictions to deal with. They could be under first apron restrictions, second apron restrictions, or hard capped at either apron, because they chose to use one or more exceptions that trigger a hard cap, or made a trade that triggers the hard cap, etc.
"Bucks can only include one player in a trade" is just not accurate
Hey, GAD. I’ve seen Pat + Marjon proposed for thybulle with the explanation that we wouldn’t have to aggregate salaries for it to work. Is that true?
Pat 9.4M
Marjon 2.7M
Thybulle 11M
If we were a non tax team and could take back 125% of salary, then this being a two component trade of pat for thybulle and marjon for nothing lumped into one would work.
But
If we’re a second apron team, aren’t we still aggregating salaries with pat and marjon, because pat by himself wouldn’t work for thybulle, or are the individual components of trades not subject to our apron status?
I.e.
Component 1: Pat for thybulle falls under 125% of salary
Component 2: Marjon for nothing
In total 12.1 out and 11 back, so we fall under 100% salary as one trade.
We would not be able to do that trade unless we first drop below the second apron with a trade before this trade.
Pat for Thybulle doesn't work on it's own, while over the second apron, so the entirety of the trade can't happen.
