Van Horn's S&T "is not just a formality"

[shrink]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3250819

Another source, however, stressed that league approval of Keith Van Horn's inclusion in the trade is not a formality, creating one more obstacle for the teams to overcome to complete their second attempt to get a deal done.

....

That's because the league office, as seen earlier this month when the Los Angeles Lakers summoned Aaron McKie out of retirement to help them land Pau Gasol from Memphis, will not simply allow players like McKie or Van Horn to be part of a trade in name only. League sources told ESPN.com last week that the Gasol trade would have been disallowed had McKie not reported to Memphis to make himself available to play for the Grizzlies, meaning Van Horn would likely have to do the same.

But the league also doesn't appear to have an iron-clad policy on such matters. NBA president of league and basketball operations Joel Litvin told reporters in New Orleans on Saturday night that deciding whether to allow unofficially retired players like McKie or Van Horn to be thrown into a deal is judged on a "case-by-case basis." McKie's case might have been an even trickier one because he was working as a volunteer assistant coach for one team (Philadelphia) when the last team (Lakers) he played for called, needing him for a sign-and-trade with a third team (Memphis) for Gasol.

I understand the league's desire to maintain financial parity, but I have to assume the Players Association is going to try to support paydays for retired vets. Am I correct in recalling that these type of players have to be offered three-year deals, but the last two can be team option?

I think it'd be amusing for the NBA to try to enforce a "not just in name only" agreement.

Stern jumps around a corner: "Keith Van Horn! Put down that Krispy Kreme and go hit the weight room with the rest of the team!"

[lakerfan10770]

Yes, sort of.....it's probably just semantics, but it would actually be non-guaranteed for the 2nd & 3rd years, not a team option.

What I find interesting is would the league have disallowed Van Horn's inclusion had his contract been much larger. I have him getting $4,236,997, but what if New Jersey refused to take Trenton Hassell, then to match salaries KVH would have had to get $8,586,997. Considering nobody would offer KVH more than a veteran minimum contract at this point, it is interesting that the league is okay with him getting $4.2M. This deal as it is constructed is an obvious attempt to take full advantage of the CBA. I wonder how far the league would have allowed this to go? Or do they even care about the money as long as the player reports to his new team.

[Dunkenstein]

Since Dallas has full Bird rights on VH, I think the league will allow any contract up to the maximum. Since the $4.2M is a prorated amount of his non-guaranteed years two and three, those years still fall within the player maximum. If Dallas were to try and give give him $8.5M that would mean that years two and three would be over the maximum for a player.

[FGump]

Since Dallas has full Bird rights on VH, I think the league will allow any contract up to the maximum. Since the $4.2M is a prorated amount of his non-guaranteed years two and three, those years still fall within the player maximum. If Dallas were to try and give give him $8.5M that would mean that years two and three would be over the maximum for a player.

Huh? That makes no sense.

He can get up to $16m-ish (more or less) this season, and 10.5% raises in yr 2 and 3, if they wish. The 4.2M, plus 2 more years within 10.5% of that number (non-guaranteed, of course) is a relatively piddling amount and easily allowable. And there would obviously be room for a deal at 8.5M, 10M, or any other number below that 16Mish limit.*

*EDIT: Even factoring in the prorating of the Bird exception ("Starting January 10 of each season, the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Larry Bird, Early-Bird and Non-Bird exceptions begin to reduce in value. For example, if there are 180 days in the season, then these exceptions (if they are still unused) reduce by 1/180 of their initial value each day starting January 10. If a team uses their $5 million Mid-Level exception on February 1, then the exception is actually worth $4,361,111.")....

He can get full Bird minus around 40/180 which still leaves his existing maximum more than 12.5M for this season.

[bgwizarfan]

Dunk, your response really confused me. The Larry Bird Exception technically begins to reduce January 10th, but doesn't that simply mean the Maximum Salary begins to reduce based on years of service?

So if he gets $4.2 million, that's a portion of the now pro-rated maximum the Mavs could pay Van Horn with the Larry Bird Exception.

