Circumvention

[jopatmc]

Hi Guys,

Thought I'd start this thread to read your opinions on circumvention Article XIII in the CBA. I have a lot of "scenario" type questions that I'd like to ask to see if they would be considered circumvention. It seems to me from reading the Article that circumvention has to do with paying players under the table, having side agreements with players or inducing players to sign for below market value and entice them with advertising deals or other contract deals through third parties. Also, something like negotiating a trade for an unrestricted max-contract free agent and his previous team wherein his new team negotiates a trade with the current team and the player that allows the player to get a 5-yr contract with 7.5% max raises, with an under-the-table agreement that the player will be traded in December when he is trade eligible would be another example of circumvention (giving a player more money than he really should be getting since he should be sign-and-traded or simply signed outright by the team that wants him.

However there are several different style trades/player acquisition scenarios that I'd like to ask about to see if they would qualify as circumvention.

SCENARIO 1:
A team with cap space clears out more cap space, then signs a free agent to fill their cap space, then they trade a future first round pick for a current unsigned draft pick. Unsigned draft picks have no trade value but they do have a cap figure.

Hypothetical example: Dallas wants to clear cap space to go after Dwight Howard and Chris Paul in free agency. They have Shawn Marion and the #13 pick in this draft that is going to be on their books if they can't move them. So, let's say they negotiate a trade with Cleveland. Cleveland is to receive Marion, Dallas #13 pick, and Dallas 2014 first round pick and Cleveland is going to give Dallas their 2013 pick(#19) and a 2014 second rounder and a 2015 second rounder. They agree to break this into 3 trades. The first trade is Dallas sends their 2013 pick (#13) to Cleveland for the 2015 second rounder. Then after the July Moratorium, Dallas trades Shawn Marion to Cleveland for a 2014 second rounder thereby clearing their cap. They then precede to use up all their cap space signing free agents. After they fill up their cap space sign Dwight and Paul (or whoever), they then go back and complete the last transaction with Cleveland, exchanging their 2014 first rounder for Cleveland's 2013 first rounder (#19) that Cleveland picked for them and is unsigned. So the unsigned 2013 draft pick is then added to Dallas cap after they signed their free agents and used up empty cap space.

Is this circumvention?

Facts:
1. All these trades are legal trades by the trade rule definitions in the CBA.
2. The verbage for circumvention in the 2011 CBA and the 2005 CBA is, for all practical purposes, the same. Only major differences are higher fine amounts. No significant differences or "broadening" of the powers in Article XIII in he 2011 CBA.
3. In the past, teams that are over the cap have traded for current first round picks using the method I described above, sending out future picks to receive back the unsigned current first round draft pick and simply adding him to their cap even though they were over the cap (eg: Moultrie).


If this scenario is circumvention, why isn't it simply spelled out in the trade rules? If this scenario is circumvention, then why isn't it simply illegal for any team over the cap to trade future considerations and cash for a current unsigned first round draft pick and adding them to the roster? Why would this scenario be regarded as circumvention while the Moultrie acquisition (and others) aren't?

Trades are called in to the league and all the details are discussed before the deal is actually done with the league giving back whatever requirements are needed for both teams. If both teams lay out this series of transactions before they occur and the league says they won't allow it because they deem it circumvention then what possible penalty could there be since nothing occurred and the teams were fully disclosing what they were attempting to do? Isn't it simply a disallowed transaction at that point?