We are under the cap and are bound by it, not arrogance (the other `guy' said that, not you). It's weird that facts are perceived to be arrogant.
See here:
Teams under the salary cap may make trades as they please, as long as they don't finish more than $100,000 above the salary cap following any trade. But if a team finishes more than $100,000 over the cap, whether they started out above or below the cap, then an exception is required. An exception is the mechanism that allows a team to make trades or sign players and finish over the salary cap. Since most teams are usually over the salary cap, trades are usually completed using exceptions.
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q79
This is from Larry Coon. So if I'm wrong, he's wrong.
What you are correctly pointing out, sfernald, is that the amount of imbalance in a trade is bound from the perspective of the team adding salary in some cases. Meeting these bounds, however, does not mean a trade is legal. There are other rules, such as total team salary figure, that factor in.
You will also note that the Anderson trade did not obey that rule. This is because we were under the cap (see the thing I quoted).
Cool?