Reply With Quote
I see.
The Mavs have Keith Van Horn's Bird Rights and can sign him to an expiring contract. He'd do it because he could make $$$ without leaving his couch and reporting to a new team, and that new team would have an expiring contract coming off the books.
I see.
Are you sure about that Findog? How long can a player be retired before losing his bird rights?
http://dallasbasketballdotcom.yuku.c...r-details.html
I believe this is the first article where my invented term "Artificial Expiring Contract" was first used, and where the concept was explained. http://www.dallasbasketball.com/full...lumn.php?id=28
This is the article where the concept of specifically using KVH to invent that expiring contract as filler for a KG deal was mentioned.
http://www.dallasbasketball.com/full...mn.php?id=2506
Now let me answer and clarify some of what has been said in the posts above.
1. HOW DOES IT WORK?
You take a player without a contract and send him in a sign-and-trade as filler to satisfy the trade-matching rules. Only one year has to be guaranteed, so the instant the ink is dry on the contract, it is an "instant expiring" and in its last year. In other words, it's perfect filler - especially when you can write the contract for the exact dollar amount (and no more) needed to satisfy the mandates of the trade rules.
Finding the right player? Ah, there's the catch. It's not as easy as it looks to find the (potential) guy like KVH.
2. IS IT LEGAL? (What about the rules saying "no cir vention" of the cap?)
The idea that this could in any way cons ute "cir vention" of the cap rules arises from a misunderstanding of what the NBA means by cir vention. Cir vention is acting OUTSIDE the rules (particularly the cap rule) so that they don't apply. However, the rules are written in very strict legalese with the idea that as long as teams operate within the rules, they are free to use whatever wiggle room is given to them.
Signing KVH to an artificial expiring would be using some of that wiggle room. There is no cap avoidance - clearly Cuban would ramp up his cap and tax numbers considerably, if he chose to do such a thing, and the rules are written to dampen spending but never to forbid it. So if the teams want to spend their money in this fashion, it is permissible.
In addition, you see clear confirmation that this is very legal, because it has occurred and been approved in the past. The Mavs themselves used artificial expiring contract filler in the past, as filler in the Jamison-to-Dallas deal.
But there is one ultimate piece of evidence that this is not forbidden: such a trade concept was anticipated and rules written to govern it within the CBA!! The rule mandating that a sign-and-trade must be for 3 years with at least the first year guaranteed is an implicit recognition that teams will want to (and are allowed to) create contracts like these merely for trade purposes. As long as they follow those rules, there is no problem.
3. HOW DOES IT WORK WITH KVH?
KVH is relaxing with his family and has no Mavs contract. But technically, he is merely a player without a contract, eligible to be signed at any time. The Mavs, as his last team, happen to have Bird rights, which would allow them to go over the cap and sign him to any contract up to the max allowable amount for him. (See particulars in the link noted above.)
Therefore, if he is interested, the Mavs could sign him to a contract in a sign-and-trade, as filler for a deal. If he signs such a deal, he would be obligated to play for that team if they wanted him to, for the duration of the contract. But as noted above, it could be written in such a way where he has a pretty strong assurance he won't ever have to show up and will be getting a paycheck merely for signing. He'd also want to make sure it's a big enough financial package that if he has to get off his couch for a few months and actually play, it's still worth it to him.
4. WHY DON'T WE SE THIS HAPPENING ALL THE TIME? CAN'T ANY TEAM DO IT WITH ALMOST ANY EX-PLAYER?
Interestingly, there are far fewer ideal candidates for this than you'd think. The reasons are many ...
a If your last team doesn't have Bird rights (or Early Bird) on you, then it isn't a useful possibility because your old team can't sign-and-trade you for any deal bigger than the minimum.
b. Most players "retire" and thereby become ineligible to then be used like KVH is (in theory).
c. Base year restrictions can make a player unusable for such a deal.
