Knicks Morning News (2026.06.28)

First apron teams can’t do sign and trades if the trade leaves them still above the first apron.

Highlight of the playoffs for me was KAT turning into the headiest, best-distributing point guard in the NBA. (*) Generally speaking, while the championship itself was a zillion times more important, it was nice to see my consistent faith in the guy and pre-playoff philosophy that “any team with Jalen Brunson and Karl-Anthony Towns on it is very dangerous” pretty much entirely ratified.

(*) On the “things I’m a sucker for” list, right after toolsy wings, comes “bigs with all-around skills who can pass.” See, e.g., Johnson, Magic.

wrong. this is only for the team receiving the player.

That’s who I mean. Mitch can’t be signed and traded for another player.. Clarified. He can be signed and traded for a 2 or somesuch.

clarified but still wrong. mitch can in fact be signed and traded for another player even if that trade leave the knicks over the first apron. it is only the second apron that prevents taking back any salary as the outgoing team in a sign and trade.

There are multiple sources out there that say otherwise, but pending a highly unlikely read of the actual CBA, let’s go with your interpretation.

i can understand why most of humanity would opt not to self-asphyxiate in the swamps of the cba. it is a lot harder for me to understand the urge to brag about it while also confidently making a bunch of incorrect claims about the cba.

It looks at first blush — the only blush I’m going to take — that the internet is actually right. The CBA has a chart chart of prohibited transactions at various apron levels, one of which is a contract entered into pursuant to Section 8(c)(1), and 8(c)(1) describes in legalese what’s colloquially known as sign-and-trade transactions, and the chart prohibits those transactions explicitly at the “First Apron Level,” which is then defined at significant length.

So unless there’s some “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary” type clause somewhere in the document that amends this — which I’m definitely not going to seek out — I’m back to “generally speaking, you can’t do a sign and trade transaction in which you take back a player if you’re over the first apron.” I quite literally don’t care about it enough to investigate it anymore, and am kinda shocked that I even wasted ten minutes on reading legalese when I do that most of my days and not for free — but am happy to listen to and am genuinely curious about, having now invested the ten minutes, the contractual provision that prohibits that transaction only to the Second Apron Level rather than, as on its face, the First.

Is it possible that four internet sources and these ten minutes looking at the chart and Section 8(c)(1) in the CBA are wrong? Sure.

Can you imagine E ever saying “Oops, sorry, my bad!”?

I said exactly that and got insulted for the effort. Turns out at 90+% confidence level I (*) was right anyway.

Sort of like how a bunch of rotten tomatoes and insults were heaved in this direction the past few days about arcana and hypotheticals when all that needed to be said at the very outset was, “I’m sentimentally attached to these 10 guys and therefore want to see them all back next year.”

(*) Technically not “I,” but more like Sportrac, USA Today, and NBC Sports Boston were right since the information was obtained from them.

No, you didn’t. Not even close.

Oh, it was extremely close.

Boooooooooorrrrrrriiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnggggggg

It’s very boring. But now at least it’s clear. I’m not even sure I cared — in fact I know I don’t; they aren’t signing and trading any of these guys for players — but once the exercise got rolling, it might as well be finished.

—

E just likes the sound of his own cyber voice.

He’s well aware of the significant character flaws and deficiencies exhibited by engaging in this exercise. There should be no doubt about that one.

It’s on.

New season.

This right here is the Knickerblogger version of Wemby pointing at his head.

Citation? Hasn’t been one yet. Love to hear it.

Player A, a free agent, signs an 8(e)(1) contract to be S&T’d to the Hornets. In return, the Hornets agree to send the contract of Player B to the Pelicans.

Both teams, not just one, make their acquisitions of the contracts they acquire “pursuant to a Contract entered into in accordance with Section 8(e)(1).” Both Player A’s and Player B’s contracts fit snugly and easily within that language. (This is an indisputable no-brainer.)

Further supporting this reading, contract drafters at the level of the people who drafted the CBA are pretty talented, so if they meant to limit it only to the contract acquired by the new team, the English language has plenty of words that can make that clear. (“Acquires the contract of a player who executes a Contract entered into in accordance with Section 8(e)(1),” would be one way to word it. There are many other possibilities. You might even go with “Acquires the contract of a player who executes the Contract under the provisions of Section 8(e)(1).” Less wordy. Better.)

Also supporting this reading is the fact that a bunch of internet sites say it.

I have yet to see a single source that says this is a one-way provision, or that one side of the deal is a First Apron limitation and the other is a Second Apron limitation, as claimed. Even if those sources exist, at this point, I’d have to see actual cites to the actual CBA to conclude anything other than someone saying something different than what I’ve said is wrong. The previous cites in the discussion didn’t cover it.

The other possibility is that there was a letter agreement of some kind made after the CBA was signed that clarified the issue and made it one-way, along the lines that it’s a 600 page document and the language didn’t reflect the actual intent or agreement of the parties. These CBAs do have these kind of clarifying agreements from time to time.

Unlikely given contract law and the relative clarity of the relevant language. Not impossible.

I feel like shit renewing my season tickets but don’t have the heart to walk away so I will hand Dolan my credit card like a good little bitch when he tells me it’s time to do it.

Subtly put your hands or hat over your face when you walk through his surveillance cameras. Works for me. (Or maybe not, hard to tell. But fun to try.)