Alright, well I've got to go reword a Jonathan Feigen blog post and then put my name on it. Y'all take it easy.
Uh...yes, it WAS in the prior CBAs. From Larry Coon's FAQs to the 2005 CBA: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap05.htm#Q32 From Larry Coon's FAQs to the 1999 CBA: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap99.htm#29 Also, BeeBeard, I wasn't trying to make you "look like an idiot" with my response; and I don't appreciate the rude tone of your response. I hope we can go back to being civil.
Oh no, I encourage this effort to reinvent yourself as a Coon FAQ student. By all means. May I ask you, Coon FAQ student, if you don't think it's at least a little incongruous to post text from the 99' CBA that says "it closes a loophole," only to see 6 years later the same text along with an example of the exact loophole not being closed after all? You've unearthed the problem with reading the Cliffs Notes as opposed to the actual document. That doesn't seem the least bit suspicious to you, does't raise any alarm bells, as you happily copy/paste text? You don't think there was a disparity in the language of the actual document that tried to close the loophole vs. definitely closed it in the span of those CBAs? Of course there was, or else why would the same exact shady FA strategy (that I mistakenly thought was still in play) still be alive and kicking until it (we can only assume finally) was stamped out with the new revision? In a way, I'm encouraged, because I specifically recall teams circumventing the spirit of the older CBAs with this kind of trickery, and to know that this was still going on as late as 2005 makes me feel less old.
BeeBeard, I hope you realize that these explanations are each talking about the SAME LOOPHOLE that was CLOSED two or three CBAs ago with the creation of "cap holds" for teams' free agents. The fact that the FAQs are all talking about the same loophole doesn't mean that it was never closed. It's there to explain the REASON for which cap holds were created . . . two or three CBAs ago. Also, did I do something to you to make you want to compose your posts in such a rude and accusatory tone? I honestly have never had a beef with you and am not aware of any time I have knowingly been rude or snarky to you. (If I have, then I apologize.) But short of this, I just don't get why you're being so rude. I'm asking you nicely to please raise the level of discourse to a more civil one. Thank you in advance.
@BimaThug Basically Mr. Weiner what I'm saying is that since the extent of your scholarship on this subject is to compare revisions in a FAQ on the CBA that we all have access to, as opposed to actually comparing the language of the CBAs themselves, then you might want to give more latitude than you currently are when it comes to busting balls over the contents of those documents. Cheerfully and respectfully, that's the point. Since in every instance you are only relying upon a description of the documents--a FAQ--and not the documents themselves. Our publisher uses incredibly overpriced and overlicensed Adobe software to quickly compare PDF documents and mark up differences between one and the other, but that seems like it would be a good start, since there is a lot of boilerplate in these things. (Thus the usefulness of the FAQ!) It sounds like a good starting point. What seems implied by Coon is that there was an attempt in 1999 to crack down on this practice of deliberately circumventing the CBA in this fashion, and whatever it was, it wasn't enough, because teams were still doing it per his 2005 example. It may have necessitated a rewrite or some clarifying language in the new document itself. If you had journalistic bonafides, that might be a rich topic to research, and of course I am legitimately interested myself--the sneaky ways teams try to get around the language are always the most fascinating to me.
Rather have Gortat for backup 5 help!!!! Apparently Suns is determined to trade Gortat http://www.rantsports.com/nba/2013/02/09/nba-rumors-phoenix-suns-determined-to-trade-marcin-gortat/
I would trade Marcus Morris for Gortat in a second. The Suns get to reunite the twins. We get our badly needed big for a playoff push.
@BimaThug You also might want to be aware of the disparity between what you're saying to me and to others and what the old FAQ you are quoting even says. "It doesn't close this loophole completely" vs. your arguing with me that the loophole was closed. I have this vivid memory of the loophole not being closed, but you're really going to tell me that it was, even when Larry Coon, the FAQGod, says right there in the text that you quoted that it wasn't? That sure reads like there had been a mere attempt to close or restrict the loophole, and that it didn't take? It may be helpful to adopt a new posture here: That I was wrong for thinking that teams could still do this, because that hasn't been the case for about half a decade, and that you were wrong for telling me that they couldn't half a decade ago. Because obviously they could. *shrug* That's the way I see it.