Few players go straight from "big contract" to "not playing" - and instead go from big money to medium to small to no deal. Base year issues (where the new contract is more than a 20% raise over the last year of the last contract) change the dynamic and feasibility if they apply..
d. Some also get bought out from their big or their last deal. Others are waived. If a player was waived (a buyout is just a fancy form of a waiver) from his last deal, there is no "old team" that can use him this way.
e. If you are player like KVH where the last deal is huge, this sort of opportunity may be a windfall in excess of $10M and therefore you wouldn't mind being forced to go attend practices and games without playing. But if you're coming off a much smaller deal, you might have better deals awaiting (including an actual chance to play) by getting a contract with a new team and playing there.
f. Few players are willing to sit at home and turn down deals in hopes of being used in an artificial expiring that may never happen.
By the time you go down the list of who can't be used, you're not left with very many who can.
In addition, there is an even greater impediment to this practice than a mere lack of candidates. The problem is, it raises payroll. The artificial expiring typically would adds that much x 125% to a team's cap, because the owner has taken someone costing him 0 (for example, KVH) and signed him to a the smallest amount possible that will match up to 25% more payroll coming back from another team. With tax hitting so many teams, and so many more close to the tax line, few are in position to be open to adding more.
It takes the right team PLUS that team must have just the right player sitting at home. And then they have to be interested in a deal where they need filler, rather than having players already on their roster to send away.
5. CURRENT POSSIBILITIES
The KVH idea has now been mentioned in enough places that you'll see him mentioned regularly as one of the Mavs potential trade assets. (I think the discussion has even been repeated to the point where some writers and readers are thinking of him as a "player" who could fit in trade rather than as merely contractual filler.) Another player that could be used by their team in this fashion is PJ Brown.
There may be more, but those are the best two I can think of.
Apparently Van Horn never "officially" retired or submitted his papers to the League. Cuban told him to sit at home and there might be a payday waiting for him.
i think they should do the deal
then trade kvh to miami for shaq
mavs team outlook
snaq
dirk
josh
terry
kidd
dampier
flopper
scrubs
for the heat?
they get rid of snaqs contract, KVH contract has to be expiring, heat ends up with capspace....offer deng the max? wades team will end up like the team pre-shaq with odom/butler>deng/davis
And of course the Nets would be falling over themselves to give up Kidd for Diop and George, and some late draft picks.
IMO: if mavs part with Harris+stuff, they are the favorites to get Kidd. If they do something around Terry/Diop/picks/whatever, they have a slim chance. I can't possibly see why Nets would take on Stackhouse. In the end, Kidd will probaby remain a Net.
If the Mavs hang on to Dirk/Howard/Harris, then their le window stays open for another 3 years after this one. That doesn't preclude moving Terry, Dampier or whomever else in an attempt to get better, if they can rid themselves of those contracts, but they're taking an awfully big gamble on bringing in Kidd. Diop is a limited, one-dimensional player, but he's important to us, and he'd have no value whatsoever to a rebuilding Nets team. Devin would have to be included in the deal to get Kidd, but he's BYC so it would take a lot more salary to match the $19 million Kidd gets. Stackhouse has a bad contract that I'd love to shed after this season is over, but he's come on strong after a bad start. You get rid of him too, and now we're missing needed scoring off the bench. And he's just like Diop in this equation: he's important to us right now, but what does New Jersey want with him?
We've been searching for a legitimate PG since Nash left,and Devin seems to have finally emerged. Kidd's salary comes off the books next year, and while there's no doubt he'd be reinvigorated in the short term by coming to Dallas, what happens next year if the Mavs refuse to extend him? This isn't a slam dunk that guarantees a le, so I'm not doing it if I'm Donnie.
The "no cir vention" rule is also attached to Commissioner Stern and the NBA league office actually approving trades before they become official. If any of you believe that Stern would approve a trade involving paying KVH $10-15 million to sit on his ass for not retiring are just crazy. And, why would the Nets pay KVH $10-15 million to not play for them? That's just as crazy. Stern would still have to approve the trade. He wouldn't.
It's not just about whether it's legal or not. The League/Stern have discretionary power to approve trades.
Because they wouldn't have to pay Kidd another $21 million next year? I'm pretty sure that Stern would never allow anything that benefits Dallas, but the whole point of the KVH thing is that it creates an expiring contract for a team trying to get cap space.
