i know its not my money but....

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

drexlersdad

SABAS
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
4,825
Likes
255
Points
83
what was to stop PA from signing raef to a huge 1 year deal and having him remain a super large expiring deal? has this ever been done? basically signing a guy to a big one year deal so he could be a trading chip?
 
I think it could have been done over the summer, but not now.

There was talk the Bulls might sign PJ Brown when he became a FA so they could use his salary in trade.
 
There are a couple of complications,though it has been done. Keith Van Horn in the Kidd deal, for instance.

It would need to be a 3yr deal, though the last 2 can be non-guaranteed.
The player would have to at least make a good faith effort to compete (league could veto it).

There is no specific language in the collective bargaining agreement that requires a player, such as Van Horn, to join his new team for a certain number of days. But in recent discussions with the NBA Players Association, the league expressed a desire to establish a 30-day period to at least give the appearance that the player meant to stay with his new team and that the team intended to have him. However, that length is not official and could be reduced if the Nets see that Van Horn, 32, can't play.

"If there is an intent on the part of the player to remain with his new team, then everybody is OK with it," said a source familiar with the negotiations between the union and the league. "The big thing is that no one wants this to be seen as cap circumvention."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...eives_unlikely_assist_from.html#ixzz0bPg3eqUP
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of complications,though it has been done. Keith Van Horn in the Kidd deal, for instance.

It would need to be a 3yr deal, though the last 2 can be non-guaranteed.
The player would have to at least make a good faith effort to compete (league could veto it).

Why would it need to be a 3 year deal? I guess it would if it was done as an extension, but we could have just signed him as our own free agent, and there is nothing preventing a one-year deal for a vet.

This got me thinking about whether we still own his Bird rights, and whether we could sign and trade him now. I think the answer is no, I think we must have renounced him (after he was a free agent) in order to have his salary come off our cap.

barfo
 
Why would it need to be a 3 year deal? I guess it would if it was done as an extension, but we could have just signed him as our own free agent, and there is nothing preventing a one-year deal for a vet.

This got me thinking about whether we still own his Bird rights, and whether we could sign and trade him now. I think the answer is no, I think we must have renounced him (after he was a free agent) in order to have his salary come off our cap.

barfo

ugh you are right again. damn you.
 
I'm confused, I thought we can't sign anyone over MLE because we'll be over the salary cap next year??
 
I don't believe this would be possible. We renounced his rights, along with Schrempf and others, leading up to 2009 Free Agency. If we hadn't, we wouldn't have been able to sign Andre Miller.
 
I don't believe this would be possible. We renounced his rights, along with Schrempf and others, leading up to 2009 Free Agency. If we hadn't, we wouldn't have been able to sign Andre Miller.

Schrempf? Didn't we renounce him about 10 years ago?

barfo
 
No. As of early 2008 season we still had Nedzad, Schrempf, Dudley and others on our "not retired" list.
 
No. As of early 2008 season we still had Nedzad, Schrempf, Dudley and others on our "not retired" list.

Wow, I missed that entirely.

barfo
 
No. As of early 2008 season we still had Nedzad, Schrempf, Dudley and others on our "not retired" list.

I think because we hadn't been under the cap in a millenia there was no need to renounce players. Pretty funny actually.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top