[/B][/QUOTE] Ok Gater, Now I see where you were going. A couple of points: 1) As far as your point: ""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" I disagree. An assigned player exception is used once for a trade, not once for each player in the deal. If you use the assigned player exception, then it covers every player in the deal. I think the point where we are differing is how you can actually complete the deal. I'm saying that in the non-simultaneous Glen Rice trade, the Rockets took back less money. They then have up to a year to take back salary to complete that trade. What I don't believe they can do is to introduce additional salary on the other side of the deal (i.e. throw in Eddie). To me, everything in the deal is locked except what the Rockets got in return. So, in order to complete the deal , the Rockets can basically trade a draft pick for up to $7.1M in player salaries. They can then do a subsequent deal to acquire players from that same team, but that deal must be able to stand on it's own (i.e. be legal under the assigned player exception). Does that make sense? You can't include Eddie Griffin in the "completion of the Glen Rice trade". For that piece, all we can do is take back salary. Realistically, in most cases, you can make any deal work if both teams are willing to throw in other players and break the transaction up into two deals. The only time that you get in trouble is if the other team doesn't want to take on additional contract. Such an example would be the Knicks who already have 16 guarenteed contracts.
Gater, I went back and reread your earlier post and I think that I understand the point you were making. Are you asking if we can trade Griffin straight up for a player that makes up to $7.1M more than EG? If so, I believe that the answer is yes you can. A player like Rasheed Wallace, of course, makes more than $7.1 more than Eddie. In that case, what you can't do is include somebody like Mobley along with Eddie to trade for Wallace. That's because only $7M of the incoming salary goes to compete the Glen Rice deal and the remainder is viewed as a separate trade that must stand on it's own. Since the only salary coming back to Houston would be Wallace, you're not allowed to break his salary up across two deals. Is that what you were asking? If so, sorry for not getting it earlier.
aelliott - To be precise, I never stated that the APE could be used more than once in a trade. To repeat my intended thought, the Rockets can complete a trade in which Player A/Team A matches Griffin with +/- 15% + $100k (the APE). In this same simultaneous trade, Team A can also send the Rockets any combination of additional players not exceeding $7m (the TE). In effect, the Rockets have used the APE and the TE in the same trade. I can't foresee how we would be in disagreement on this as it is one of Coon's examples. Your "everything in the deal is locked" comment may be correct. And effectively that is what Feigen was saying regarding Griffin. And ultimately you may be correct. But can you see that there is nothing in Coon which specifically states that it is locked? That has consistently been my point. Now let me really confuse things... IMO the Rox could send Griffin to Team A (under the cap team). Team A could send a pick to Team B and Team B can send Houston any combination of players up to $7m. The reason it is possible is that the Griffin to Team A portion could be completed without the TE.
That is precisely what I was trying to express. Thank you for your diligence! Here is how we got to this point... Feigen states in his article that Griffin ($2.9m) can not be traded for a player making $7.9m in a one for one deal. Along the way, someone asked for our opinion and I stated that I could not find anything in Coon to support Feigen's comment. Do we agree that Feigen may be incorrect?
Gater, This seems to be one of the rare cases where the actual CBA verbage is clearer than Coon's FAQ. Take a look at Article VII, Section 6, item (h) from the CBA: (h) Assigned Player Exception. (1) Subject to the rules set forth in subsection (k) below, a Team may, for a period of one year following the date of the assignment of a Player Contract to another Team, replace the Traded Player with one or more players acquired by assignment as follows: (i) A Team may replace a Traded Player with one or more Replacement Players whose Player Contracts are acquired simultaneously and whose post-assignment Salaries for the then-current Salary Cap Year, in the aggregate, are no more than an amount equal to 115% of the pre-assignment Salary (or Base Year Compensation, if applicable) of the Traded Player, plus $100,000. (ii) If a Team’s assignment of a Traded Player and acquisition of one or more Replacement Players do not occur simultaneously, then the post-assignment Salary or aggregate Salaries of the Replacement Player(s) for the Salary Cap Year in which the Replacement Player(s) are acquired may not exceed 100% of the pre-assignment Salary (or Base Year Compensation, if applicable) of the Traded Player at the time the Traded Player’s Contract was assigned, plus $100,000. After reading this, it looks to me as it's pretty black and white. If it's a simultaneous deal, then you can take back up to 115% + $100K of the the value you sent out. If it's a non-simultaneous deal (i.e. a trade exception), then you can take back only 100% + $100K of the amount that you sent out. The only real difference is that you're only allowed to take back 100% + $100K of what you sent out, rather than 115% + 100K. The misleading thing in Coon's FAQ is that the actual reason for the deal being illegal is ambigous. The deal he sites as illegal, is not allowed because the team receives 115% + $100K back in a non-simultaneous deal. That point wasn't obvious (at least to me). The other interpretation was that the deal was not allowed simply because another player was involved. Maybe that's how Feigan interpreted it. Based on what I just posted from the CBA, I'd have to flip-flop my opinion and say that we can trade any combination of players for any other combination of players, as long as the additional salary that we take on is within $100K of the difference between Glen Rice's salary and Amiechi's salary. To answer your question, after reading the actual CBA text, I believe that Feigan was incorrect. I usually start with the CBA, but I got lazy on this one, sorry.
