I was speaking to one guy close to the Rockets and he asked if I knew aelliott personally... I said no but do know him through the site as pretty much the cap expert of the BBS, etc. He said, "I don't know who the guy is but he definitely knows his ----." Went on about how aelliott was right on about the Cato base-player situation and said he didn't know if he did it as a hobby or not but he seems to really know his stuff concerning the league's CBA, etc. Anyway, congrats... ------------------ NOTHING BUT .NET CLUTCHCITY.NET
Heh, Clutchcity's members are so cool they have no athletic talent and sports franchises are jockin them. ------------------ "We need to fockass".....Dream back in the day
You know what this means...aelliott. You don't have to quote the FAQ anymore. finally. LC will come to us. Aelliott. I wrote LC over a week ago about the transferability of the trade exception and how that makes it pretty much the most valuable exception at getting new talent...short of a sign-n-trade for a Full Bird. More valuable than cap space and free agency (since those are fleeting tools in the new CBA). Well, for the first time in 9 months he hasn't responded to direct questions. So it is on us. My instinct is he hasn't considered it yet, cause he's a Laker's fan and doesn't care about our gem here. So, we either get the CBA full text ourselves, or go straight to the newsgroup in-force to see what the FAQ "experts" say. What is your complete take on this? 1. Free agency is pretty strapped in the new CBA 2. Trading down DOES NOT create cap space (unless you are already under), because it creates a Trade Exception (which counts against the cap until expired) 3. Freeing cap space is only available through renouncing, or retiring a player/contract 4. What is the effect of sign-n-trade for a Full Bird against the trading team's cap (ala Pippen). Did Chi get a trading exception (which they let expire) or immediate cap space at trade time, which they didn't use last summer??? Aelliott, these are NOT in the FAQ. It is up to you now. LC apparently is looking for answers himself. Being the cap expert means you can't rely on LC anymore. Show your strength...use your power. Clutch has the contacts. Go for it!! Toss the FAQ aside, and tell us what you think. WHY IS CD SO EXCITED ABOUT THE $4.4m, surely it is more than him just waking up one day and realizing the BYC and disgruntled star issues. There is more...it is a commodity...it breaths...it lives...it has warmth. Other teams must want it and call about it since freeing up cap space is unlikely. If so, I must say, those NBA lawyers pulled on over on the Union. What a freaking sneaky clause they made to ensure trades rule over free agency. Aelliott...help us! [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 11, 2000).]
Heypartner, I've been perusing the CBA and thought the same thing. However, the arbitrators' arbitrary rulings have tended to favor the players the past several times around. My hunch is that there was no real "meeting of the minds" with respect to that issue, and there will be some fuss over that clause before it's all said and done. If your interested in arbitration proceedings, see what you can find on the Web or whatever free legal research avenues you have regarding John Freerick (a professor at Fordham University School of Law in N.Y.C.; I may have misspelled his last name). At any rate, his is the NBA man of arbitration proceedings, and he tends to favor the players when it comes to interpretation of the CBA agreement. My guess is that he'll treat this clause the same way, since obviously it was created by the owners' association and the NBA and not the player's association (union). It terms of contract law, the doctrine of contra proferentum (ambiguity construed in favor of the non-drafting party) should tip the scales if the issue should arise in litigation. In any event, I can't see that clause as a "dark horse" come time this summer for wheeling and dealing. I think it's a Rocket's organization plus because of the pay you later reputation stemming from the signing of Barkley and Anderson (shoulda included Cato in there, but we f'd up, huh?). Oh well, these are just some stranger thoughts... P1st,s2nd ------------------ Wanna play in the clutchcity.net game? Got some ideas? E-mail me at philip_w_moore_jr@hotmail.com and I'll send a batch e-mail with details as they develop.
1. Åëåýèåñïò ðñáêôïñåßï [is] üìïñöïò [strapped] ìÝóá óôï êáéíïýñãéïò CBA 2. [Trading] êÜôù DOES Ü÷É äçìéïõñãþ óêïýöïs äéÜóôçìá (åêôüò åÜí åóý åßóáé Þäç êÜôù), äéüôé áõôü äçìéïõñãþ Ýíás Åìðüñéï Åîáßñåóç (ï ïðïßïò ìåôñþ åíáíôßïí [the] óêïýöïs ìÝ÷ñé åîÝðíåõóá)3. Åëåýèåñïò óêïýöïs äéÜóôçìá [is] ìüíï äéáèÝóéìïò äéáìÝóïõ [renouncing], Þ [retiring] Ýíás ðáß÷ôçò/óõìâüëáéï4. [What] [is] [the] áðïôÝëåóìá ôïõ õðïãñÜöù-[n]-åìðüñéï ãéá Ýíás ÃåìÜôïò Ðïõëß åíáíôßïí [the] [trading] [team's] óêïýöïs ([ala] [Pippen]). Ýêáíá [Chi] áðïêôþ Ýíás [trading] åîáßñåóç (ï ïðïßïò áõôïß áò åêðíÝù) Þ Üìåóïò óêïýöïs äéÜóôçìá óå åìðüñéï þñá, ï ïðïßïò áõôïß [didn't] ÷ñÞóç ôåëåõôáßïs êáëïêáßñé??? ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
Clutch, Thanks for the props, I guess everybody does get a few minutes of fame. heypartner, 2. Trading down DOES NOT create cap space (unless you are already under), because it creates a Trade Exception (which counts against the cap until expired) I've never heard anything about the trade exception counting against the cap. Did you read that somewhere? 3. Freeing cap space is only available through renouncing, or retiring a player/contract That depends on the correct answer to your previous question. Since I didn't think that the exception counted against the cap, then I assumed anytime you take back less salary than you give up, you're freeing up cap space. 4. What is the effect of sign-n-trade for a Full Bird against the trading team's cap (ala Pippen). Did Chi get a trading exception (which they let expire) or immediate cap space at trade time, which they didn't use last summer??? A player's Bird status shouldn't affect the team's cap any differently than any other player. Chicago was something like $18M under the cap before the Pippen deal, so even after signing Pippen they would have been under the cap and not eligible for the trade exception. ------------------
