Waiving trade kickers

[Three34]

Fabled Bay Area media man Matt Steinmetz, a very close personal friend of mine, tweeted this earlier today:

if Turk does want out of Toronto, he'll probably have to waive trade kicker that must be paid within 30 days of trade. Worth $6.5 million

Sensing an opportunity for self-gratification, I responded thusly (slightly paraphrased):

Nuh-uh

To which he riposted:

Yuh-uh

Anticipating this move, I had cunningly thought of my next witticism in advance:

Nuh-uh

But, equally ahead of the game, Matt dispatched my intelligent ruse with a repudiation of his own:

Yuh-uh

This carried on for about five hours, with no one managing to back the other down. In the end, we decided to turn to the evidence for help.

In Larry's FAQ, question 86, paragraph 4, it says this:

The CBA allows the player to waive part of his trade bonus, if necessary to allow a trade to fit within the 125% plus $100,000 margin. To make the above trade work, the player would need to waive $100,000 of his $300,000 trade bonus. The bonus would then be worth $200,000, and $100,000 of that would be allocated to the current season. The player would therefore count $1,100,000 as incoming salary, which exactly matches the maximum the other team can accept in return for their $800,000 player. The player is not allowed to waive more than the amount necessary to make the trade legal.

The last sentence infers, if not directly states, that a trade kicker/bonus can't just be waived to make a player more attractive, as Matt's initial tweet stated. Yet Matt maintains that he drew that conclusion from calling people in the know. He's not going to have made that up, because he's not like that, so clearly there lies dissention in the ranks.

We tried looking at the actual CBA for answers, but I can't look at that thing without my mind imploding in on itself. I can manage only about 25 seconds of that thing before I need to get free, lie down in a darkened room, and engage in my relaxation technique of watching a monkey on a pushbike.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqqPNY6Mx6s[/youtube]


Does anyone out there with a concentration level superior to mine own (i.e. anybody) have an answer to this? Can trade kickers be waived purely for desirability purposes, or can they only be waived for financial purposes in specific trade connotations?

[loserX]

Anticipating this move, I had cunningly thought of my next witticism in advance:

Nuh-uh

But, equally ahead of the game, Matt dispatched my intelligent ruse with a repudiation of his own:

Yuh-uh

This carried on for about five hours

And yet you only give us this snippet? Sham, you tease. I insist you email the entire transcript several dozen times. My email is dunkenstein@yahoo.com.

In Larry's FAQ, question 86, paragraph 4, it says this:

The CBA allows the player to waive part of his trade bonus, if necessary to allow a trade to fit within the 125% plus $100,000 margin. To make the above trade work, the player would need to waive $100,000 of his $300,000 trade bonus. The bonus would then be worth $200,000, and $100,000 of that would be allocated to the current season. The player would therefore count $1,100,000 as incoming salary, which exactly matches the maximum the other team can accept in return for their $800,000 player. The player is not allowed to waive more than the amount necessary to make the trade legal.

The last sentence infers, if not directly states, that a trade kicker/bonus can't just be waived to make a player more attractive, as Matt's initial tweet stated. Yet Matt maintains that he drew that conclusion from calling people in the know. He's not going to have made that up, because he's not like that, so clearly there lies dissention in the ranks.

Seems like it's actually the first sentence, or at least the "if necessary..." part that's pretty incontrovertible. It's unlike Larry to misinterpret the CBA. That said, I don't have the CBA handy, so a firsthand source is probably best.

[Three34]

The CBA's all online. I just never know where I'm supposed to be looking. And it's all in lawyer speak and sheet. Someone should do a pop-up version. Or maybe a scratch-and-sniff.

[FGump]

ART VII Sec 7 (d) (3)

For the sole purpose of enabling an assignee Team to acquire a Player Contract by trade, the player and the assignor Team may agree to waive all or any portion of a trade bonus, but only to the extent necessary to make the trade permissible in accordance with the rules set forth in Section 6(h) above. In the event that, in connection with a trade, a player’s Contract is amended in accordance with this Section 7(d)(3), such Contract may not be subsequently extended or renegotiated until the later of (i) six (6) months from the date of the trade, or (ii) the first date on which the Contract could otherwise be extended or renegotiated pursuant to this Section 7.

Or, in other words, "Nuh-uh."

[Three34]

Sweet. Just crossed wires then, it appears.

[FGump]

"Yet Matt maintains that he drew that conclusion from calling people in the know."

Once you know that illegal trades have actually been agreed on by both teams, submitted, and passed league approval (illegality discovered later after it was too late to undo the transaction), you will realize that "people in the know" isn't as reliable as "wording in the CBA." They do their best, but the rules are complex and numerous.

[mysticbb]

I don't have anything substantial to say about that, but I want to add that everyone who followed the talks about a potential Garnett trade should have known how the rules work regarding trade kickers. Garnett had a huge trade kicker and there was a lot of talk about him only being able to waive a part of that to make a trade work. That was all discussed in public (even on ESPN).

And it is funny, because most people on that trade board who are trying to find a way to move Turkoglu don't take that 15% trade kicker into account. Turkoglu's contract is already rather bad, but that trade kicker makes him nearly unmoveable as long as the Raptors aren't giving any substantial incentives.

[Three34]

Did you mean for that post to be as self righteous as it sounded?

[mysticbb]

Well, reading that again it may sound like that. But in the end it was just meant to raise my post count by 1. ;)