Yeah, but that doesn't change my point. The Rockets WOULD configure the trade in the manner that works best for them. Unfortunately, that's the best way it would work out for them. Going back to the Martin-Landry trade, why didn't the Rockets choose to configure that part of the trade to have Landry and Dorsey BOTH be absorbed into SAC's cap room, generating one $3.9M trade exception? Nothing in Larry Coon's explanation rectifies this issue. Again, I'm pretty sure your hypothetical trade would not generate one large exception but rather would generate two mid-sized exceptions.
Here's a variation of the original proposal: Yao Patterson Hayes Jeffries $3 million for Dalembert Landry Whiteside We use the Ariza trade exception to get Landry and Whiteside in "trade one." Then we get a $17.7 trade exception for the simultaneous trade of Yao, "trade two." Sacramento gets the Yao insurance payment, but we partially offset that loss by getting under the luxury tax. Finally, Sacramento gets two ex-wildcats to babysit Cousins.
jefferson doesnt play.. dalembert would take chuck's minutes for the rest of the season(hes a true center and they're both FA's after this season so its not a commitment). Patterson doesnt play and were already devoloping a pf(j-hill) so why not work the toward a young true shotblocking center with crazy length... Landry would be nice to have back as well and thats not a commitment either cus he'll be a FA next season as well... Long-term, it's essentially Patterson for Whiteside + A starting center for the rest of the season.... I'll have to agree with you, but its close...
IDK why i called him Jefferson, lol. He's worth as much as a trade exception to us... he doesnt play and hes about to expire. The only thing he provides to a team(im assuming its not the knicks or a noncontender) is cap releif at the summer... Jeffries isnt worthless as a person, but if he broke his foot and were out the rest of the season, it would make no difference to someone watching the Rox and he'd still retain the same value of his contract.. he's pretty close to worthless in as an actual player.. sounds bad but its the truth.. As for pat v. hill.... Patt is more game ready now probably, but Hill's ceiling is just higher due to his size and versatility to play both the 4 and 5 spot. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but you kno what your losing when you trade pat, but you could trade hill and suddenly it clicks and hes averaging 15 and 9 for a team next season... Hill's potential is much higher...
...yeah, I misspelled it as well like a lemming. I just don't foresee any light bulbs going off in JHill's head.
Agreed... replace Patterson with Hill, and replace Hayes with anyone else on the roster not named Lowry, Martin, or Scola. I think Hayes is heart and soul of our team. You can't take the fight out of that dog. I don't care if he's getting spot minutes, backing up a 4 or a 5, or starting but dude needs to get burn... if for no other reason than to show the young players that the only way you get on the floor and stay there is through effort, determination, and practice. I'm on the Chuckwagon bandwagon.
with the increasing probability that trade exceptions will no longer exist in the new cba, the chances of us trading yao are fading.
the ownership proposal granted -- it won't be approved; but i would not be willing to take on $5-7M of contracts in order to generate an exception that has a significant chance of being nullified.
Think about it logically. How are they going to go from having TPEs to not having them. How are they going to go from not having a hard salary cap to having a hard salary cap? There's no practical way to do it except over time, to slowly phase down into a hard cap with no TPEs. The current TPEs have to expire or work out and the current contracts have to expire. Going forward they are locked down year over year until they have the hard cap in place. And this only happens if they can actually get the players to agree to make the concesssions. They can't take current contracts and throw some of them in the garbage discrimenantly until every team is under the hard cap in one offseason. That is not realistic. Neither is it realistic that a team with a TPE left over from this CBA has to forfeit that TPE in the new CBA. It's just not realistic. In my opinion, a TPE will become more valuable after the new CBA when TPEs are no longer issued on new trades going forward because of the few limited opportunties left for teams to execute an unbalanced trade and dump salary.
you might well be correct, however i think this is going to get ugly and that we are going to lose a portion (if not all) of the season. i would not be surprised to see te's disallowed but still keep some sort of soft cap with hard cap line to keep the ny's a lal's from getting too far out of competitive balance. i would not hesitate to get a TE from a battier if i don't take back money (hypothetical -- not a realistic situation). but i would be very hesitant to take on a significant amount of $ if there is even a moderate possibility that the te generated will be nullified. it all boils down to risk tolerance and I myself am somewhat risk averse.
What risk, though? If the Rockets could trade Yao's contract to Sacramento or Minnesota and only have to take back an expiring contract, what have you really risked? A few million dollars of Les Alexander's money? Yao's Bird rights? The former is a non-issue, since Les will be the one making the decision in the first place. The latter could prove burdensome if the new CBA completely does away with any sort of MLE-type salary cap exceptions, making it very difficult for the Rockets to offer Yao more than the minimum (if they opt to have a huge TPE) or otherwise having to use some of their precious cap space on Yao (if they opt for cap space). To reiterate jopatmc's earlier point, a Traded Player Exception is technically a "place-holder" to complete a non-simultaneous trade. The actual trade won't be complete until the entire TPE is used or expires. For the league to strip teams of EXISTING trade exceptions under the new CBA would amount to the partial cancellation of a trade that has already happened. Teams like Cleveland, Toronto and Phoenix made deals, in large part, to get those large TPEs. How is it fair that Utah (another team that got a huge TPE around the same time as those other teams) gets to cash their TPE in for Al Jefferson, but the other teams don't get to use theirs? Bottom line: Even if TPEs are disallowed under the new CBA, it is highly doubtful that such rule will apply to those TPEs in existence on July 1, 2011. And even in the unlikely event that existing TPEs are revoked, I don't think the Rockets would be risking THAT much in any conceivable "Yao-for-TPE" type of deal that Les and Morey would be willing to make.
If it is for an expiring, i agree. my mind is scrambled i must have missed out on that part. i was thinking the theory was assuming a contract with some length left.
