Combining two separate trades into one simultaneous trade

[Dr Aki]

3 teams, 2 trades, Team A agrees trades with Team B and C in separate deals but before the moratorium ends.

No assets from Team B go to Team C or vice versa.

Q1. Is it possible to combine the two trades into one larger simultaneous trade from Team A's perspective?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow-up question:

Q2. If Team A agrees their trade with Team B, then agrees the trade with Team C, does Team A need Team B's approval to merge it into the large simultaneous trade?

[DBoys]

If you're asking whether NO can agree to a deal swapping their pick 4 coming from LA, to another team right now, even though they don't have it yet - and then include it all in one big LA-NO-Team X deal in July, the answer is yes. And LA would have to be consulted and satisfy what is known as the touch rule with the 3rd team, to make it into a 3 way.

But wouldn't have to do it that way if NO doesn't want to. Just do one deal, then the other, in July.

But agreements are not binding, so teams have to be able to trust each other. Presumably they would.

[Dr Aki]

If you're asking whether NO can agree to a deal swapping their pick 4 coming from LA, to another team right now, even though they don't have it yet - and then include it all in one big LA-NO-Team X deal in July, the answer is yes. But wouldn't have to. Just do one deal, then the other, in July. But it's not binding, so teams have to be able to trust each other.

Actually no. By "No assets from Team B go to Team C or vice versa." I mean the following:
- Agreed upon Trade 1: Team A's assets goes to Team B and vice versa
- Agreed upon Trade 2: Team A's assets goes to Team C and vice versa

Can (1) Team A combine these two trades into one large simultaneous trade? And if so, (2) can Team B simply say no despite the Agreed upon Trade 2 doesn't involve them?

Also, can you explain this "touch rule"?

[DBoys]

I don't see any purpose to combine the trades, since they don't depend on one another or involve any common assets.

If a trade has been "agreed" but hasn't happened, any team can back out as far as NBA is concerned, but isn't likely at all. The teams involved would all be operating on the idea that it's a done deal and no longer in question, even though technically they can back out. So a different deal by one of the teams in the interim wouldn't change anything as far as the teams and what they are planning. But NBA does not enforce agreed deals, only deals submitted and approved..

Touch rule says that if there are more than 2 teams in a trade, something MUST be traded between every pair somehow. But it's very liberal as to what. If the touch rule isn't met, NBA says it's separate deals to be considered separately, and not a single 3 way or whatever.

[Dr Aki]

So if it doesn't satisfy the touch rule, the two trades cannot be combined?

I'm asking about this in particular because of the cap implications of the Davis trade. At the moment, the trade is set to occur on July 6th.

Say the Lakers convince a max FA to come sign and need every dollar of cap space they can get. Can the Lakers agree a separate trade with Team X, where Team X takes on Wagner/Bonga/Jones' salaries for a heavily protected SRP. This all takes place on July 6th.

Can the Lakers combine the Davis trade and the salary dump trade to create an aggregate legal above-the-cap simultaneous trade satisfying the 125% + 100k rule despite not technically satisfying the Touch rule? And do it all without New Orleans' input?

Or is this cap circumvention?

[DBoys]

So if it doesn't satisfy the touch rule, the two trades cannot be combined?

I'm asking about this in particular because of the cap implications of the Davis trade. At the moment, the trade is set to occur on July 6th.

Say the Lakers convince a max FA to come sign and need every dollar of cap space they can get. Can the Lakers agree a separate trade with Team X, where Team X takes on Wagner/Bonga/Jones' salaries for a heavily protected SRP. This all takes place on July 6th.

Can the Lakers combine the Davis trade and the salary dump trade to create an aggregate legal above-the-cap simultaneous trade satisfying the 125% + 100k rule despite not technically satisfying the Touch rule? And do it all without New Orleans' input?

Or is this cap circumvention?

I'd rather address the specific issue, than try to think through the theoretical in all its permutations. And [cut Jones out of the picture]....

What you envision isn't workable to get LA to room for a max player. Assuming AD wants his full trade bonus from the Pels, and assuming the Lakers are only giving up 3 players and NO will only accept 3, there's only one avenue, which is:
a - clear max room somehow (they are close, if they wanna be, but need to give away Bonga or Mo to get there),
b - then sign the max player and pick 4,
c - then 30 days later make the trade with NO.

There is no July 6 trade scenario that gets a max or near-max free agent for LA, and allows AD to be obtained (even without any of his bonus), that wouldn't require all of Kuzma, Mo, and Bonga to be traded somewhere.

[Dr Aki]

So if it doesn't satisfy the touch rule, the two trades cannot be combined?

I'm asking about this in particular because of the cap implications of the Davis trade. At the moment, the trade is set to occur on July 6th.

