Gater, I don't think so, after further review, I believe that Feigen is correct. The technicallity that we originally missed is this: - any trade that leaves a team over the cap, requires and exception. So, even if you give up equal salary or taking back less salary, if after the trade, you are over the cap then you have to use an exception ( namely the assigned player exception ). That exception just allows a team over the cap to trade a player as long as the amount of salary they take back is within 115% + $100K of what they sent out. - The problem is that the trade exception can't be combined with any other exception. So, based on the fact that any trade that leaves you over the cap, requires an exception, then you can't also use the trade exception in that deal. See the following example that Coon's gives: "For example, while a $2 million player can be traded for a $2.4 million player using the assigned player exception, a team with a $1 million trade exception cannot combine the two together and trade their $2 million player for a $3.4 million player" - Techincally, there isn't such a thing as a trade exception. In the CBA it's refered to as a non-simultaneous trade. So, what you are really doing is using the trade exception to complete the previous trade. Now, in reality you can do deals that involve other players, but you have to be able to break the trade into two parts: one that completes a previous trade and another that works under the assigned player exception. Coon sites a couple of examples of these type of deals: "Here is a more complicated example of a legal trade using the traded player exception: A team has a $4 million trade exception from an earlier trade, and a $10 million player it currently wants to trade. Another team has three players making $4 million, $5 million and $6 million, and the two teams want to do a three-for-one trade with these players. This is legal -- the $5 million and $6 million players together make less than the 115% plus $100,000 allowed for the $10 million player ($11,600,000), and the $4 million player exactly fits within the $4 million trade exception. So the $4 million player actually completes the previous trade, leaving the two teams trading a $10 million player for a $5 million and a $6 million player". "Let's say a team trades a $6 million player for a $4 million player and a minimum-salary player (assume he's a 10-year veteran making $1 million). They will use two exceptions for this trade -- the assigned player exception for the $4 million player, and the minimum-salary exception for the minimum-salary player. Only the players traded using the assigned player exception count toward the traded player exception, so a traded player exception will be created for $6 million minus $4 million, or $2 million (plus $100,000, for $2.1 million total). The minimum-salary player doesn't factor in at all". So, bottom line is that in order to do a deal with the trade exception, one portion of the deal has to be worth around $7M. For example if Portland wanted to dump Rasheed Wallace and reduce salary , then the following would be true: - Assuming that Wallace made $16M and Moochie makes $4.5M and Griffin makes $3M, we couldn't package Moochie and Griffin in a deal for Wallace because that would require the use of two exceptions. - The Rockets could agree to do the following two trades to accomplish getting Wallace to Houston and Porland cutting $7M off the payroll. Portland could trade us Derek Anderson ($7M) for a 2nd round pick. This would be covered by the traded player exception and would complete the non-simultaneus Glen Rice trade. We could then turn around and do a Rasheed Wallace ($16M) to Houston for some combination of salaries between $13.6M and $18.4M. This 2nd deal works under the assigned player exception. The net result of the two deals is the Rockets would acquire Wallace and Portland dumps $7M in salary and gets some players in return (feel free to make up your own combination of player to send to Portland). So, as I said, technically Feigan is correct, but you can still acomplish much the same thing, it's just that it will probably be a multiple deal arrangement and be a little larger. I realize that this is a confusing answer, but it's the best I could come up with, sorry.
Note: in the previous example where I said: "Assuming that Wallace made $16M and Moochie makes $4.5M and Griffin makes $3M, we couldn't package Moochie and Griffin in a deal for Wallace because that would require the use of two exceptions" Instead of using Moochie and Griffin, whose combined salaries are around $7.5M, I should have used a group of players who's salaries added up to around $9M. Also, note that in no way am I implying that we are trying to or should try to acquire Rasheed Wallace or that Portland would ever entertain the notion of doing this deal. It's simply an example to demonstrate what is legal under the CBA and what is not legal.
aelliot, I was under the impression that to use the trade exception, we didn't necessarily have to use the full amount of ~$7 million. For instance, we trade Cuttino (roughly $5.3 million) to Toronto for Alvin Williams (roughly $5.4 million) and a 1st rounder for Mo Pete (say $1.6 million). Could we break up the exception and use $1.6 million in trade to take on Mo Pete's salary?
Yes, absolutely. The above example was only intended to show that you can't use all or part of the trade exception along with one of our players in the same deal. It's slightly more limiting, but still very useful. You could easily change the reference in the above exampe from Wallace to Peterson and then adjust the rest of the number down to whatever figure that you need to make the deal work. The completing of a previous non-simultaneous deal could just as easily be made up of two or more smaller parts.
If EG is convinced, or has been advised, that he can skate through this year and get big bucks next season then sign him for the fourth year. He would get the message that he does not get to act like a fourteen year old and get away with it. Also any team trading for him this year would have to be very convinced that they want to commit to him for two years. If we get nothing for him this year, oh well. For $2.8 mill, some one will take a flyer on him next summer. Who knows' maybe he grows up in the meantime and we get to see what he's really got.