Question- Wouldn't the new(er) CBA have to have the same closing of the loophole, to prevent the loophole from being taken advantage of? Because if you didn't put the same closing of the loophole in the CBA, then it wouldn't really be a rule that franchises have to follow?
This is what I suggested earlier and I didn't know if it would be possible or not. If it is possible then would the Rockets pretty much have to acquire Josh Smith before the deadline? I think it definitely is a contending team should Dwight Howard play healthy. Josh Smith is not going to really clog the paint for Dwight or Harden, he'll take his silly shots but we won't have to rely on him night in and night out. I think the chemistry with those two plus Lin could make for a very interesting and fun team.
Absolutely. But what they've most likely done is change the text of the CBA itself to close it better than they did. The implied progression probably goes something like try to close a loophole --> oops not really turns out it's partially closed --> okay now we've closed it for realsies. There. And that's over the span of decades. Just a few words substituted and changed around can mean all the difference in those situations.
I appreciate your new posture. I will take as much blame as you want to give me if I said anything that was incorrect. Other posters know that I own my mistakes (go ask CH, HMMMHMM, etc.). But if you look at what Larry Coon describes as the failure to close the loophole completely, he is not saying anything other than what I was saying: that the CONCEPT OF CAP HOLDS has been around for the past two or three CBAs. Larry Coon's example of the "loophole not being completely closed" is that a player who VASTLY outplays even his cap hold amount can get kept around during an offseason, allowing the team to first use its cap room (OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF THAT PLAYER'S CAP HOLD) and then later re-sign the player. This will almost certainly be the case for the Rockets if they somehow have cap room in 2015 and still have Chandler Parsons (and his very tiny cap hold) on the roster. This entire exchange between the two of us was over your statement that cap holds were a new concept in the 2011 CBA. They were not. They've been around for a long time. And while teams can still take advantage of cap rules in situations with players having small cap holds (a fairly uncommon occurrence, by the way), it does not change the far more common example of situations for players like Josh Smith, Paul Millsap or any other soon-to-be-free-agent the Rockets would be looking to add and who might also be that second or third star for this team. I hope this explains both my position and the issue of the perceived loophole that remains. I find great comfort in knowing that we can both go back to being civil to one another. Thanks! Actually, the 2011 CBA in fact LOWERS the cap hold amounts of free agents, thereby increasing the number of opportunities that teams have to exploit the "perceived loophole." This was likely a "win" in negotiations by the player's union. Again, the CONCEPT of cap holds has not changed over the past 3 CBAs. And the remaining loophole of exploiting cap holds when the player's value far exceeds the amount of the cap hold has been around through all of those CBAs and will continue to be around under this CBA.
BimaThug is 100% in this case. He isn't 100% all the time, but he is here. People who are wrong need to admit it. Also, BimaThug was in no way being condescending. People who think he was are just being paranoid and insecure.
I would do it! Mainly because of his Defense, we can score with the best of them and a good Starting 4 is our biggest need IMO
Josh Smith has no trade value unless he is traded to a team he likes. If ATL is going to lose him to free agency, they've got to trade him and they're not going to get very much back for him. They want a Center so they can move Horford to the 4? They're probably dreaming about getting Det to send them one of their bigs. Won't happen. They're probably not going to be able to do better than Gortat. Not unless they like Greg Smith better than Gortat. If we trade for Smith, it should not take more than Greg Smith and possibly Marcus Morris along with one or both of the expirings.
Excellent point, Skyhoop! Meant to give you props earlier but got caught up in some drama. I agree, the remaining benefit of sign-and-trades--even in the examples of trading to teams without enough cap room--is fairly limited. The issue of causing a "hard cap" to be imposed would discourage most teams right near the tax threshold to begin with. It would need to be teams far enough under the tax threshold to pull off the S&T and still have enough room under the $74 million hard cap (or whatever the figure is that year) to make other moves. I believe the team CAN still use the Non-Taxpayer MLE and the Bi-Annual Exception, because the team has committed to being a "non-taxpayer" when it makes the S&T deal. Hence, the hard cap. Regardless, you are right to point this out. Very limited benefit remaining to S&T deals. Some benefit, but not much.
Bro, you reposted this garbage after Clutch locked your thread? I mean, come on bro. It's bleacher report. And if that's not bad enough it uses two hoopsworld sources and Chris Broussard. I feel like someone took a wiz on my new shoes.