Aelliott, Props again... thx for answering. Your probing always helps me clarify my creative interpretations. The main question I want input on is: Why does CD like the exception so much more than he thought he would? Surely, he knew the BYC implications of it with the rest of us. I tend to think he likes it because other teams want it for the freedom it provides. I'm not really saying it does magically things no one has mentioned before. I'm just pointing out that the new CBA made getting under the cap difficult (partly due to the Trade Exception), so that leaves this new exception as something other teams want it, nearly as much as cap space. If this is true, I'm taking a leap of logic to contend that it should raise the attractiveness of trading with the Rockets. #13 about computing total team salaries: "The amount of any unused exceptions available to the team (see question number 16)". No further elaboration. Usually when LC says something so simple and straightforward, it tends to cover everything. About the Pippen deal, I'm not trying to be historically accurate here. Let me rephrase: In a sign-n-trade, does the trading team (over the cap) get a Trading Exception. You're right, if they are under the cap, it frees cap space. So, the way I see it, you can only free cap space by: 1. Renouncing 2. Trading away salary when you are ALREADY under the cap, or 2. Expire/retire contracts Since, trading down is a trade exception unless already under the cap. And even if you get under the cap in later manuevers, the exception still counts against the cap. P1P2 ,,,cool thx for the lead. I mean to say if the Trade Exception is new (which I assume being that CD is just now figuring out the beauty of it), then it hurts the ability for teams to get under the Cap. It collects "trade downs" into trade-only exceptions. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 11, 2000).]
aelliott, Give me your interpretation of #13. Seems pretty cut and dry that all unused exception count as salary.
Man, you guys are starting to confuse me. Help me calrify this. aelliot, you said that CD liked the Trade Credit because Maybe just because it gives you alot more flexibility to do deals (i.e take on more salary, BYC players, etc...). In previous threads heypartner had talked about the trade credit (exception, whatever it is called) being a tradable commodity and it passes on from one team to another. How then does it help with flexibility in trading for BYC players etc.? Say San Antonio wants to do a sign & trade of Duncan to Houston, and he has just signed a $9mil Bird contract, making him BYC. The CBA says that his trade value is only $4.5 mil. The rockets Package Walt Williams and the $4 mil trade credit to make the salaries equal and complete the trade. However if the Trade credit survives and is passed to San Antonio, then they have in essence received more than $4.5mil in exchange for Duncan. This is the reason I think that the Trade Credit is NOT transferable. ------------------ http://rocketdavo.tripod.com
Perhaps I'm just jealous, but I think I pointed out Cato BYC status first. Aelliott, tell me if that's not so. ------------------
Davo, You have reverted back to the original argument of months ago where aelliott said the trade exception of $4.4m was impossible based on BYC calculation. Don't confuse BYC rules of salary matching in trades with the definition of a trade exception. "BYC defines the salary that's used to compare players for compliance under the 15% rule." It has nothing to do with defining whether actual salaries used in cap measurements went up or down. The trade exception is a simple calculation of actual salaries received versus given up. In your scenarios, SA gave up $9 and received $4. That is a reduction of $5m in salary, thus a $5m trade exception. Also, clearly, in trades involving non-BYC players, salary values used in the 15% rule are indeed the actual salary. Gaps outside of 15% ALWAYS require trade exceptions and result in trades exceptions (if the team going down is above the cap). ugh...I think I'm going to have to give up now. LC won't even clarify this for us. He has passed on it, or is in discussion with his other "experts". I'm beginning to think no one knows the answer and no one is willing to commit an interpretation unless they see it spelled out in black and white first. I'll let you know if LC ever gets an answer. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 11, 2000).] [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 11, 2000).]
Could someone please post a translation of this thread into English? Thank you. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
heypartner, I'd have to agree with your take on rule #13. It seems pretty straight forward. JV, Yes, I do believe that you were the first to point out Cato's BYC status. ------------------
Heypartner, ok, I understand what you're asking now, but it still hinges on whether or not the trade exception counts against the cap. If it does, then your statement is correct. As for why Dawson likes the trade exception so much, I can't say. Maybe just because it gives you alot more flexibility to do deals (i.e take on more salary, BYC players, etc...). The only thing that I'd question about the idea of the trade exception being so attractive to teams is, if that's true, then why has it been almost a year and Houston and Indy are still setting on their exceptions? Maybe they're just holding out for the right deal, I don't know. ------------------ [This message has been edited by aelliott (edited May 11, 2000).]
I would think the trade exception would NOT count as an exception as defined in #13. As Partner already alluded to, it is trade-only. All the other exceptions are sign-only. My guess is Coon was probably loose in his language and he was referring to exceptions used to sign free-agents only. Though I do see why it would be reasonable to include both. ------------------
Coon is usually not loose like that. There is an entire newsgroup that contributes to concise wording of the FAQ. Notice how he refers to the entire exceptions area. The reason it would count against the cap is, otherwise, you are double dipping. You get a trade exception and cap room whenever you trade down! NOTE: if double dipping is allowed, that only INCREASES THE VALUE of the trade exception even more!!! Trading down with the Rockets then would give you a trade exception AND less salary against the cap!! You can not get away from my contention that this thing has commodity VALUE. It attracts teams to make trades with the Rockets, above and beyond the value of the players/picks involved. Who is ready to come over to the dark side of predicting Coon will add a new FAQ to address this? [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 12, 2000).]
