A couple of questions and a suggestion: 1) I know Koponen and Freeland count as cap holds against the cap, at least until the season starts, but does Claver? I have the belief that he only starts counting next offseason, but I don't know how I acquired that belief. 2) Toronto wooed Turkoglu by making him an offer that was more than ours. Was their figures purely speculative, given that the cap wasn't set yet? And could it be that they can't actually reach it now? Here's my suggestion for a loophole (in the proud tradition of the Franchise that brought you the Chris Dudley loophole): Suppose we DID want to sign Odom, but he wanted his salary to start at what we'd have if we renounced all our foreign players (maybe except Claver, depending on the answer to (1) above). But we didn't want to lose them. Would it be possible, assuming we find a willing and trustworthy partner (this is the crucial weak link in the chain, but not impossible) to trade them the rights to our foreign players for (say) a future second rounder (or at any rate, something that didn't count against the cap), then, after signing Odom, or maybe even after the season starts, swapping them right back? Who might do this, if it would work? I say: the Spurs. (a) because of Pritchard's history with Pop and Co. (b) because they'd be willing to help in screwing the Lakers out of Odom (we're not a big enough threat yet). Comments (try to keep comments on whether or not anyone would help us separate from whether or not this is an actual loophole that could work even in theory)?
Well, outside of whether it works by the CBA and whether there is someone trustworthy to do it with, couldn't this be viewed as collusion? Not the legal crime of collusion, but an anti-competitive effort by the team that helped Portland to circumvent the CBA? I think Portland (and the other team) would be running the risk of having the trade(s) voided by the commissioner and penalties handed down.
What if they waited a decent period? And why would it be collusion? Because one team gets nothing out of it? What's the definition of collusions, and give me an example of when it has been called on teams!
I don't know if it ever has, but the commissioners in all pro sports hold the power to void deals that are viewed as collusion. I'm speculating that this could be a problem, not asserting that it definitely is. And yes, the reason I think it could be is because one team gets nothing out of it. They're simply operating as a holding entity to help Portland skirt the CBA. It may end up passing muster, but I'm sure it would be challenged by the NBA.
But they DO get something out of it! For the first trade, they get rights. For the next trade, they get a pick! Would it make it better or worse if we gave them one of our picks as well for their trouble?
I stand corrected. But as to your question, I guess it could be "hidden" just enough not to draw challenges, by adding in something they keep and staggering the timing of the trades. The question then becomes, is all this worth it to open up an extra $2 million or so of cap space during the off-season?
...AND: how it this any different from what Memphis is supposed to be doing to facilitate a trade between Dallas and Toronto? Memphis is helping them avoid salary cap limitations by using their cap space.
If it meant the difference between signing the FA you want and ... not, sure! And it's worth it to the FA, because of the % raises over the years which would make the small initial difference really snowball.
I agree, but is there a free agent that you see it being worth squeezing every cent out for? Lamar Odom, perhaps, but I can't see the Lakers allowing him to escape, especially not to a rising rival like Portland. Outside of Odom, I'd be looking more at trades and those can be done, without the international rights cluttering Portland's cap space, once the off-season "ends" (whenever that is) without any convolutions.
3 reasons I don't think Portland is looking at Odom. 1) http://www.fandome.com/video/99922/Lamar-Odom-Flagrant-Foul-on-Brandon-Roy/ 2) Lamarcus hates him. I remember reading an article in the Oregonian where Lamarcus literally said he didn't like Lamar Odom. 3) [video=youtube;Q4ZN2KOaN30]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4ZN2KOaN30[/video] I don't wanna have to root for that.
I don't think a player can be traded back to the team he left, at least not right away. Loopholes are for cheaters (at heart anyway) and cheaters never win. This major flaw in Paul "the Bankruptcy-Billionaire" Allen's character is why we have never won a title since he bought the team.
Suddenly my idea is relevant! ...but who would hate Utah so much they'd help us out...? How about we threaten the Bucks that unless they do, we'll go after Sessions?
