Hi everyone. My name is Lucas. I run the Clippers SBNation blog, Clips Nation. This means that you hate me.
Now that we're past that, I do NBA salary cap and CBA stuff. For fun, because I'm a loser. Again: Clippers fan.
Here's the point: the NBA's No-Re-Acquirement Clause that many are citing as blocking Andrew Bogut from re-signing with the Warriors doesn't apply to this situation. The wording of the clause essentially says that if Team X trades a player to Team Y, and then team Y cuts that player, team X cannot sign him for the rest of the cap year. What the clause doesn't spell out is what happens if team Y trades that player to team Z, and then team Z cuts him. By the letter of the law, in this scenario, team X would not be prohibited from signing the player back within the same salary cap year.
To put names and faces on those variables, the Warriors obviously traded Bogut to the Mavs. They wouldn't be able to sign him again if the Mavs cut him. But since the Mavericks traded him to Philly, and Philly is cutting him, he can, in theory, return to the Warriors.
Here's what happens if both parties wish to reunite and the Warriors attempt to sign Bogut: the league will get unhappy that Golden State worked around one of their rules, and they'll try to argue that exploiting this loophole is CBA circumvention. The Warriors will argue--and they have a very strong case--that because of the massive amount of time that has elapsed between the two (including Dallas playing Bogut a ton of games, and every team involved making other transactions), this couldn't be circumvention.
I have no idea who would win. That's why I say it "may be possible". But at the very least, everyone who is flat-out saying that it's impossible is at least not telling the whole truth or explaining the complexity of the situation.