RSS

Which NBA Owners Wanted Limited Cash in Trades?

05 Dec

At the end of summary of tentative NBA deal there’s a small tweak to the trading rules:

Cash paid or received by teams in trades is limited to an aggregate of $3M per team annually.

Here’s my question: Which Owners did want Limited Cash in Trades?
Have big market teams said “we have enough of adding cash to every trade”?
Or have small market teams argued “it’s a competitive advantage for big boys”?
Or maybe some teams in the middle have wondered how do they fit into the picture?
Or maybe teams which usually aren’t active in trade market have felt they were left behind?

Frankly, I have no idea and I’m surprised with this change because I thought it’s a small and simple but effective… revenue sharing. So maybe that [allegedly] robust revenue sharing plan made whole idea obsolete?

Well, when in doubt, follow the money…

Larry Coon didn’t publish his CBA FAQ before 1999 so I don’t know what were the rules 15 or more years ago but according to prosportstransactions.com in the 1990s there were only 24 trades where cash changed hands!

In 1999 version of CBA there was a rule about possibility of adding up to 3 millions in a single trade and here’s what happened during next decade plus [still according to prosportstransactions.com]:

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
# of Trades which included cash 8 5 4 10 16 12 16 18 20 32 21 14

OK, so can I say it was a nicely growing trend until inevitability of lockout striked?

Let’s find out which teams traded for cash and which traded away this cash in the last 10 years.
Keep in mind that in most cases prosportstransactions.com doesn’t list amount of cash involved so I didn’t take it into consideration. In any trade it could have been 1k$ or 3M$ or something in between.

Team
(by name)
Trades Where Team Acquired Cash Trades With Relinquished Cash Team
(by #)
Trades Where Team Acquired Cash Team
(by #)
Trades With Relinquished Cash
76ers 6 10 TWolves 17 Rockets 19
Blazers 1 12 Hornets 11 Mavs 18
Bobcats 8 0 Kings 11 Blazers 12
Bucks 5 2 Magic 10 76ers 10
Bulls 3 4 Grizzlies 9 Grizzlies 10
Cavaliers 1 8 Suns 9 Heat 10
Celtics 6 6 Bobcats 8 Knicks 10
Clippers 8 1 Clippers 8 Nets 9
Grizzlies 9 10 Raptors 8 Cavaliers 8
Hawks 5 1 Wizards 8 Magic 8
Heat 2 10 76ers 6 Raptors 7
Hornets 11 5 Celtics 6 Celtics 6
Jazz 4 3 Nuggets 6 Nuggets 6
Kings 11 1 Sonics 6 Suns 6
Knicks 3 10 Bucks 5 Hornets 5
Lakers 2 2 Hawks 5 Spurs 5
Magic 10 8 Mavs 5 Bulls 4
Mavs 5 18 Nets 5 Jazz 3
Nets 5 9 Jazz 4 Pacers 3
Nuggets 6 6 Warriors 4 Pistons 3
Pacers 2 3 Bulls 3 Bucks 2
Pistons 3 3 Knicks 3 Lakers 2
Raptors 8 7 Pistons 3 Thunder 2
Rockets 2 19 Spurs 3 Warriors 2
Sonics 6 0 Thunder 3 Wizards 2
Spurs 3 5 Heat 2 Clippers 1
Suns 9 6 Lakers 2 Hawks 1
Thunder 3 2 Pacers 2 Kings 1
TWolves 17 1 Rockets 2 TWolves 1
Warriors 4 2 Blazers 1 Bobcats 0
Wizards 8 2 Cavaliers 1 Sonics 0

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that Minnesota liked this system ;-)
Also Rockets and Mavericks probably were fine with it ;-)

But it’s just a guess and the rest is even worse case of pure speculation…
Was Paul Allen fed up so he wanted a change?
Maybe Dan Gilbert wanted some piece of action?
Maybe Grizzlies felt they were too active on both fronts?
Lakers were surprisingly inactive so maybe there’s something to it?

I have no idea so please let me know if you do ;-)

About these ads
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 5, 2011 in Unanswered Questions

 

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s