This is where the Rox will have him by the short-and-curlies, because they can name their price. Either he can A. get somewhat decent money from the Rox or B. take even less in the new NBA economy of free agency. They will re-sign him because they can do it cheaply. These incidents show how stupid EG really is, because if he wasn't misbehaving, he'd have a shot to get a more lucrative extension.
1. true but big deal, it's not that much money relatively, and it's not like there's some 2 million dollar player out there that's going to make a big diffence. 2. Most (all) teams would be totally stupid to trade for him now; he has no value. A player who wasn't good when he was playing, and now doesn't want to play, has no value. 3. Losing people in the expansion draft is not going to be a problem for this team. You think protecting Moochie or Taylor or Cato or Amaechi or mike wilks is worth extending Eddie? We have no shortage of cap cancers to expose already. 4. Yes, but again, who cares. Nobody wants him, not even us. We mad the mistake and should just minimize it. I say minimize the damage to the team, suck up the salary hit, and cut your losses now. The only question to me is whether eddie is going to be a 3 year distraction/problem or a 4 year one. That's a no brainer IMO.
aelliott - *Please read all of the following post with use of the TE as an indepedent and singular action, thanks!* Do we agree on this - an over the cap team can use: 1) The assigned player exception independently and singularly. 2) The assigned player ex. combined with the Trade Exeception (your Wallace and Moochie trade which I will re-emphasize was hypothetical). 3) The trade exception independently and singularly. Can we agree on this much? The reason being - I want to focus on #3 which Coon also sites an example of - the trade for the future draft pick (no value) for a player. My point was/is... 1) If the Rockets can use the TE independently and singularly(Coon's draft pick example)... and 2) The Rockets are issued a "credit" (Coon's wording) for the non-simultaneous trade... 3) And the Rockets can take on salary when no player is involved... then.. where/how does it follow that the Rockets can not take on salary (exclusive of the assigned player exception) in a 1 player for 1 player deal? IMHO, Coon is not specific in prohibiting this action. He neither states that it can't be done nor sites an example where it can. I feel that his vagueness on the TE (independent/singular) leaves it in a gray area.
Every thread can be a trade thread Some interesting options are in the $6-8 M range (7m +/- 15%) (FWIW, All salaries found on some personal geocities website which listed player salary by year. All salaries in Millions of Dollars.) : ATL - N. Mohammed 5.0 + D. Glover 2.27 CHI - D. Marshall 4.54 + C. Blount 1.6 CLE - D. Miles 4.13 + C. Mihm 2.8 DAL - Bradley 3.5 + Najera 3.4 DEN - Camby 7.25 DET - Rebracca 4.2 + H. Davis 2.89 IND - R. Artest 5.2 + J. Tinsley 0.86 MEM - S. Swift 4.59 + S. Battier 2.53 PHI - E. Snow 4.5 (or M. Jackson 3.9) + G. Buckner 2.64 POR - B. Wells 7.0 or D. Anderson 7.79 NO - PJ Brown 8.0 TOR - J. Williams 5.4 + M. Peterson 1.64 WAS - L. Hughes 5.0 + B. Haywood 1.12
Just because the arithmetic works doesn't mean the logic works. Moochie or Amaechi + Griffin doesn't get any of the players you mentioned unless we use drugs and/or alcohol on their GM's.
OHHH we better extend his contract after all we gave up for him (3 picks) were gona let his underachiving a$$ go away jsut like that, nooo wayyy we gota milk him for all hes worth & hopfully ship him off to tha grizzlies cuz thats wat he deservies !!
It's good to have resident cappologists on this board to clarify this kind of stuff. Many thanks, Gater and aelliott. Now where is NIKE. (And has HP disappeared for good?)
Larry Coon adresses this in Q 71. This is not allowed, though there is a workaround. Eddie could be traded for a draft pick, giving the Rockets another trade credit (this term makes more sense when you think of it as finishing a trade rather than a separate trade). The two credits could then be combined to take on a single larger contract ($9.3 million, or whatever the number is), or any combination of contracts up to that total. The workaround comes in that both trades can occur at the same time. So while technically what Feigen said is true, in practice, it is possible to combine Eddies' salary with the credit from the Rice/Amaechi trade. At least, I think that's right. Dwight
Gater, I'm not exactly sure that I'm following what you are saying. I'll take a shot at a reply and then you let me know if I'm missing your point. I'm not clear on your meaning on point #2 above. When you say "The assigned player ex. combined with the Trade Exeception ", which of the following do you mean: a) The trade exception is just completing a previous trade which used the assigned player exception. b) You can use the assigned player exception in the 2nd trade (the one where you actually use the exception). item a) is correct and item b) is incorrect. The traded player exception is actually a component of the assigned player exception (see http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#66). So , if you make a trade that gets you an exception (i.e. the Glen Rice trade), the by definition that trade had to use the assigned player exception. Once you make that deal, then you've got a traded player exception that you can use in a subsequent deal. Using the traded player exception will complete the original (Glen Rice) deal, so you've effectively already used the assigned player exception. That means that the deal that you do which uses the exception (such as the Wallace example) cannot also use the assigned player exception. Coon states this pretty clearly "teams cannot combine this exception with the 115% plus $100,000 margin from the assigned player exception in order to trade for a more expensive player. " http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#68 Now, the other relavant issue is that if you are over the cap, then ANY deal that you do requires the assigned player exception. (see http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#68) So, to use the exception you can't combine it with any other player to acquire a salary greater than the exception. You have to get creative and break the deal into two parts. One of the parts must complete the previous non-simultaneous trade and the other trade must work under the assigned player exception. Does that answer your quesition or am I still missing it?
