Ok, now I see what you are proposing, but I don't believe that it's legal. I don't think that you can break Houston's end of the deal into 3 pieces. My understanding is that it has to be 1 piece (completely simultaneous) or two pieces (1 non-simultaneous and 1 simultaneous).
No I don't believe that is legal. There is some verbage in the CBA that says that anything done to attempt to circumvent the intent of the CBA rules is prohibited. If I do two trades and end up trading a player and then immediately receive him back in the 2nd deal, then I would think that the NBA would not approve the trades.
If I'm understanding what some of you are proposing, you're suggesting: - Rockets use their TE in a deal with team x and team x receives a TE in the deal. - Team x, then turns around and does a second deal with the Rockets using the TE that they just acquired from the previous trade. I don't believe that is allowed. 1) I believe that it would be viewed as trying to circumvent the salary cap and would not be approved by the league. 2) There's a clause in the CBA which states the following: Section 6 - Exceptions to the Salary cap (h)Assigned Player Exception (1)(iii)...Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, no Player Contract acquired pursuant to an Exception may give rise to an aggregated trade exception for a period of two months from the date the Player Contract is acquired. The only thing that is unclear here is the use of the word "aggregated" in refering to the trade exception. I don't know if that covers only the case of aggregating TEs or if it covers all TEs. If it does cover all TEs, then that would mean that you don't actually get the TE until 2 months after the deal that generated the TE. That would pretty much prohibit the types of deals that are described in this thread. Interestingly, that clause is the only place in the CBA where the term "trade exception" is used.
And to put that to some current applicability- wouldn't that mean if we did generate this new exception, we could not use it in a potential deal for Mutumbo (per speculation) until the end of August? I was looking at ways of combining the Francis for nothing and the TE for Howard plus Lue, in an attempt to make it one non-simultaneous to go with one simultaneous. From the Rockets perspective, Francis at BYC for Howard works fine, but Lue gets in the way...
But Coon does say this: Teams can use different exceptions to acquire multiple players in the same trade if those players could also have been acquired individually using those exceptions. Is there any where that mentioned that it has to be 1 piece (completely simultaneous) or two pieces (1 non-simultaneous and 1 simultaneous). Also, from this : The exception to this rule is that teams may combine multiple traded player exceptions together to form one larger traded player exception if the traded player exceptions are generated and consummated in the same trade. If there is only 1 simultaneous trade allowed, how to generate more than one traded player exceptions in one trade.
The first sentence (the main sentence) in 6(h)(1)(iii) is about a simultaenous trade where one team is aggregating players for one or many Replacement players. 6(h)(1)(i) describes sim trades with 1 to many. 6(h)(1)(ii) describes non-sim trades with 1 to many. 6(h)(1)(iii) describes sim trades with many to many. Only (ii) can produce a TPE. sim trades can't. So, the reading of the last sentence in (iii) would be irrelevant, as it wouldn't be about "giving rise" to an exception. I think they just meant to say "aggregated APE" as in a guy in a 6(h)(1)(iii) trade cannot be used in a 6(h)(1)(iii) trade for 2 month. The use of the word "trade exception" is something that caught my eye, yesterday too. It is the only place in the CBA that uses it. Personally, I think it is just poorly written, as it's pretty cut and dry in the FAQ (1st paragraph FAQ #68) that sim trades can't produce TEs. imo, all they are trying to say is what they say at the end of 6(h)(3) following it, which is just simply the 2-month rule. <b>anyhow, back to the McGrady trade</b> Regarding whether you can make a TE and use it in a simultaneous manner, or whether you can write a complicated trade to be truly two trades, a sim APE with a non-sim part where the non-sim is consummated on the same day with the same team...that's just theoretical talk at this point. For the purposes of the McGrady/Francis trade, that wouldn't have helped even if allowed.