aelliott - We are now in 100% agreement. It appears that what the Rockets "lose" in the non-simultaneous transaction is a 15% salary variance (115% versus 100%). This IMO is a small price to pay for all of the flexibility which is gained. I will conclude by paraphrasing something you posted on the evening of the initial Rice trade when many posters were complaining that the picks were too much to give and that we didn't even use the previous trade exception.... The concept of a trade exception is brand new to the current CBA and the reason the Rockets mishandled the prior TE was inexperience. (I hope that's a fairly close paraphase). Like you, I really stoked by all of the possibilities which are going to open up to the Rockets. C'mon Griffin, get it together!
I read Coon, the CBA, and all related posts ... The above are the only things I think are right. The rest of the discussions are confusing, misleading or down right false. Bottom line: You CAN trade Griffin ($2.9m) for a player making $7.9m in a one for one deal using the $7 mil traded player exception.
Trade him, he is a destruction to our goal reaching a play-off or even more. I don't think he likes his role what JVG assign him, not much shooting 3's more on post up, I dont think he likes that, plus he is still a kid that don't really listen to, I bet you he still smoking pot. Get him outta here. We have some other very good player that are willing to sacrifice and play hard. Go Rockets!
Thanks for the excellent analysis and research, Gater and Aelliot. My guess is that a deal that uses most of our trade exception will not take place until next summer, if ever. If we do it now, we are back in luxury tax land, especially with the new contract for JJ. Les was unwilling to go there with Posey, so we got a cheaper player in Pike, instead. But if there is no luxury tax for the 2004-2005 season, then Les might be talked into open up the pocket books after July 1st, 2004. Of course, if there is no tax next year, then the trade exception loses some value. How far are we below the luxury tax threshold? This might be your answer on how much Les would be willing to spend of the trade exception prior to July 1st.
That was me. JBC- You don't know if there is a lux. tax or not until after the season. I don't expect the trade exception to "lose it's value". My feeling is we'll wait till the summer unless there's a deal too good to pass up.
Here is an interesting article, with the writer theorizing that there is a 70% chance there will be a luxury tax this year, but less than a 20% chance for one for the 2004-2005 season, and less than 5% for the following season: http://www.realgm.com/src_feature_article.php?articleid=12 I thought I saw somewhere else that Larry Coon also predicted no luxury tax for the 2004-2005 season. If this is true, then it is reasonable to assume that fewer teams will be as desperate to dump salary, and as such, the value of the trade exception will lessen. Of course, owners will always have incentive to move bad contracts.
Gater and Aelliot, Man... I haven't been this confused since the trapazoid offense discussion. For my own benefit, let me try to sum up all of your research and logic in one sentance. We are getting Rahedd Wallace for Moochie and Eddie. I can go with that.
Oooooppppss! Nike, Hopefully, you will take consolation on two levels... You stated something extremely noteworthy which could only be attributable to a knowledgeable member... and it won't happen again!
I told you all last year that I didnt like this kid. I think we should trade him now while we still have a chance. Has anyone noticed that we lost our first three preseason games? Has anyone else noticed that since Eddie has been absent we havent lost? Call it what you want, but I think its a sign. Lets trade him for a pure power forward, one who doesnt want to shoot 3's. One who wants to bang down low and just rebound. Id like to trade him for a draft pick next year and try to pick up James Thomas from Texas. He should go early to mid first round.
Have you also noticed that our wins came immediatley after VG jumped on the team for their lack of focus and passion.. but hey, why not blame it on Eddie, afterall, he isnt around to defend himself. Kick the man while he is down. Most fan's favorite game.
