Yes, Delfino would be nice to get back. Nice little expiring contract for a highly skilled baller that fits here real well. But we should be able to get him without invading the TPE. We have plenty of NG contracts for that.
Also, is it possible to pair a player to the TE in order to exceep the TE space? Ex: dmo/TE to philly for thad young. I know they dont acquire the TE jus curious if we can go above the TE slot when acquiring a player. Or if you cant do the above could you pull a 3teamer to go above the slot? Ex: 2nd/euro to denver for wilson chandler using the TE Than sending Wilson chandler to philly for thad young Thanks again.
I wonder if Michael Beasley is a better option for us at this point? Marion kind of replicates what we have with Ariza - great defender who can hit the 3. Marion can guard some PF's while Ariza can guard some SG's. Would it not be better - in terms of having options for line-ups - for us to get Beasley? By all accounts not a good defender, but can score at the 3 and 4. Certainly would be a go-to scorer on a bench. Spent a season in Miami where he got a good amount of praise for his improved attitude. I can see us running a line-up of Beasley at the 4 and Ariza at the 3. I can't see us doing that with Marion and Ariza because they are both only capable of hitting spot up 3's. Not to mention he may replace some of the offensive production lost with Parsons. Something worth looking at IMO. Given we've gone this long and he hasn't been offered a contract, I think I would rather sign Beasley for the minimum than Marion for more than the minimum. That would allow us to keep the remaining $4m of our MLE in case someone gets waived or a great prospect from Europe becomes available or we have an injury and need to address depth at a position. Then again, Marion brings that serious veteran locker room presence which we may desperately need this season. Plus he pairs up better with our backup 2 (Troy Daniels) than Beasley.
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q84 Similantious trades Non tax paying teams 150% if it falls between 0-9.8 mill Tax paying teams 125% + 100 Am I reading something wrong BBH
I'm jumping in here but I don't think the Lin TPE qualifies as a simulataneous trade so the 150% rule doesn't apply
I thought so aswell until I read the point about TPE in larry coons saying and I quote http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q83 However I read this which thought it was wasn't simultaneous again Again #83 Thus why I'm confused
Yes you are. http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q85 Spoiler In some cases, teams have up to one year to acquire the replacement player(s) to complete a trade. These trades are considered non-simultaneous. In a non-simultaneous trade, a team can acquire only up to 100% plus $100,000 of the outgoing salary1 (as opposed to a higher amount in a simultaneous trade). A trade in which salaries are aggregated (see question number 84) cannot be non-simultaneous. Here is an example of a non-simultaneous trade: a team trades away a $2 million player for a $1 million player. Sometime in the next year, they trade a draft pick (with zero trade value itself) for a $1.1 million player to complete the earlier trade. They ended up acquiring $2.1 million in salary for their $2 million player -- they just didn't do it all at once, or even necessarily with the same trading partner. In the above example, following the initial trade of the $2 million player for the $1 million player, it was like the team had a $1 million "credit" which was good for one year2, with which they could acquire salaries without having to send out salaries to match. As with simultaneous trades, teams are allowed to acquire an extra $100,000 -- so a $1 million credit can be used to acquire $1.1 million in salaries. This credit is often referred to as a Traded Player exception or a trade exception, but be aware that the CBA uses the name "Traded Player exception" to refer to the entire exception which allows teams to make trades above the salary cap (including both simultaneous and non-simultaneous trades). In this document "Traded Player exception" is used to refer to the exception, and "trade exception" is used to refer to the one-year credit. There are several common misconceptions about trade exceptions and non-simultaneous trades: Teams cannot use trade exceptions to sign free agents; they can be used only to acquire existing contracts from other teams. However, a team can acquire a free agent using a trade exception if he is signed by his prior team and traded in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 91). Trade exceptions are not traded from one team to another. Sometimes it appears like this is happening when one team uses a trade exception to acquire salary without sending salary away, and the other team gains a trade exception in the same process because they sent away salary without receiving salary in return. However, the trade exception the first team uses and the trade exception the second team gains are two distinct exceptions. Teams cannot combine trade exceptions with other exceptions (such as the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception or a taxpaying team's 125% plus $100,000 margin from another simultaneous trade) in order to trade for a more expensive player. For example, a taxpaying team with a $1 million trade exception cannot combine it with their $2 million player to trade