But Coon does say this: Teams can use different exceptions to acquire multiple players in the same trade if those players could also have been acquired individually using those exceptions. Is there any where that mentioned that it has to be 1 piece (completely simultaneous) or two pieces (1 non-simultaneous and 1 simultaneous). True, but remember that Coon's page is just a summary of what's in the CBA, it's not all inclusive. His quote about using different exceptions to acquire multiple players in the same trade is a reference to using the minimum salary exception for the non-simultaneous part of the deal and the APE for the similtaneous part of the deal. In fact, that's exactly what his example shows. No where does he show a single simultaneous part of any trade broken up into multiple deals. If you read the CBA or Coon's explanation, a non-simultaneous trade is not really an different than any other trade except for the fact that there's a non-simultaneous part in addition to the regular simultaneous part. Since nowhere in the CBA or Coon's FAQ does it say that you are allowed to break a simultaneous trade into multiple parts, yet still have it remain as a single atomic transaction to the other team, then I'd have to think that it's also not legal to do that in the simultaneous part of trade which uses the TE. Also, from this : The exception to this rule is that teams may combine multiple traded player exceptions together to form one larger traded player exception if the traded player exceptions are generated and consummated in the same trade. If there is only 1 simultaneous trade allowed, how to generate more than one traded player exceptions in one trade. I take that to mean to refer to a situation like this: 1) I have a $5M trade exception 2) I execute a trade with another team which breaks down like this: Non-Simultaneous: $4M player in and is covered by my TE. Simultaneous: $3M player out, nothing back. 3) So, the non-simultaneous part of my deal used $4M off my original $5M TE. I now have $1M remaining on that TE. The simultaneous part of the deal generated another TE of $3M. That rule says that I'm allowed to aggregate the old $1M TE along with the new $3M TE for a $4M TE. In other words, the only time that I can aggregate TEs is if I'm using part of one TE and also creating a new one in the same deal.
I believe you can also aggregate TPEs that are generated from 3-Team deals, where you make trades with both teams that create TPEs. Since the 3-Team deal is executed as one atomic trade, you can get multiple TPEs out of it that which where generated by the same trade.
I didn't read it the same way you did Aeliott. First off as for not using the aggregated trade exceptions for 2 months I took that to mean that you couldn't combine the new TE with an existing TE for 2 months but nothing would make me think that you could not use any newly acquired TE immediatley. The trade exception is exactly that an exception to the cap rule, which allows teams over the cap to take back salary equal to what they traded out. If they are already over the cap then they are still allowed to stay at the level over the cap . I don't see it as circumventing the cap because you are still only taking back equal players value plus $100,000 of your original player salaries. So why couldn't we send a TE to Orlando and then they send that newly acquired TE right back to us. We are only employing the purpose of the TE and not exploiting it. Okay maybe a little expoitation. So whether or not that is what happened it seems to me it would be allowed.
<h4>Ummm. I think we are wrong. I think realgm is correct</h4> In <a href="http://www.*******************/viewtopic.php?p=3502168#3502168">the thread about this at Realgm</a>, the "commissioner" Don Jones who reviews Coon's FAQ, and is privy to league office statements (and I know from emails with Larry during one review of the FAQ that he considers Don good at capology), made the following claim that we seem to all be missing: <b>Orlando does not have to construct the deal the same way Houston does.</b> Teams are allowed to describe the deal the way that best suits them. So, from Orlando's POV, they do a single, sim aggregated APE with Houston. That's works under the 115% as has been proven here. From Houston's POV, we work it this way: 1. a non-sim trade of Howard/Lue to use $6.417m of the Rice TPE. 2. a sim trade of Cato/Mobley for McGrady, which works under 115% rule. 3. a non-sim trade of Francis for nothing, which produces a TPE equal to his outgoing BYC value. so, bottomline: unless we can find something in the CBA that prevents teams from constructing the deals separately to best suit themselves, then realgm is correct. <b>We have a new TPE!</b>
My read in that clause aelliott quoted is, first off, that the clause is about a sim trade. A sim trade cannot produce a TPE, so any interpretation of the last sentence cannot be about "giving rise" to a TPE. I think the sentence is just poorly written and ripe for misunderstanding. It's just the regular 2-month rule about not using a player in a multiple player sim trade twice in 2-months.