The wording regarding this is very funny, but from the Coon FAQ, here's something I found of interest from #68- "In a non-simultaneous trade, a team can only acquire up to 100% plus $100,000 of the salary it gives up (as opposed to 115% plus $100,000 in a simultaneous trade). A trade in which more than one player is traded away can only be simultaneous; non-simultaneous trades are allowed only when a single player is traded away." My understanding of the situation is that we can combine Eddie and the exception- we just can't take back the +15% on top of Eddie and the exception. Think about it this way- as a non simultaneous trade, put it in terms of us trading Rice (Utah) and Griffin (Team X) for Amaechi and Player X that makes about 8 mill or so. If that was the case, a team over the cap couldn't use the trade exception+a pick for a player. I just don't think adding a player to the exception would cause the assigned player exception to automatically kick in- I take it to mean we just can't take back in more salary than we're dishing out, ie we can't reap the benefits of being able to accept 115% of our salary again.
Amen and thanks from here as well. I wanted to repeat something... And has HP disappeared for good? Heypartner, you out there??
aelliott - * Points 1 & 3 * I'm not sure what is the confusion. My points 1 and 3 were to demonstrate that the assigned player exception (hereafter = APE) and the TE can be used independently and to obtain a single player (Coon's future pick for a player being exemplary of #3). Please tell me we agree on this!!! * Point 2 * My point number 2 stated that the assigned player exception and the trade exception can be combined. In retrospect, "combined" was a bad choice of wordage. What I should have said was "used in the same trade under certain conditions". This is what Coon is addressing in his point 71: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#71 "What is not allowed is using two different exceptions for the same player. For example, a team cannot combine a traded player exception with the 115% plus $100,000 margin created by the assigned player exception to acquire a high-salaried player." How I read this - the Rockets can use the APE to make a trade for Griffin and then use the TE for another (different) player up to $7m in the same trade. In effect, the Rockets have used both the APE and the TE in a single trade just not for a single player. This is/was what I was saying in #2 and I don't believe we will disagree on this point. Correct? * Point 3 extended * Now, to re-establish agreement. The Rockets can ship a future pick for a player up to $7m. This example exists in Coon. What has been my point from the very first time I posted in the thread. Only using the TE uncombined for a single player in return for Eddie Griffin... Coon is not specific in prohibiting this action. He neither states that it can't be done nor sites an example where it can. I feel that his vagueness on the TE (independent/singular) leaves it in a gray area. * Simultaneous re-visited * Rice @ $9.5 + Griffin @ $2.9m = $12.4 Amaechi & $2.5m + Player X @ $9.4m = $12.4m (No exceptions created nor used). If I can trade Eddie Griffin in the above simultaneous trade, why am I not allowed to trade him for Player X in a later non-simultaneous trade? Again, I see nothing in Coon saying this is directly prohibited. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well first, a business is strictly about being professinal and responsible for your actions. And Eddie is not displaying reasons for having his option picked up. The kid is so stung out on dope that he cant even see the green on the table ( as in the money) and furthermore giving us every reason to throw him out on the curb like a bad couch. He will potentially leaving millions on the table because he would have been resigned after the season, but things are not looking so good for his future because he said, " I really dont know if I want to play anymore" _______________________ " I just have a lot of things going on in my life and I dont think basketball is any of them right now"--Eddie Griffin (starting foward for the Houston Rockets)
It's not a matter of adding a player to a deal causing the assigned player exception to automatically kick in. If a after the completion, a team is over the cap, then they have to use the assigned player exception. Here's a Coon quote: " Any trade which results in the team ending up over the salary cap requires an exception. This is true even if the team is moving downward in salary. For example, if the salary cap is $42.5 million, a team has a team salary of $50 million, and they want to trade a $5 million player for a $4 million player, they still have to use an exception, Even though their team salary would be decreasing by $1 million, the fact that they would still be over the salary cap ($49 million) means that an exception is required" http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#67
