It was my fault
for introducing this concept to the landscape in Mavs World, so I'll clarify for you.
I believe this is the first article where my invented term "Artificial Expiring Contract" was first used, and where the concept was explained that is now somewhat commonly understood in relation to KVH.
http://www.dallasbasketball.com/full...lumn.php?id=28
This is the article where the concept of specifically using KVH to invent that expiring contract as filler, for a KG deal, was mentioned.
http://www.dallasbasketball.com/full...mn.php?id=2506
Now let me outline some of the details.
1. HOW DOES IT WORK?
You take a player without a contract (where you were his last team) and use him in a sign-and-trade as filler to satisfy the trade-matching rules. Only one year has to be guaranteed, so the instant the ink is dry on the contract, it is an "instant expiring" and in its last year. In other words, it's perfect filler - especially when you can write the contract for the exact dollar amount (and no more) needed to satisfy the mandates of the trade rules.
Finding the right player? Ah, there's the catch. It's not as easy as it looks to find the (potential) guy like KVH.
2. IS IT LEGAL? (What about the rules saying "no circumvention" of the cap?)
The idea that this could in any way constitute "circumvention" of the cap rules arises from a misunderstanding of what the NBA means by circumvention. Circumvention is acting OUTSIDE the rules (particularly the cap rule) so that they don't apply. However, the rules are written in very strict legalese with the idea that as long as teams operate within the rules, they are free to use whatever wiggle room is given to them.
Signing KVH to an artificial expiring would be using some of that wiggle room. There is no cap avoidance - clearly Cuban would ramp up his cap and tax numbers considerably, if he chose to do such a thing, and the rules are written to dampen spending but never to forbid it. So if the teams want to spend their money in this fashion, it is permissible.
In addition, you see clear confirmation that this is very legal, because it has occurred and been approved in the past. The Mavs themselves used artificial expiring contract filler in the past, as filler in the Jamison-to-Dallas deal.
(A list of some of the players used in this manner that I've been able to dig up are: Popeye Jones, Brian Shaw, Gary Grant, Joe Kleine, Steven Hunter, Aaron McKie.)
Besides the anecdotal evidence, there is one ultimate piece of evidence that this is not forbidden: such a trade concept was anticipated and rules written to govern it within the CBA!! The rule mandating that a sign-and-trade must be for 3 years with at least the first year guaranteed is an implicit recognition that teams will want to (and are allowed to) create contracts like these merely for trade purposes. As long as they follow those rules, there is no problem.
3. HOW DOES IT WORK WITH KVH?
KVH is relaxing with his family and has no Mavs contract. But technically, he is merely a player without a contract, eligible to be signed at any time. The Mavs, as his last team, happen to have Bird rights, which would allow them to go over the cap and sign him to any contract up to the max allowable amount for him. (See particulars in the link noted above.)
Therefore, if he is interested, the Mavs could sign him to a contract in a sign-and-trade, as filler for a deal. If he signs such a deal, he would be obligated to play for that team if they wanted him to, for the duration of the contract. But as noted above, it could be written in such a way where he has a pretty strong assurance he won't ever have to show up and will be getting a paycheck merely for signing. He'd also want to make sure it's a big enough financial package that if he has to get off his couch for a few months and actually play, it's still worth it to him.
4. WHY DON'T WE SEE THIS HAPPENING ALL THE TIME? CAN'T ANY TEAM DO IT WITH ALMOST ANY EX-PLAYER?
Interestingly, there are far fewer ideal candidates for this than you'd think. The reasons are many ...
a If your last team doesn't have Bird rights (or Early Bird) on you, then it isn't a useful possibility because your old team can't sign-and-trade you for any deal bigger than the minimum.
b. Most players "retire" and thereby become ineligible to then be used like KVH is (in theory).
c. Base year restrictions can make a player unusable for such a deal.
Few players go straight from "big contract" to "not playing" - and instead go from big money to medium to small to no deal. Base year issues (where the new contract is more than a 20% raise over the last year of the last contract) change the dynamic and feasibility if they apply..
d. Some also get bought out from their big or their last deal. Others are waived. If a player was waived (a buyout is just a fancy form of a waiver) from his last deal, there is no "old team" that can use him this way.
e. If you are player like KVH where the last deal is huge, this sort of opportunity may be a windfall in excess of $10M and therefore you wouldn't mind being forced to go attend practices and games without playing. But if you're coming off a much smaller deal, you might have better deals awaiting (including an actual chance to play) by getting a contract with a new team and playing there.
f. Few players are willing to sit at home and turn down deals in hopes of being used in an artificial expiring that may never happen.
g. Note: if a player is "renounced" it does NOT prohibit the team from using him in this fashion - it just adds a few more limits in how or when it's could be used.
h. If a player is signed mid-year, he'll get the full face amount of the contract (the payout isn't prorated lower for missing part of the season), so using this type of deal at this point in the season can cause a cash-flow crunch for the team that gets him as his full year of pay must be paid in only 2 months.
By the time you go down the list of who
can't be used or whose contract is too small to help, you're not left with very many who make a big difference to use.
And if a team has an expiring contract already they can get rid of, they use it first. That's because of the greatest impediment to this practice, even more significant than a mere lack of candidates.: It raises payroll. The artificial expiring typically would add that much x 125% to a team's cap, because the owner has taken someone costing him 0 (for example, KVH) and signed him to a the smallest amount possible that will match up to 25% more payroll coming back from another team. With tax hitting so many teams, and so many more close to the tax line, few want to add more.
It takes the right team PLUS that team must have just the right player sitting at home. And then they have to be interested in a deal where they need filler, rather than having players already on their roster to send away.
5. CURRENT POSSIBILITIES
The KVH idea has now been mentioned in enough places that you'll see him mentioned regularly as one of the Mavs potential trade assets. (I think the discussion has even been repeated to the point where some writers and readers are thinking of him as a "player" who could fit in trade rather than as merely contractual filler, which is wrong.) In addition, since the Lakers used Aaron McKie in this fashion in the Gasol trade, people have started to take notice of the concept that we've been mentioning and are even starting to use our terminology or close knockoffs (instant expiring, artificial expiring, etc).
Other possible players to use? There may be tons of little ones, but I have found 7 that have a pretty sizable amount that could be used: KVH, PJ Brown, Rik Smits, Latrell Sprewell, Corliss Williamson, Danny Fortson, Dale Davis. There are probably others.
Hope that helps.
DL