Indiana - Phoenix - San Antonio

[Larry Bird]

Indiana Trades:
79 Manu Ginobili $6,838,155
61 Nando de Colo's salary $623,646
Kendrick Perkins's Salary $623,646
2nd 2017 Portland

Indiana Receives:
78 Taj Gibson $7,800,000 $8,600,000 $9,500,000
78 Michael Carter-Williams $2,296,047 $2,360,724

Incoming: $10,096,047
Outgoing: $8,085,447

Phoenix Trades:
78 Taj Gibson $7,800,000 $8,600,000 $9,500,000

Phoenix Receives:
74 Tyler Zeller $3,694,736
Kendrick Perkins's Salary $623,646
2nd 2017 Portland

Incoming Salary: $4,318,382
Outgoing Salary: $7,800,000

San Antonio Trades:
78 Michael Carter-Williams $2,296,047 $2,360,724
74 Tyler Zeller $3,694,736


San Antonio Receives:
79 Manu Ginobili $6,838,155
61 Nando de Colo's salary $623,646

Incoming Salary: $7,461,801
Outgoing Salary: $5,990,783

JR Wiles
Jared Montini

[JR Wiles]

Accept

[Walt Frazier]

Didn't Indy just sign de colo and isn't there a time that you have to wait longer than this to trade players you sign?

[Larry Bird]

You can't sign more than 2 players to complete a deal.

[Walt Frazier]

May 4, 2017 21:16:04 GMT Larry Bird said:

You can't sign more than 2 players to complete a deal.

Different rule. The James Kay rule I believe.

[Walt Frazier]

The James Kay Rule: You must wait one month before a signed free agent can be traded.

[Walt Frazier]

FTR, if something similar replaces Nando, I'm accepting, but currently it's against the rules.

[Kevin Hollis]

Is mcw still a 78? I swear we voted to lower him to a 75-75

[Charles Barkley]

May 4, 2017 22:50:17 GMT Walt Frazier said:

FTR, if something similar replaces Nando, I'm accepting, but currently it's against the rules.

Indiana can just trade Mahimmi in place of the Perkins contract and De Colo.

What if Larry cuts De Colo and trades the contract? That would technically work...

[Charles Barkley]

May 4, 2017 23:45:29 GMT Kevin Hollis said:

Is mcw still a 78? I swear we voted to lower him to a 75-75

we're backed up in the RC, well Walt is, I haven't done much in months, which might be why

[James Kay]

May 4, 2017 23:46:20 GMT Charles Barkley said:

May 4, 2017 22:50:17 GMT Walt Frazier said:

FTR, if something similar replaces Nando, I'm accepting, but currently it's against the rules.

Indiana can just trade Mahimmi in place of the Perkins contract and De Colo.

What if Larry cuts De Colo and trades the contract? That would technically work...

Sounds immoral

But, also sounds like it would work. The rule clearly states:

" The James Kay Rule: You must wait one month before a signed free agent can be traded."


In that case, the free agent wouldn't be traded, simply his contract. It's a loophole, but seems perfectly valid. Of course, I would expect Ian to implement the Larry Bird Addendum which would apply the restriction on trading recently signed free agents to their contracts as well.

[Larry Bird]

So if I do that the trade would work. And I'd get a rule names after me?

[Charles Barkley]

May 5, 2017 1:35:03 GMT Larry Bird said:

So if I do that the trade would work. And I'd get a rule names after me?

The Larry Bird Addendum to the James Kay Rule

[Larry Bird]

Edited.
Nando de Colo has been cut.

[JR Wiles]

Lol, I'll accept either way.

[Danny Longley]

I'll accept as well if Ian allows it, but I think it's a clear violation of the intention of the James Kay Rule.

It irks me a little since this is a movie that Larry shouldn't be able to make with the assets he has, but it's a minor move so eh.

[Larry Bird]

If this is a violation of the rules.

I will send someone off my bench to San Antonio.

Actually, Im not sure how to make this work.

[Vlade Divac]

I think this trade should be rejected whether it violates the James Kay Rule and/or the Larry Bird Addendum because Manuuuuuu is doneeeeeeee! Michael Carter-Williams is at least younger if nothing else.

[JR Wiles]

Send mahinmi  to me as well instead and all will be ok...this needs done asap

[Ian Noble]

I'll get back to you on this guys, it may be that the spirit of the James Kay Rule needs to be investigated but I want to get today's sims done first!

edit: Unless you can get it done without de Colo

[JR Wiles]

I have enough PGs for one. And we need depth right now at the SF position.

[JR Wiles]

I don't need anyone but Ginobili. He added him to the trade. I'd take mahinmi or a 2nd or nothing at this point. Just want the trade complete.

[Charles Barkley]

May 5, 2017 16:50:42 GMT Ian Noble said:

I'll get back to you on this guys, it may be that the spirit of the James Kay Rule needs to be investigated but I want to get today's sims done first!

edit: Unless you can get it done without de Colo

It is not directly against the James Kay Rule as stated.

The James Kay Rule is stated above, and it clearly states that a player may not be traded until a month, not the player's contract. 

In all honesty, its $623,646. I could see it as a problem if it were a much larger amount of money. 

Also, what if there were a general rule that for in-season trades, a team's incoming salary can either be 110% of the outgoing salary, or 100% of the outgoing salary plus the GM's remaining MLE. This would be a work around to this rule, especially if the idea of the James Kay Rule is that a player would not sign a contract to just be traded. 

[Danny Longley]

May 5, 2017 17:12:26 GMT Charles Barkley said:

It is not directly against the James Kay Rule as stated.