If he gets $4.2 million, then isn't he limited to 10.5% of that amount in year 2 and then the same raise in year 3? Proration should not play a role at all in year 2 or 3 unless he received the full prorated Larry Bird Exception (the maximum prorated) - then he could receive a 10.5% raise as if he had been signed to the full Maximum before the Larry Bird Exception began to decrease on Jan 10th, correct?

[lakerfan10770]

Instead of creating a whole new thread, I will put my breakdown of the potential Kidd trade here. This trade is fairly complicated and could potentially be structured a couple of different ways. Since Dallas needs every dollar to match up to Kidd's salary, it doesn't matter how the deal is structured from their perspective. But from the Nets perspective when both deals are combined (including Antoine Wright), then a larger single TPE is created rather than two smaller ones which would be the more adventageous for the Nets. So here it goes:

From Dallas' Perspective (two deals):

1st part:
Outgoing:
Trenton Hassell - $4,350,000
Keith Van Horn - $4,236,997 (S&T, 2nd & 3rd years not guaranteed)
Devin Harris - $3,995,003
Desagana Diop - $2,146,000
Maurice Ager - $974,400
2008 & 2010 1st round picks
Cash Considerations ($3M)
Total Outgoing - $15,702,400
Maximum Incoming - $19,728,000

Incoming:
Jason Kidd - $19,728,000
Malik Allen - $1,033,930 (Vet Minimum player, counts as zero incoming salary)
Total Incoming - $19,728,000

2nd Part:
Outgoing:
2nd round pick

Incoming:
Antoine Wright - $1,680,000

*Traded Player Exception from previous Anthony Johnson trade was used.

From New Jersey's Perspective (two deals):

1st Part:
Outgoing:
Antoine Wright - $1,680,000
Malik Allen - $1,033,930
Total Outoing - $2,713,930
Max Incoming - $3,492,413

Incoming:
Desagana Diop - $2,146,000
Maurice Ager - $974,400
Total Incoming - $3,120,400

2nd Part:
Outgoing:
Jason Kidd - $19,728,000

Incoming:
Devin Harris - $7,724,167 (Poison Pill Player, actual salary is $3,995,003)
Trenton Hassell - $4,350,000
Keith Van Horn - $4,236,997 (S&T, 2nd & 3rd years not guaranteed)
2008 & 2010 1st round picks
Future 2nd round pick
Cash Considerations ($3M)
Total Incoming - $16,311,164

*Traded Player Exception of $3,416,836 will be created for New Jersey.


If the trade is truly kept as two seperate deals then New Jersey creates a TPE for $1,680,000 from the Antoine Wright portion and a TPE for $1,330,366 from the Kidd portion of the trade. Let me know if I am missing anything with these calculations. Also, I am not 100% sure on how to handle Malik Allen and his Vet Min deal, but I assumed that it should be counted from the Nets perspective and thus reduce the amount of the TPE.

(Edited using FGump's suggestion)

[Dunkenstein]

I just got off the phone with someone who does this for a living and I may not have an accurate understanding of proration. Sorry.

[FGump]

I didnt check your math but it looks configured properly from the Dallas end.

From NJ end, Allen+Wright should cover Diop+Ager.

Then NJ will get a TPE for Kidd minus Harris-Hassell-KVH, something around 4M.

[Mr. Sun]

I think Dallas is gonna have to try something different as Van Horn's agent doesn't sound like Keith is thrilled in getting involved in this trade and is gonna require 72 hours to "think about it.".

[FGump]

Dunk, I think you confused everyone by veering into yr 2 and 3 issues, when those aren't really going to be the tipping point.

The only issue is, does year 1 fit within the allowable maximum salary for KVH considering where we are in the season? Yrs 2/3 will work if yr 1 is done accurately, whatever the amount, and they wont work if yr 1 is over the yr 1 limit.

[lakerfan10770]

I didnt check your math but it looks configured properly from the Dallas end.

From NJ end, Allen+Wright should cover Diop+Ager.

Then NJ will get a TPE for Kidd minus Harris-Hassell-KVH, something around 4M.

I fixed my post, but this may all be a moot point......

[bgwizarfan]

No - Gump that's wrong. In order to break it up from seperate sides, the big trade must work

Wright is a completely seperate deal and cannot be included as part of the other deal (unless Van Horn's salary is increased).

