PDA

View Full Version : Should waive back be not authorized?



Hellcrooner
01-15-2010, 11:12 AM
We have seen it before, Payton, MCdyess and some others.
Contender trades a player (preferably an expiring) and make an under the table agreementwith the team they are trading to waive that player or cut tha tplayer in order to let him rejoin the team basically allowing the team to trade for nothing.


This year this could lead to for example cavs sending shaq to Washington for butler and arenas nd then getting shaq again at a minimum contract once was cuts him.

Wizards only get cap space and cavs go and make their team much more strong losing NOTHING.

that basically is dodging the salary cap, dodging the rules to keep everybody competitive.

SHould itbe allowed? why hasnt stern done anything about it if it has already hapened before?

IMO players shouldnt be able to sign back with the team that traded them for the next 12 months.

illegallover
01-15-2010, 11:22 AM
Again there need to be serious changed made on the collective bargaining agreement... the nba has one of the most complex and loop holed salary caps

Pierzynski4Prez
01-15-2010, 11:37 AM
doesn't that player have to wait like 30 days though before they can rejoin the team. If anything, they could increase that to 60 or so, making it harder for a trade at the deadline.

JasonJohnHorn
01-15-2010, 11:42 AM
I think part of the reason teams do this in the NBA is because of salary cap rules. The NFL doesn't have guarenteed contracts, and MLB doesn't have a cap, so the NBA is unique in this sense. Sometimes teams aren't happy with player performance/contracts and other teams are interested but can't take on the contracts unless they match at least 75% of the contract they are taking on. Usually the contracts are ones that not many teams want, and the "under the table" deals are seldom actually made. McDysse for example, when traded to Denver, wasn't going to go back to Detroit for sure. Denver actually considered not buying him out, and when they did the Spurs (and I heard the Celtics, but I'm not sure about that one) tried to pick McDysse up. He ended up going back to Detroit, but I do understand what you are saying. The players are usually guys who won't be in the rotation and because the teams dumping contracts are making the move to save money, it is likely they will buy out the cotnracts they are taking on to save money (like the Suns buying out Ben Wallace- only paying him a percentage of what they would have had to pay him had he played). The Wallace deal is actually a good example of how the buy-out-return doesn't always happen. Many thought Wallace would return to the Cavs, then he suggested he may retire, then he ended up going to Detroit.

Examples of where it is arranged would be the original Dallas/New Jersey Kidd trade. If teams are going to be buying out players they usually speak to the player before hand to see if they are interested in such an arrangement so that they can save money. Stackhouse publically said he'd jsut take a buy out, rest for 30 days and return to Dallas. That was illegal according to NBA rules so the league put the ki-bosh on that trade. Knowing full well and making an agreement to return before the trade is illegal, but when teams do make such trades they run the risk of losing the player they send away, because they are under no obligation to return to the team they were traded from.

The laegue did make a rule stating that players couldn't return to the team for 30 days, so that opens a window for players to take offers from other teams. They aren't allowed commit to conracts with their former team, and even if they intend to return, hearing offers from other teams may give those players something to consider. Coupled with that, when a player is waived, or bought out, he is put on waivers first and every team (with cap space) is allowed to pick up the contract if they are interested. But teams just usually don't want the contracts (or a player that doesn't want to play with them). I've never actually heard of a team picking somebody up on waivers though? I'm not even sure why the go through that.

Anyways... if both teams agree to the trade, and the buy-out happens, everybdoy is happy, I don't see the problems.

illegallover
01-15-2010, 11:45 AM
It's Collusion if you ask me....

JasonJohnHorn
01-15-2010, 12:17 PM
It's Collusion if you ask me....

I think that's the way the NBA saw it, which is why the implimented the 30-day hold over period. The league makes rules, teams try to work around them while following the rules, that's just the way things work.

