How many of the CBA rules make sense?

[Ogaju]

I have seen many educated posts here about the CBA and Cap rules. Will anyone that is more educated in the CBA and Cap Rules explain why the NBA has all these trade deadlines and time limits. What are the policy reasons for saying that a rookie cannot be traded until 30 days after he signs a his rookie deal? What are the policy reasons for the other time limits?

Why is there a dead period between the end of the season and beginning of free agency?

Are there any good reasons for these time limits and deadlines?

[Ogaju]

:::: crickets :::::: means that these rules don't make any sense.

[LooseCannon]

Many of the rules that involve having to wait before you can trade a player are there so that it is hard to sign a player for the purpose of using his contract to match salaries in a trade.  Making you wait before you can trade a signed rookie effectively means you can't do a sign-and-trade involving a draft pick.

The July moratorium exists so that the league can conduct an audit and set the salary cap.  You can't determine if trades and free agent signings fit under salary cap rules without knowing how much the cap actually is.

[saltlover]

Some of the rules are to protect players who sign contracts with teams.  If you could trade a player immediately to another team without his permission, it would be unfair to the player, who's essentially been fooled into signing a contract for a different team.  So you can't trade such players who sign contracts until December or January,  depending on how you signed them.  These sorts of delays are accordingly negotiated because the players' association wants them.

Even rookie deals are subject to some negotiation, both about salary and other smaller contractual obligations (such as public appearances,, etc.)  No player of agent wants to negotiate with one team only to be traded before suiting up for that team.  While the 30 day limit doesn't prevent that outright, it helps to limit it.

The trade deadline in February occurs because the league has an interest in limiting roster moves at the end of the season.  All sports leagues seem to do this, so I'm going to guess it isn't arbitrary.

[indeedproceed]

The rookie signing thing I think is so that teams can use rookies as salary in trades, but cannot immediately sign and trade them, because you cannot use any exception other than some form of bird rights or cap space. In the case of Wiggins, the Cavs used the rookie exception to sign him to a scale contract, they needed his salary. It

One fundamental thing that I learned in the last 2 years is that nearly everything, almost every transaction in the NBA, revolves around exceptions. Sign a vet min contract? Used a vet min exception. And the GMs have lawyers and scholars who know how to make those exceptions dance.

[D.o.s.]

It all makes sense, and a lot of the reasons behind the CBA's functionality can be easily understood by searching up, for example, why the Stepien rule is called the Stepien rule, or why Bird Rights are Bird rights, and why the Arenas Provision or the Rose rule have their nicknames.

[Ogaju]

Thanks for the answers.

[indeedproceed]

It all makes sense, and a lot of the reasons behind the CBA's functionality can be easily understood by searching up, for example, why the Stepien rule is called the Stepien rule, or why Bird Rights are Bird rights, and why the Arenas Provision or the Rose rule have their nicknames.

Those are easy, but what about why teams who use cap space can't double-dip with the MLE, or at least the BAE?

What about why teams CAN trade recently acquired players (acquired via trade) alone, but can't aggregate salaries in a simultaneous move?

Looootttts of weird stuff in the CBA. Lots of not weird stuff.

[saltlover]

It all makes sense, and a lot of the reasons behind the CBA's functionality can be easily understood by searching up, for example, why the Stepien rule is called the Stepien rule, or why Bird Rights are Bird rights, and why the Arenas Provision or the Rose rule have their nicknames.

Those are easy, but what about why teams who use cap space can't double-dip with the MLE, or at least the BAE?

What about why teams CAN trade recently acquired players (acquired via trade) alone, but can't aggregate salaries in a simultaneous move?

Looootttts of weird stuff in the CBA. Lots of not weird stuff.

That makes sense.  The point is that there is in fact a salary cap.  The two you listed are exceptions which allow you to go over the cap.  And really, the point is it's a collective bargaining agreement.  Owners want to pay players as little as possible.  Players want to be paid as much as possible.  A salary cap was agreed to, in order to limit salaries for the owners, and ways to exceed it were added, for the players.  That the exceptions you list can't be used by all teams is a win for the owners.  The addition of the "room exception" for teams who in fact adhere to the salary cap in the most recent CBA was a win for the players.

Pretty much all the rules of the CBA should be seen through the negotiating lens.  The issue that brought this up (the Love trade potentially being scuttled due to negotiations about a future contract) was undoubtedly won by the owners.  If players can get large extensions easily when they force a trade, more players will force traded, which means players have more leverage, which owners don't like.  That's why Silver willbe under pressure to make certain everything is on the up-and-up as he can.  If it's Love right now, will it be Rondo in December?  Someone next summer?  Certainly extend- and- trades will be revisited in the next CBA.  If the rule isn't well-enforced now, then the owners wil likely give up something in the next CBA that they otherwise wouldn't have.

[indeedproceed]

No, I get the negotiating lens thing. The no-double-dipping thing is to empower teams who keep salary on the books. The tax, the limited MLE and restrictions to the BAE for tax paying teams are there to give owners a pretense to not pay above the tax. It's an attempt at a balance, ultimately favoring the owners.