With the way the trade is configured above, Wright has to be acquired seperately, since Dallas is sending out $15,702,400 and can therefore only acquire $19,728,000 in return. Allen can be included there since he's a minimum salary player, but Wright must be in a seperate deal

You can't just start putting Wright into the different scenarios in that deal if he doesn't fit into the big trade (which he doesn't)

Also, Gump, was my understanding of proration above correct? When it says the LB, EB and NB execptions begin decreasing Jan 10th, does that refer to the maximum applicable to each player in that instance?

[bgwizarfan]

Instead of creating a whole new thread, I will put my breakdown of the potential Kidd trade here. This trade is fairly complicated and could potentially be structured a couple of different ways. Since Dallas needs every dollar to match up to Kidd's salary, it doesn't matter how the deal is structured from their perspective. But from the Nets perspective when both deals are combined (including Antoine Wright), then a larger single TPE is created rather than two smaller ones which would be the more adventageous for the Nets. So here it goes:

From Dallas' Perspective (two deals):

1st part:
Outgoing:
Trenton Hassell - $4,350,000
Keith Van Horn - $4,236,997 (S&T, 2nd & 3rd years not guaranteed)
Devin Harris - $3,995,003
Desagana Diop - $2,146,000
Maurice Ager - $974,400
2008 & 2010 1st round picks
Cash Considerations ($3M)
Total Outgoing - $15,702,400
Maximum Incoming - $19,728,000

Incoming:
Jason Kidd - $19,728,000
Malik Allen - $1,033,930 (Vet Minimum player, counts as zero incoming salary)
Total Incoming - $19,728,000

2nd Part:
Outgoing:
2nd round pick

Incoming:
Antoine Wright - $1,680,000

*Traded Player Exception from previous Anthony Johnson trade was used.

From New Jersey's Perspective (two deals):

1st Part:
Outgoing:
Antoine Wright - $1,680,000
Malik Allen - $1,033,930
Total Outoing - $2,713,930
Max Incoming - $3,492,413

Incoming:
Desagana Diop - $2,146,000
Maurice Ager - $974,400
Total Incoming - $3,120,400

2nd Part:
Outgoing:
Jason Kidd - $19,728,000

Incoming:
Devin Harris - $7,724,167 (Poison Pill Player, actual salary is $3,995,003)
Trenton Hassell - $4,350,000
Keith Van Horn - $4,236,997 (S&T, 2nd & 3rd years not guaranteed)
2008 & 2010 1st round picks
Future 2nd round pick
Cash Considerations ($3M)
Total Incoming - $16,311,164

*Traded Player Exception of $3,416,836 will be created for New Jersey.


If the trade is truly kept as two seperate deals then New Jersey creates a TPE for $1,680,000 from the Antoine Wright portion and a TPE for $1,330,366 from the Kidd portion of the trade. Let me know if I am missing anything with these calculations. Also, I am not 100% sure on how to handle Malik Allen and his Vet Min deal, but I assumed that it should be counted from the Nets perspective and thus reduce the amount of the TPE.

(Edited using FGump's suggestion)

The Dallas side is perfect. From New Jersey's side, Wright cannot be combined with other players since he doesn't work in the big deal (at least from how I understand the rules, but maybe I'm wrong)

With the Malik Allen thing, New Jersey counts Malik Allen when trading away his salary but they'll use the portion not re-imbursed by the league ($770,610). I also calculate Harris' Poison Pill average as $7,832,500.50, which is a little different from yours.

I was always under the impression that teams organize the players differently unless the big trade works under the CBA. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case then why even make sure the big trade works out in the first place. For that reason, I don't think Wright can be packaged like you have him above for NJ's perspective

[FGump]

No - Gump that's wrong. In order to break it up from seperate sides, the big trade must work

Wright is a completely seperate deal and cannot be included as part of the other deal (unless Van Horn's salary is increased).

With the way the trade is configured above, Wright has to be acquired seperately, since Dallas is sending out $15,702,400 and can therefore only acquire $19,728,000 in return. Allen can be included there since he's a minimum salary player, but Wright must be in a seperate deal

You can't just start putting Wright into the different scenarios in that deal if he doesn't fit into the big trade (which he doesn't)

I disagree. From NJ's end, it is aligned one way, from Dallas's another. The Mavs' TPE would NOT have to be aggregated, from their end, and thus it's all okay.