Say the Lakers convince a max FA to come sign and need every dollar of cap space they can get. Can the Lakers agree a separate trade with Team X, where Team X takes on Wagner/Bonga/Jones' salaries for a heavily protected SRP. This all takes place on July 6th.

Can the Lakers combine the Davis trade and the salary dump trade to create an aggregate legal above-the-cap simultaneous trade satisfying the 125% + 100k rule despite not technically satisfying the Touch rule? And do it all without New Orleans' input?

Or is this cap circumvention?

I'd rather address the specific issue, than try to think through the theoretical in all its permutations. And [cut Jones out of the picture]....

What you envision isn't workable to get LA to room for a max player. Assuming AD wants his full trade bonus from the Pels, and assuming the Lakers are only giving up 3 players and NO will only accept 3, there's only one avenue, which is:
a - clear max room somehow (they are close, if they wanna be, but need to give away Bonga or Mo to get there),
b - then sign the max player and pick 4,
c - then 30 days later make the trade with NO.

There is no July 6 trade scenario that gets a max or near-max free agent for LA, and allows AD to be obtained (even without any of his bonus), that wouldn't require all of Kuzma, Mo, and Bonga to be traded somewhere.

Jones' 1.4 mil salary is necessary to keep Kuzma from the deal.

Here's a step by step of what I envision:
a - Lakers have 32.02 mil in cap space, they use it to sign a max guy (it's close enough)
b - execute the above - Ball/Ingram/Hart/Wagner/Bonga/Jones add up to 22.7 mil, 1.0 mil more than what is needed to trade for Davis. Assume Davis waives trade kicker in this scenario. #4 pick doesn't need to be signed and can happen on July 6th.

Can the Lakers combine the two separate trades to trade for Davis an above-the-cap team so they can throw 32.0 million dollars at a max guy AND complete the Davis trade on July 6th?

Does New Orleans get a say on whether the Lakers can add in the Wagner/Bonga/Jones salary dump to team X despite New Orleans having no moving parts in that second trade?

[DBoys]

Sorry, until your last post, I totally misunderstood where you were coming from and what you wanted to know. I'm actually seeing it like you are. Assuming everyone is intending to honor their obligations, what LA can do would completely depend on what was agreed to originally, when an agreement was reached. If they wanted to exceed those parameters they would need to get the cooperation of NO, although technically nothing was set in stone. And the same applies to NO.

Thanks for the point about the Jones contract, I had previously overlooked that added flexibility.

[Scoot McGroot]

Does New Orleans get a say on whether the Lakers can add in the Wagner/Bonga/Jones salary dump to team X despite New Orleans having no moving parts in that second trade?

New Orleans would have essentially a right of refusal by refusing to "touch" the 3rd team in trade. By refusing to interact with hypothetically, Atlanta, the deal couldn't be a 3 way deal, so it wouldn't matter how much more salary was added to another team, it would be separate and not work.

New Orleans has to be willing to cooperate for it to be expanded to a 3 team deal, and by refusing to cooperate in that way, they could essentially veto a 3 team deal.

But DBoys can correct me. I trust his opinion and statements on these matters.

[DBoys]

Thanks. I don't disagree with anything you said, but I would take it one step farther.

Typically, the touch requirement is a silly and meaningless formality. Side swaps get added to deals all the time. I trust that such niggling matters were ALREADY baked into the "agreement" that was leaked on Saturday, and I think it's absurd (almost trollish) for any knowledgeable media to speculate that it wasn't.

That would be true on both sides, btw. NO has been talking trade of LA's pick they will receive, to slide that side swap into this deal, all along. How can they do that? Again, it's because it changes nada for LA.

So if (or maybe I should say when) LA has a taker for those extra bodies, they already know it is ok. I would strongly wager they were (both) given full freedom to explore and add in the interim, and LA is simply doing that.

[Scoot McGroot]

Thanks. I don't disagree with anything you said, but I would take it one step farther. I trust that such niggling matters were ALREADY baked into the "agreement" that was leaked on Saturday, and I think it's absurd (almost trollish) for any knowledgeable media to speculate that it wasn't.

That would be true on both sides, btw. NO has been talking trade of LA's pick they will receive, to slide that side swap into this deal, all along. How can they do that? Again, it's because it doesn't impact LA, and for LA changes nada. I would strongly wager they were (both) given full freedom to explore and add in the interim, and LA is simply doing that. It's not of any consequence to the other team, to have a secondary transaction included that literally doesn't change a thing for them. Typically, the touch requirement is a silly and meaningless formality..

And usually is satisfied by $100k and/or a highly protected 2nd that never really transfers, or is super late and super far off that no one even remembers it by then.

[DBoys]

Yeah, fake picks. Non-NBA-er draft rights. Couch cushion money. I understand the principle behind the rule, but because of how meaningless the touch transactions are required to be, the rule is just an exercise in stupidity.