Edited Jun. 8 at 7:27 a.m.
Quoting: jamnjon
The league blocks this. While I don't believe it's explicitly stated in the CBA, they have the catch-all "anything we deem circumvention" rule. I'm drawing a blank on it now, but after the lockout in 2012 there were a few stories about a team looking into doing this with their compliance buyout (no cap penalty) and having it blocked by the league.
From the wikipedia article on compliance buyouts:
I get that this is slightly different since at least some team has cap penalties for the player but I can't see it being permitted here either because the purpose is clearly the same.
Not that ima sit here and say anyone is wrong to doubt this is possible. It is, indeed, a shenanigan. That being said, if a pair of GMs had the brass ones to try this I think it’s gotta stand, as:
A) As you said, and as far as I can tell, there is no rule that prevents this from happening.
B) There’s no free lunch, one team is absorbing the entire brunt of the buyout, and the original team still needs to sign the players back. IMO this is materially different from the compliance buyouts as there is cap penalties being applied within the system.
C) All other teams would have the opportunity block this from happening by claiming either player as they must go through waivers prior to the buyout being enacted. Similarly as the players would be part of the UFA pool they could be signed by any team. In short all teams have the ability to either forcefully stop this by claiming the contract on waivers; or outbid the players original team in the UFA market.
Mostly, I think this doesn’t happen because what player holding an NTC would willingly waive it on the odd chance they get claimed by their least favored destination.
jMoneyBrah liked this.
Reply
Eklund,
CapFriendly
CapFriendly