NBA Trade Ethics: Are There Any?

Today the Jason Kidd to Dallas trade became official, after a week-long saga that captivated the NBA headlines.

The trade was the stuff of a sports writer's dream, a top talent player to a desperate club, and a little known rule that almost destroyed the entire effort. 

By now, the story of Devean George's invocation of his "Bird rights" threatened to implode the entire structure of the trade and sent the Mavericks scrambling to the drawing board for a solution. 

The Mavericks pulled off the trade this afternoon, sending a whole host of players including Devin Harris and newly signed Keith Van Horn to New Jersey for the aging but brilliant Kidd. Kidd's return was trumpeted by the Dallas faithful as the shot in the arm this team needs to get over the trifecta of obstacles including San Antonio, Phoenix and L.A. (Of course in the Maverick's case the obstacles also include those pesky Golden State Warriors).

Lost in the fanfare accompanying Kidd's return is the story of Nick Fazekas, a rookie from Nevada who was cut so the team could sign Van Horn and make the trade work. While Van Horn (an already ridiculously wealthy person) gets a huge paycheck for basically signing a contract, Fazekas is now unemployed. That's only one of the ethical issues facing these trades, the other involves signing basically retired players just to get the numbers right. 

According to NBA rules, teams over the salary cap have to balance the salaries in the trade within 25% of the swap. Because Van Horn had never filed his official retirement papers with the league and Dallas never renounced rights to him, he was eligible to be signed, even though he had not played since 2006. This same rule applied to Aaron McKie when the Lakers needed another one-year contract to balance the Pau Gasol deal. The League was uncomfortable with these deals and requires that both of these players had to have the intent to play for their new teams—even if everyone knows this is just a shell game.

While deals like this are technically legal by NBA standards the question the general public has is one of disgust, "are these trades ethical?" These trades are reminiscent of the corporate book-keeping scandals that plagued headlines at the early turn of the century. Basically, the Lakers and the Mavericks created assets to defraud the league and skirt the spirit of the rules if not the letter. Fans may appreciate the concentration of power in the West because of the exciting matchups, but what about the fans of the teams like the Nets and the Grizzlies, the forgotten victims of these trades. These two teams have basically conceded that this season is over and are merely going through the motions as they prepare for free agency. Is that fair to season ticket holders, corporate sponsors and the cities that host them? 

In reality trades like these are controversial, but if there are teams desperate enough for a spark they will continue as long as the NBA rules permit them. It is up to the league to decide they will protect all interests involved and not just their top market teams.