There have been other examples of actual collusion. Like when the T-Wolves signed Joe Smith to a three year contract and then agreed to give him a bigger contract at the end of it to by-pass salary cap rules (the Larry Bird rule let teams go over the cap to sign their own players- but agreeing to a contract more than three years and over the cap at once is collusion). The Cavs openly admitted to collusion with Boozer, but Boozer took advantage of the fact that NBA rules disallow such collusion. He'd only been with the Cavs two season, meaning they weren't allowed to go over the cap to sign him, but they said he agreed that if he was released from his 3rd year he'd sign a deal worth more than his third year for multi-years, but less than what he would have been paid if he signed a bigger contract when his three years were up. The Jazz however had lots of cap space and Boozer saw dollar signs. Then there was the Shaq/LA signing, LA had aparently already had assurances from Shaq that he'd sign with them even while he was playing with Orlando, so the Lakers moved players in salary-dumping moves to sig the big man. I seem to remember LA losing some second round draft picks for that, but the T-Wolves lost several, or at least a couple first round draft picks and their contract with Joe Smith was declared void and he wasn't allowed to sign with them again until the following year.

The bottom line is that in order for it to be legal, it has to be unspoken, and if it is unspoken then players can change their mind and teams (like the Cavs) can get the short end of the stick.

illegallover
01-15-2010, 12:26 PM
I think that's the way the NBA saw it, which is why the implimented the 30-day hold over period. The league makes rules, teams try to work around them while following the rules, that's just the way things work.

There have been other examples of actual collusion. Like when the T-Wolves signed Joe Smith to a three year contract and then agreed to give him a bigger contract at the end of it to by-pass salary cap rules (the Larry Bird rule let teams go over the cap to sign their own players- but agreeing to a contract more than three years and over the cap at once is collusion). The Cavs openly admitted to collusion with Boozer, but Boozer took advantage of the fact that NBA rules disallow such collusion. He'd only been with the Cavs two season, meaning they weren't allowed to go over the cap to sign him, but they said he agreed that if he was released from his 3rd year he'd sign a deal worth more than his third year for multi-years, but less than what he would have been paid if he signed a bigger contract when his three years were up. The Jazz however had lots of cap space and Boozer saw dollar signs. Then there was the Shaq/LA signing, LA had aparently already had assurances from Shaq that he'd sign with them even while he was playing with Orlando, so the Lakers moved players in salary-dumping moves to sig the big man. I seem to remember LA losing some second round draft picks for that, but the T-Wolves lost several, or at least a couple first round draft picks and their contract with Joe Smith was declared void and he wasn't allowed to sign with them again until the following year.

The bottom line is that in order for it to be legal, it has to be unspoken, and if it is unspoken then players can change their mind and teams (like the Cavs) can get the short end of the stick.

That's very insightful thanks... I do remember the Joe smith and boozer debacle...

jim51990
01-15-2010, 12:34 PM
prob should i expect this to be the case with big z's contract soon he and jj will be traded and then some who the team will agree to pay for big z and then waive him and he will return to the cavs

Gibby23
01-15-2010, 12:37 PM
We have seen it before, Payton, MCdyess and some others.
Contender trades a player (preferably an expiring) and make an under the table agreementwith the team they are trading to waive that player or cut tha tplayer in order to let him rejoin the team basically allowing the team to trade for nothing.


This year this could lead to for example cavs sending shaq to Washington for butler and arenas nd then getting shaq again at a minimum contract once was cuts him.

Wizards only get cap space and cavs go and make their team much more strong losing NOTHING.

that basically is dodging the salary cap, dodging the rules to keep everybody competitive.

SHould itbe allowed? why hasnt stern done anything about it if it has already hapened before?

IMO players shouldnt be able to sign back with the team that traded them for the next 12 months.

There is no way any team trades for Arenas. He might be out the whole year and his contract sucks. Cavs don't want to be tied up with that contract.

king4day
01-15-2010, 12:38 PM
Not 12 months. Just the remainder of the season.That stops it in its tracks.

Chronz
01-15-2010, 02:35 PM
If your at a certain point in your career it shouldnt matter, so long as you give up your gauranteed money imo

JasonJohnHorn
01-15-2010, 02:39 PM
If your at a certain point in your career it shouldnt matter, so long as you give up your gauranteed money imo

That's the way I see it to. These guys give up money to play where they want, they've been in the league for years, and nobody in the league (other teams/players) has an issue with it. I don't see why the league should change it.

Hellcrooner
01-15-2010, 02:48 PM
i meant to say butler an jamison.