And here is how I feel about David Stern and how much integrity he has: to do this, the Mavs would have to sign KVH to a 3-year contract, but they would only have to guarantee the first year. Suppose they were able to write the contract up and do the trade in way that conforms with the way the CBA and the salary cap is written. You know Stern would reject the trade/contract on the grounds that it violates the spirit of the cap if not the letter and is thus an attempt to cir vent the cap. But if it were the Cavs or the Heat, and they attempted to do the same thing, you know he'd sign off on it.
They'd still be paying KVH for nothing. They'd be paying Kidd $21 million next year for actually playing. Not every team owner is like Cuban and Dolan and willing to throw away money for the of it.
And, not approving the deal would have nothing to do with it benefiting Dallas. It would have everything to do with it essentially trying to cir vent the principles of the CBA. If it were a feasibly loophole, it would have been done by now.
No he wouldn't. The whole notion is obnoxiously opposed to the entire fabric of the CBA and what it's set out to do in terms of preventing these exact type of things from happening.
I don't know how it would play out if the Mavs attempted to do it, but from the article:
Maybe FromWayDowntown or somebody else could chime in, I am not a cap guru by any means.The idea that this could in any way cons ute "cir vention" of the cap rules arises from a misunderstanding of what the NBA means by cir vention. Cir vention is acting OUTSIDE the rules (particularly the cap rule) so that they don't apply. However, the rules are written in very strict legalese with the idea that as long as teams operate within the rules, they are free to use whatever wiggle room is given to them.
Signing KVH to an artificial expiring would be using some of that wiggle room. There is no cap avoidance - clearly Cuban would ramp up his cap and tax numbers considerably, if he chose to do such a thing, and the rules are written to dampen spending but never to forbid it. So if the teams want to spend their money in this fashion, it is permissible.
In addition, you see clear confirmation that this is very legal, because it has occurred and been approved in the past. The Mavs themselves used artificial expiring contract filler in the past, as filler in the Jamison-to-Dallas deal.
But there is one ultimate piece of evidence that this is not forbidden: such a trade concept was anticipated and rules written to govern it within the CBA!! The rule mandating that a sign-and-trade must be for 3 years with at least the first year guaranteed is an implicit recognition that teams will want to (and are allowed to) create contracts like these merely for trade purposes. As long as they follow those rules, there is no problem.
are you kidding me...you wouldnt want to acquire Kidd bc you dont want to give up Diop
Diop is a nice piece on the mavs but its JASON KIDD..mavs can find a spare center on waivers or acquire a serviceable back up via trade. you dont say no to J Kidd especially when Diops in the deal
thats like the spurs saying no to Kidd bc they didnt want to give up oberto
The difference is that Shaq played alongside another superstar in Miami. If he came to Dallas, there would have been no other superstar.
No, we would have kept Nash if we traded Dirk for Shaq.
Dude, they were asking for both Dirk and Nash. That's when Cuban backed out, and then Nash left for more money.
no, it was Dirk+filler for Shaq.
and we still could have kept Jamison if we wanted to.
That's how it started, but then at the last minute, they changed it to Dirk + Nash.
And Jamison + Shaq would not have been enough to win a le.
because a PG is what Dallas needs
Wouldn't Van Horn be ineligible to be traded for 90 days after signing that contract, unless he is traded by himself immediately? Don't see Kidd for Van Horn, straight up, going through.
are you kidding me...you wouldnt want to acquire Kidd bc you dont want to give up Diop
Diop is a nice piece on the mavs but its JASON KIDD..mavs can find a spare center on waivers or acquire a serviceable back up via trade. you dont say no to J Kidd especially when Diops in the deal
thats like the spurs saying no to Kidd bc they didnt want to give up oberto
We wouldn't be getting 2002 Jason Kidd. We'd be getting a 35 year old Jason Kidd that can't shoot, not that he ever could, can't defend like he used to, is due $19 this year and $21 next year, and would probably want an extension. Sure, he might pick up his play in the short-term after a trade, but what happens if the Mavs refuse to extend him? He wants out of Jersey bc they won't extend him, not bc he wants one last shot at a ring. Given the way Devin has played this year, PG is not a problem. Kidd is still probably an upgrade over Devin, but not at the risk of downgrading our interior d. It isn't worth giving up Devin, and I don't know what kind of depth we'd be left with if we had to send four players to Jersey just to make the salaries match. There's no slam-dunk deal here.
Only 19 bucks? Sounds like a bargain to me...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions