sign and trade irving?

Hoping the smart folks on this board can help me think through something.

It is undisputed that the Celtics can offer Irving the most of all contenders in terms of money and length of contract. Why not see if he'll agree to sign the supermax deal, and trade him to an agreeable location? This seems like it allows (1) Irving to maximize his income, (2) the Celtics and Irving to part ways, (3) the Celtics to actually get something in return for him.

It seems so obviously the move that I'm convinced that I'm missing something. What is it?

check the salary cap sticky that gyso posted above

I think the last CBA made it very hard or i,possible to do that type of trade.

NESportsfan,

The 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement removed the ability to sign-and-trade a player and have him keep the same money that he would get with his current team.

The reason they changed the rule is so a player's current team can keep their players. If a player leaves, he will have to lose 10's of millions of dollars to do so. IMO, this was done to help small market teams.

I think Gordon Hayward lost $50M plus to sign with Boston instead of staying with Utah.

Good to see you are posting!!

gyso

gyso wrote:NESportsfan,

The 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement removed the ability to sign-and-trade a player and have him keep the same money that he would get with his current team.

The reason they changed the rule is so a player's current team can keep their players.  If a player leaves, he will have to lose 10's of millions of dollars to do so.  IMO, this was done to help small market teams.

I think Gordon Hayward lost $50M plus to sign with Boston instead of staying with Utah.

Good to see you are posting!!

gyso

Interesting. I don't really get it, though. The small market team wouldn't have to trade their players. A sign and trade would just enable them to. Which clause of the 2017 CBA are you referencing? My source ( ) Wikipedia has not marked any change in the way that sign and trades operate...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_and_trade

Scratch that, I found the relevant post in that thread kdp referenced. Reading it now. (I had been looking at the main post, scratching my head, wondering where sign and trades were mentioned.)

I see now that the relevant clause is here:

A Designated Veteran contract cannot be used in a sign-and-trade.

The starting salary in a contract signed for a sign-and-trade may be any amount up to the player's maximum, however if the player meets the 5th Year 30% Max criteria (see question number 24) he cannot receive a salary greater than 25% of the cap. Raises are limited to 5%. The player also may be considered to have a lower outgoing salary for trade purposes, which can complicate the trade (see question number 93).

But I'm having trouble parsing this. It seems consistent with this to say that we could still sign him and pay him more than other teams, and offer him in a sign-and-trade, only that we couldn't pay him the full 30% max, but 25%. Or am I misreading this?