for a $3 million player (see question number 88 for more information on combining exceptions). A common misconception is that players cannot be traded together in a non-simultaneous trade. This is not true -- players can be traded together as long as the deal can be constructed as separate, parallel trades in which the outgoing salaries are not aggregated. For example, trading two $10 million players for a $20 million player requires aggregation, and therefore must be simultaneous. But trading two $10 million players for a $12 million player can be accomplished without aggregation -- one of the $10 million players would be used to acquire the $12 million player in a simultaneous trade, and the other $10 million player would be traded for "nothing," in a non-simultaneous trade, gaining the team a $10 million trade exception. Here is a more complicated example of a legal non-simultaneous trade: Team A is a taxpaying team with a $4 million trade exception from a previous trade, and a $10 million player it currently wants to trade. Team B has three players making $4 million, $5 million and $7 million, and the two teams want to complete a three-for-one trade with these players. This trade is legal -- the $5 million and $7 million players together make less than the 125% plus $100,000 allowed for the $10 million player ($12.6 million), and the $4 million player fits within the $4 million trade exception. So the $4 million player actually completes the previous, non-simultaneous trade, so Team A is left trading its $10 million player for Team B's $5 million and $7 million players in a separate, simultaneous trade. From Team B's perspective there is also a simultaneous and a non-simultaneous trade -- it aggregates its $4 million and $5 million players to acquire Team A's $10 million player in a simultaneous trade, and it sends the $7 million player to Team A for "nothing" in a separate, non-simultaneous trade, thereby receiving a $7 million trade exception. Teams can consume only part of a trade exception, in which case they can still use the remainder in a future trade. For example, if a team trades a $4 million player for a $2 million player, they gain a $2 million trade exception. If they later trade a draft pick for a $1 million player, they still have $1 million left over to acquire more players and complete the earlier trade (until one year from the date of the original trade). Teams that are under the cap when initiating a trade cannot receive a trade exception, even if they end up over the cap as a result of the trade. Also see question number 26 for more information on the availability and use of this exception. 1 The salary used for trade is the same as the player's cap amount. For a minimum-salary player with more than two years in the league and playing on a one-year contract, the minimum salary for a two- year player is used. For players who were subject to the Gilbert Arenas provision (see question number 45), the cap amount for the trading team is used. 2 If the one-year anniversary of the trade falls on a weekend or holiday, the trade exception expires on the next business day.
I'm still confused but it's 5am aus time and I really should not be this awake. Thanks BBH but I'll read your post in the morning/afternoon/ when ever I wake up now
players i would like to see houston pickup for depth PG:Ramon sessions SG:Shannon Brown SF:Shawn Marion PF:we are set here imo C:Okafor
Agreed that we should get Beasley, been saying it for years. In my opinion he can provide great production off the bench.
Doesn't seem to fit the defensive toughness trend we are going for this offseason. Although he does fit the risk/reward types we have rolled the dice on in the past. Pure speculation here...but based on the personnel we have brought in this offseason...wouldn't this team be better suited for a defensive minded coach?
As i've tweeted several days ago, i won't mind giving Beasley a shot for the right price.. "@ShowMeTheMorey: Vet Minimum or BAE for Michael Beasley? @dmorey #Rockets 7/20/14 1:39pm" Also think we will be better defensively next season with the additions of Ariza, Dorsey, Smith, and Adrien. All we need now is a veteran with championship experience who would also be a good locker room presence to provide leadership and guide our young players especially come playoffs. Shawn Marion and/or Ray Allen fits the criteria.
Been tweeting Morey about this. LOL I know he might not even read my tweets to him but it's well worth the try. "@ShowMeTheMorey: @dmorey I like the low-key additions of Dorsey, Smith, & Adrien to our bench. Now lets add vets w/ championship exp in Marion and Allen." "@ShowMeTheMorey: @dmorey They would also provide some much-needed veteran locker room presence and leadership that will come in handy esp in the playoffs." "@ShowMeTheMorey: @dmorey I believe we will be better defensively next season. Even more so if we add an associate HC that will hold everyone accountable on D."
I haven't heard anyone's take on Michael Beasley . IMO he could be a low risk guy who potentially can be that stretch 4 we are looking for . Thoughts?
Beasley and Blatche are both in the same boat when it comes to this organization. This organization is all class and all about good attitudes. Neither guy fits. Both are talented but r****ded. Unfortunate. But I can't imagine Morey wanting anything to do with either one of them except on a non-guaranteed deal that we can just away from at any time.