The James Kay Rule is stated above, and it clearly states that a player may not be traded until a month, not the player's contract. 

In all honesty, its $623,646. I could see it as a problem if it were a much larger amount of money.

The wording is indeed debatable, what we're getting at is why the rule was established in the first place.

Now on the why, the rule was established when James Kay signed Nate Wolters to a $4,240,000/1 Year deal that was solely for the purpose of making salaries work in this trade.

Signing De Colo accomplishes the same for the Pacers in this case, it moves the total salary he's moving out to $8m+, which lets him past the 125% rule.

Yes, it's only the minimum's worth, but IMO it matters because it lets him complete the deal without having to move a guy off his bench like say, Ian Mahinmi or James Johnson. 

This matters even when you consider that the Pacers are likely to make the playoffs in the East, will likely soon be blocked from trading before De Colo can clear 30 days, and would probably prefer to not jet a good bench guy to make this trade work.

[Charles Barkley]

May 5, 2017 18:06:59 GMT Danny Longley said:

May 5, 2017 17:12:26 GMT Charles Barkley said:

It is not directly against the James Kay Rule as stated.

The James Kay Rule is stated above, and it clearly states that a player may not be traded until a month, not the player's contract. 

In all honesty, its $623,646. I could see it as a problem if it were a much larger amount of money.

The wording is indeed debatable, what we're getting at is why the rule was established in the first place.

Now on the why, the rule was established when James Kay signed Nate Wolters to a $4,240,000/1 Year deal that was solely for the purpose of making salaries work in this trade.

Signing De Colo accomplishes the same for the Pacers in this case, it moves the total salary he's moving out to $8m+, which lets him past the 125% rule.

Yes, it's only the minimum's worth, but IMO it matters because it lets him complete the deal without having to move a guy off his bench like say, Ian Mahinmi or James Johnson. 

This matters even when you consider that the Pacers are likely to make the playoffs in the East, will likely soon be blocked from trading before De Colo can clear 30 days, and would probably prefer to not jet a good bench guy to make this trade work.

How is the wording debatable? Its pretty clear cut that it says "Player" and not "and/or a Player's contract".

If the intent of the rule were to forbid GM's from signing players and using them and their salary to make a trade compatible, why would there be such a loophole as this? And why wouldn't Ian have simply put, "and/or a Player's contract" in the rule?

It seems more likely that the James Kay Rule was implemented because the idea of a player signing to a team where he would just be traded right away is counter to what goes on in real life. Because no player would sign a deal if they knew they were to be traded right away, which is something that was discussed in that trade, and has been discussed about signing off-season free agents.

And that reasoning is the main reason behind the December 15th rule, that no player would sign with a certain team if they were to know they were going to be traded immediately.

[Danny Longley]

May 5, 2017 19:03:07 GMT Charles Barkley said:

How is the wording debatable? Its pretty clear cut that it says "Player" and not "and/or a Player's contract".

Because nowhere in the trading regulations are Players and Player's contracts ever differentiated.

dynasty5ive.proboards.com/thread/12/trading-regulations

For example, on the expiring players trade deadline: "No expiring players can be traded" - So are we just implying that if we wanted to trade an expiring contract, we cut him and go on with business?

[Ian Noble]

Danny Longley is correct, Nando de Colo should not be included in this trade.

Normally we accept that up to 2 signings/releases may be needed to complete a trade, but we don't allow those signings to be included in the trade to make the salaries work.

[Kevin Hollis]

Fwiw, I would let an NBa team sign me and trade me immediately - just make sure to pay me first.

[James Kay]

May 5, 2017 19:32:36 GMT Ian Noble said:

Danny Longley is correct, Nando de Colo should not be included in this trade.

Normally we accept that up to 2 signings/releases may be needed to complete a trade, but we don't allow those signings to be included in the trade to make the salaries work.

I was about to agree with Danny, but the rules regarding player release state that:

The contracts of released players can be traded without the player counting towards one of that team's roster positions.

So, the rules do acknowledge that trading player contracts is different than trading players.

So honestly, according to the language of the rules, trading expiring contracts appears to be different that trading players with expiring contracts. So I think you should be allowed to cut a player and trade him (As an aside, this actually seems to be the only other instance of a situation where the difference between player and contract becomes important). And in the instant case, sign and cut a player to circumvent the James Kay rule.

That all being said, I think Larry should be able to pull this off, but the rules should be updated to reflect the original intent of the rule.

[Ian Noble]

May 5, 2017 20:12:05 GMT James Kay said:

May 5, 2017 19:32:36 GMT Ian Noble said:

Danny Longley is correct, Nando de Colo should not be included in this trade.

Normally we accept that up to 2 signings/releases may be needed to complete a trade, but we don't allow those signings to be included in the trade to make the salaries work.

I was about to agree with Danny, but the rules regarding player release state that:

The contracts of released players can be traded without the player counting towards one of that team's roster positions.

So, the rules do acknowledge that trading player contracts is different than trading players.

So honestly, according to the language of the rules, trading expiring contracts appears to be different that trading players with expiring contracts. So I think you should be allowed to cut a player and trade him (As an aside, this actually seems to be the only other instance of a situation where the difference between player and contract becomes important). And in the instant case, sign and cut a player to circumvent the James Kay rule.

That all being said, I think Larry should be able to pull this off, but the rules should be updated to reflect the original intent of the rule.

Good point.

It will be allowed this time, but I have amended the James Kay rule to include not being allowed to release a player until a month has passed as well.

I would call the update the "Larry Bird Rule" but that would get confused with the real-life Larry Bird rule, sorry Larry Bird