Also, Gump, was my understanding of proration above correct? When it says the LB, EB and NB execptions begin decreasing Jan 10th, does that refer to the maximum applicable to each player in that instance?

I quoted Coon, and didnt look it up. He says explicitly they each reduce by 1/180 of their original limit, per day, counting from 1/10.

[bgwizarfan]

Gump what I'm saying is that if you look at the entire "big trade" here without splitting it up, it does not work under the cap if Antoine Wright is included in it. My understanding was because it does not work under the cap, then Dallas and NJ are completing 2 seperate trades and in the 2nd trade, Wright gets traded for a 2nd round pick and his salary is absorbed by the Johnson TPE.

Since he doesn't fit in the original trade, I'm saying that you have to look at this scenario as 2 seperate trades to potentially split up and cannot mix them. So when looking at how it works from both sides, you first can split up the Kidd deal, and then you look to split up the Wright deal.

Since Wright doesn't fit into the original deal, he can't be mixed with players from that deal to form NJ's side of the trade... that's the point I'm making. That's my understanding of the rule

[FGump]

bg, I understand what you are saying. But I completely disagree, in that I think it can all be one trade. In other words, I think your prior understanding is flawed, as noted.

[lakerfan10770]

A good example of how a TPE can and was included in a multi-player trade was the Trevor Ariza for Brian Cook & Maurice Evans trade. Small trade but fairly complex. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but BCook plus Mo was too much salary for the Magic to take back for Ariza. And the Lakers could not take back Ariza's $3.1M with only one of Mo or BCook. So from the Lakers perspective it was straight forward Mo & Cook for Ariza, from Orlando's perspective it was two deals Cook for Ariza and then Mo for nothing using the DPE from Battie.

Edit: BTW, they are now talking about the deal as if it were one transaction:

From ESPN:

In the latest version of the deal the Nets will send Kidd, Malik Allen and Antoine Wright to the Mavericks for Devin Harris, DeSagana Diop, Maurice Ager, Trenton Hassell, Keith Van Horn, two first round draft picks and $3 million in cash

[bgwizarfan]

Edit: that's right since Cook is BYC (and I missed that in my original analysis) - so this proves FGump is right and I'm wrong here.

In thinking about it further, it probably does make sense that teams might be allowed to organize trades differently even if the full trade doesn't work (as long as each little trade is legal under the cap). But when we talked about this over the summer at length with the NYK trade, I was left with the strong impression that the big trade had to work first.

If this is the case, then I find it shocking that so many "big trades" do work under the cap. You'd think teams would then not even consider to make the big trade work and just look at how they can make each small trade work from both sides (I always felt the logic with these trades was: let's make the big trade work under the CBA, and then afterwards, we'll figure out how it's split up best to our advantage).

This seems like a really big deal though - I wonder how teams, in general, approach this issue - whether they always try to make the big trade work, or try to find a way for it to work differently for both sides (in which the big trade doesn't work)

[bgwizarfan]

^ this also really renders the ESPN trade machine (and I guess realgm's) as semi-useless for people who know the details of the cap right? Cuz we could potentially find trades that would work if split up differently, but would not work as a big trade, yet the machine I'm sure would reject them. Yet somehow I could still envision a certain Eastern Conference GM sitting on that machine all day looking for potential matches.

[FGump]

The reality is, when two teams trade, all they have to ensure is that they have the ability to legally take that entire set of players onto their roster. It doesn't have to look the same from the opposite sides.

And in this set of players, Dallas had the ability to take all those players. But they had to take 2 of them with a TE, and Kidd with a combo. There's nothing cap-illegal in doing that, and it doesn't make it into 2 trades. Meanwhile, NJ will have it configured a different way, with a 2-for-2 and Kidd-for-3. That works best for them. All legal.

The fact that we have repeatedly heard "and in a 2nd trade" in this reporting tells us ESPN (or whoever) has someone who knows just enough about TEs to think it has to be separate, and thus to get it wrong.