After reading the link, I tend to agree. Having worked with RealGM and Don in the past, I know that he knows his stuff. And, it is likely a subject he's discussed with Larry Coon. I wish a newspaper would write an article on it just to authenticate for everyone, but I'm going to proceed with the assumption of a $5.48 million TE expiring right before next offseason.
heyp- that is what tmchoi proposed in page 2 of this thread. We knew a scenario to get the numbers realGM posted, just were not sure if it's legal. aelliott seems to be contending that multiple non-simultaneous parts is not legal. If Don Jones is correct, it would seem they are. As for the 2 month exception thing... Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, no Player Contract acquired pursuant to an Exception may give rise to an aggregated trade exception for a period of two months from the date the Player Contract is acquired. I think the 2 months refers to the original player acquired via an exception (APE, or trade most likely). This affects our potentially dealings for Mutumbo. I believe we could still make a deal for him, but because he's within that 2 month window, the Bulls can not receive a TE of their own in exchange for him.
The Miami-LA deal was a simultaneous trade, no? RealGM reports LA as having received a TE for the difference in salary. When one player has a large enough salary, like Shaq, can't it produce an exception for the difference of his salary vs. the acquired salaries?
NIKEstrad, tmchoi's scenario is not what I described. he said this: There were no picks in the trade, right? And there's no need to break the Rice TE in two. Howard/Lue for the TPE is a legal trade by itself. I guess I didn't read it more to note any similarities. I don't find that to be his objection, but I'd hate to speak for aelliott. Howard/Lue for the TPE is the end of the Rice assigned player exection. The Francis for nothing is a separate assigned player exception being used. And the Cato/Mobley for TMac/Gaines is a third assigned player exceptions. Multiple assigned player exceptions can be used in the same trade. Happens all the time. They just each have to work on their own merits. What we were all missing is that Orlando does not have to name their Traded Players and Replacement Players in the same manner that we do. I don't think that is something we are going to confirm by reading the CBA. This is where Larry and his group of contributors have an advantage. They actually send questions to the league office to get answered. I'm willing to bet that this issue with two teams being able to describe the deals in different manners is something that has been confirmed by the league office.
heyp- You're splitting hairs on the differences (TE for Howard, TE for Lue=TE for Howard+Lue, and he has picks cancelling out), but anyway... That was from 8/11, 5:03am (page 3, my mistake)
I don't want to run the numbers on this. But you can tell by looking at the trade that this qualifies as a non-sim trade. The Lakers only traded one player, just like when we traded Pippen. If they traded away less that 100% and $100K it qualifies as a non-sim for them, and they get a TPE covering the difference in aggregated salaries of the Replacement Players to use on a future Replacement Player. Like Coon says, the Laker's don't know if it will end up as a non-sim trade later, but it qualifies for it, if they want to complete the trade later. here's the article from the CBA that applies to the Shaq trade: The key wording in this is "a Traded Player" and "non-simultaneously, and "100%." Clause (i) version of an APE is making a disctinction about 115%. Clause (iii) with the strange wording, is referring to "two or more Player Contracts" being aggregated in a "simultaneous" trade. (iii) would be the clause used if the Laker's move Shaq and another player, or if the Rockets moved Pippen and another player. It is making the distinction between one player and multiple, otherwise it is identical to (i). But it clearly calls it a "simultaneous" trade, meaning no TPE, because there is no "non-simultaneous" wording in the clause. The difference between (i), one player sim, and (ii), one player non-sim, is that if you are trading just one player and you are moving less than 100%+$100k, then you have the option of completing the deal in one year. If you are between 100%+$100K and 115%+$100K, then the trade is simultaneous and thus is consummated immediately...no TPE.
You're right, tmchoi attempted to explain realgm's position. not meaning to split wording, just explaining why I didn't read the tmchoi/aelliott exchange; that is, because it didn't look to be discussing the trade as it happened.
yes, kudos to tmchoi. That explains it identical to what Don Jones is trying to say. 3 separate APE's where used by Houston. 1 was used by Orlando.
