Sports Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for participants in team and individual sport activities. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Congratulations to Steve Nash on his move to Lakers via a sign and trade!

His contract with the Suns has expired so I don't understand why he moved in a sign-and-trade deal.

Why resign and move in trade? Why didn't the Lakers sign Nash without any trade?

share|improve this question
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Typically a sign and trade is a maneuver that is used by teams and players to allow a player to make more money than he would have otherwise been able to make by just signing a contract with his new team. NBA teams (particularly the ones like the Heat and Lakers that have several max contracts), live on the edge or even past the salary cap, so there are serious restrictions on how much they can pay players acquired in free agency. Sign and Trade is a way to allow these players to make the money they have earned, and allow teams with max contracts to actually fill out their rosters (and make competitive offers to appealing free agents like Nash).

In the case of the Nash trade, the Lakers would only be able to offer him a starting salary of (likely) about 3 million through the mid-level exception. However, by trading for Nash they are able to use the trade exception they received last year for Lamar Odom to account for Nash's salary. This allows the Lakers to pay Nash 27 million over the next 3 years. In contrast, Toronto has salary cap flexibility and offered Nash 36 million over 3 out right. Sign and Trade allowed the Lakers to make a competitive offer to Nash rather than a pittance of the mid-level exception. Nash weighed the opportunities (better team, closer to his family in Pheonix, leaving the Suns with some assets) vs cost (giving up $9 million in the next 3 years, getting to play in his home country of Canada) and decided that the Lakers were the better deal. (source)

share|improve this answer

I believe also, in a sign and trade, the receiving team is assured of whatever contract the player signed for.

share|improve this answer
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. You may want to explain in more detail, or if this is more of a comment, make that. – Joe Mar 26 '15 at 16:38

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.