The following all assumes a hard cap is adopted, perhaps quite a bit to assume. On the one hand this would seem to fly in the face of the purpose of the cap. But this kind of thing might well be helpful to individual teams and shouldn't make much of a differnce to the players. - there hasn't been much of an explanation as to how a hard cap of, say, 35 mil, helps a team that's losing money even with a 28 mil payroll. Perhaps if that team is allowed to trade away 7 mil in cap room, to a team close to the limit who would like to go above it, that team might be better off financially, as well as would the team acquiring the cap room. This also might be advantageous to the player's in that it could stop a team from having to trade a guy just to get under the cap. From a dollar standpoint it doesn't hurt the union; why would they care where the dolars come from so long as they are spent. This would kind of work as a luxury tax but instead of spending money to go above the cap, you'd have to spend trade assets. ie, PIT trades 5 mil in cap room to TOR in exchange for TOR's 2005 1st rounder. Certainly helps PIT, helps TOR keep the players they want, helps the players not have to arbitrarily move from TOR to whoever has available cap room If you don't want this kind of thing to get too far out of hand (whatever that might mean) you could always impose limits on it - perhaps say a team can take on or trade away no more than 20% of the minimum cap value, and as a protection for the union the excess cap money must be spent by the acquiring team, or some high percentage of it.