McKie/Van Horn Loophole?

[LLcoleJ]

Is it possible for a team like Utah to sign John Stockton for 10 million and trade him to another team as an expiring contract?

No, players still need to be unretired. When you officially retire you have to file the proper paperwork with the league - that makes it official.

KVH nad Mckie were not officially retired. I am certain Stockton is.

[LLcoleJ]

Also, this is a provision in the CBA and needs to be addresed when the new one is done in 3 years. Until then I expect the league to take closer looks at these types fo deals until they can make perm. changes.

[Myth_Breaker]

Also, this is a provision in the CBA and needs to be addresed when the new one is done in 3 years. Until then I expect the league to take closer looks at these types fo deals until they can make perm. changes.

And this loophole is even magnified by the fact that - as far as I remember - while in sign-and trades contracts must run for at least 3 years, only 1st year has to be guaranteed. So this "Stockton for 15 million per one year for 5 years of Pierce's service" scenario isn't out of the question. Scary, huh?

[dockingsched]

well, even if stockton weren't retired 15 mil would make stockton byc, so that wouldn't work

[RoyceDa59]

The CBA needs to become more flexible to make it easier for trades to go through and these little loop holes, in my opinion, are actually a good way around the tightness of the bargaining agreement.

[eagles nut]

ESPN is saying now that Van Horn being included could be a problem. With McKie, he reported to Memphis and made himself available to play. If Van Horn won't do likewise, the league might not allow it.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Man, what I wouldn't give for a Detlef Schrempf/Danny Manning swap...

[dingclancy]

Technically I don't see how someone could beat this particular loophole since most players just stop playing without making a formal declaration of retirement. You can't keep a player from coming back even if it looks a bit fishy. It wouldn't be fair to the Penny Hardaways of the world.

The player does not have to play. In fact he'd welcome the free money. imagine $5 million dollars for you just by signing something.

[dingclancy]

ESPN is saying now that Van Horn being included could be a problem. With McKie, he reported to Memphis and made himself available to play. If Van Horn won't do likewise, the league might not allow it.

Nets just need him to sign a paper that states he can play. He really doesn't have to.

[RTM]

I don't think this is that big of a deal because even if the player is semi-retired, for the deal to go through they must both report to wherever they are traded (which the intent of participating and pass a physical.

I think it's more of a coincidence that we've seen this in back-to-back blockbusters.

[MalReyn]

The CBA needs to become more flexible to make it easier for trades to go through and these little loop holes, in my opinion, are actually a good way around the tightness of the bargaining agreement.

Agreed, though it should be something built into the CBA and not just handing players free money for doing nothing.

I don't have a huge problem with this loophole, since trades are so difficult to pull off in the NBA to begin with. If they close it, I hope they put in some sort of clause that could serve the same purpose (perhaps higher amount of money allowed in a trade?).

[Friend_Of_Haley]

What if the loosened the 125% rule for teams over the cap, but not in the luxury territory, say bump it up to 135% and make the 125% rule just for teams over the luxury tax limit or making a trade that will put them over the limit.

I guess its kind of arbitrary, like why should the luxury tax teams be punished more, but who knows. It was originally at 115% wasn't it? I can't imagine a trade under those circumstances.

Another possibility might just be allowing cash to count towards outgoing and incoming salary.

[pillwenney]

I really have no problem with this staying as is, and while sort of on the topic, I hate the rule against waiving players and letting them return. Because honestly, who the hell cares? If both teams agree to it, it's not going to hurt anything. Like, if Stackhouse had sucked (and been making his salary) would NJ still have done the deal? Of course--that's why they were going to waive him and let him return. So what difference does it make? I mean really, a deal like the Kidd deal, that it seemed both teams wanted to do, was close to not getting done because of a stupid salary technicality? Really?

[damavs02]

To try and prevent teams from doing this, the NBA makes any free agents whose rights you still have, count against the salary cap.

A player like Van Horn, was counting against the Mavs salary cap for the maximum contract value. This only matters when trying to get cap space, so for most teams that are perpetually over the cap, it's not a big deal.

But if the Mavs had dumped salary and gotten down under the cap, they would have had to renounce Van Horn's rights, gotten that dollar amount removed from their cap space calculation, and lost the ability to re-sign him.

The league does this so that teams can't have a bunch of their own free agents expire in the same year, and have plenty of cap space. Then they could sign a big free agent from another team with their cap space, and resign all their own free agents with their Bird rights.

It would be interesting if to close this loophole, the league simply required teams to pay some percentage of that player's cap hold every year until they renounce the player. If it cost a team $150K to keep Van Horn's rights, they wouldn't do it...

[Buck You]

Dude, New Jersey should have put Muresan in the Kidd trade, just for comedic purposes.

[dingclancy]

I wonder what KVH will be doing. I am sure he won't be playing. Perhaps clean their lockers for thirty days?

[ubernathan]

I wonder if things like this will ever make their way into NBA Live games? Like, in the game New Jersey can force a decrepit George Muhresan to sit on their bench.