[NY Daily News] Nets may waive Padgett

tiger0330 · May 21, 2006

m004378 said:

Padgett is a scrub.
Click to expand...

That's why Padgett will be back in Houston. We're a magnet for scrubs.

HillBoy · May 21, 2006

tiger0330 said:

That's why Padgett will be back in Houston. We're a magnet for scrubs.
Click to expand...

Sad but true. In fact, I'm amazed that a thread on bringing back Padgett has reached 4 pages. That tells me that there's still a lot of folks here living in a state of denial about how bad this situation is now and can get in the future. Clutch is right on point in saying that folks don't realize how many players this team needs in order to just become competative in the West.

About the only people who'd want Padgett on this team are our competition because they understand that a player like him is not the kind of difference maker that they would have to worry about. And that's what's wrong with this team: Aside from Yao & TMac, there's no one on this team that creates concern on the part of the opposition so they simply concentrate their attention on stopping those two and there goes the Rockets. Getting Padgett will do nothing to change this.

DJ Naztorious · May 21, 2006

good find, jopatmc. for those of you that skipped over this post b/c it looked confusing, go read it. it has some stuff in here that even us all-knowing BBSers don't know, i'm sure.

jopatmc said:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#69

69. What is a non-simultaneous trade?

In some cases, teams have up to one year to acquire the replacement player(s) to complete a trade. These trades are considered non-simultaneous trades. 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 125% 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 (although teams can sometimes find ways to configure multi-player trades as multiple single-player trades which are non-simultaneous).

Here is an example of a non-simultaneous trade: a team trades away a $2 million player for a $1 million player. Sometime in the next year, they trade a draft pick (with zero trade value itself) for a $1.1 million player to complete the earlier trade. They ended up acquiring $2.1 million in salary for their $2 million player -- they just didn't do it all at once, or even necessarily with the same trading partner.

In the above example, after the initial trade of the $2 million player for the $1 million player, it was like the team had a "credit" for one year, with which they could acquire up to $1.1 million in salaries without having to send out salaries to match. This credit is often referred to as a Traded Player exception or a trade exception, but be aware that the CBA uses the name "Traded Player exception" to refer to the entire exception which allows teams to make trades above the salary cap (including simultaneous trades, non-simultaneous trades, and base year compensation).

There are some common misconceptions about non-simultaneous trades. For one, teams cannot use a Traded Player exception to sign free agents; it can be used only to acquire existing contracts from other teams. For another, teams cannot combine a Traded Player exception with other exceptions (such as the Mid-Level exception or the 125% plus $100,000 margin from another trade) in order to trade for a more expensive player. For example, a team with a $1 million Traded Player exception cannot combine it with their $2 million player to trade for a $3 million player (see question number 72 for more information on combining exceptions).

Here is a more complicated example of a legal non-simultaneous trade: a team has a $4 million Traded Player 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 $7 million, and the teams want to do a three-for-one trade with these players. This is legal -- the $5 million and $7 million players together make less than the 125% plus $100,000 allowed for the $10 million player ($12,600,000), and the $4 million player exactly fits within the $4 million Traded Player 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 $7 million player. From the other team's perspective it's all just one big simultaneous trade: their $4 million, $5 million and $7 million players for the $10 million player.

Again, non-simultaneous trades are not available when a team trades away multiple players (aggregates). Let's say a team has a $4 million player and a $5 million player, and uses the Traded Player exception to trade for an $8 million player. Even though they trade away more salary ($9 million) than they receive ($8 million), the fact that they aggregated the two players means they do not gain a Traded Player exception. However, it is sometimes possible to reorganize these trades so that players technically are not aggregated. A good example of this occurred in 2004 when Houston traded Steve Francis, Cuttino Mobley and Kelvin Cato to Orlando for Tracy McGrady, Juwan Howard, Tyronn Lue and Reece Gaines. As a single trade, it could only be simultaneous since multiple players were moving each way. However, Houston was able to reorganize the trade into three separate trades. In one trade, they acquired McGrady and Gaines for Mobley and Cato. In another trade, they acquired Howard and Lue using an existing Traded Player exception from their earlier Glen Rice trade. That left them trading Francis essentially by himself for nothing, which generated a new Traded Player exception in the amount of Francis' base year value. From Orlando's perspective, it was a single, simultaneous three-for-four trade.

Teams can consume only part of a Traded Player exception, in which case they can still use the remainder in a future trade. For example, if a team trades a $4 million player for a $2 million player, they gain a $2.1 million Traded Player exception. If they later trade a draft pick for a $1 million player, they still have $1.1 million remaining to acquire more players and complete the trade (until one year from the date of the original trade).

Also see question number 20 for more information on the availability and use of this exception.

20. How do exceptions count against the cap? Does being under the cap always mean that a team has room to sign free agents? Do teams ever lose their exceptions?

If a team is below the cap, then their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or Traded Player exceptions are added to their team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap. This is to prevent a loophole, in a manner similar to free agent amounts (see question numbers 29, 30, 31, 32). A team can't act like they're under the cap and sign free agents using cap room, and then use their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or Traded Player exceptions. Consequently, the exceptions are added to their team salary (putting the team over the cap) if the team is under the cap and adding the exceptions puts them over the cap. If a team is already over the cap, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. There would be no point in doing so, since there is no cap room for signing free agents.
So it is not true that being under the cap necessarily means a team has room to sign free agents. For example, assume the cap is $49.5 million, and a team has $43 million committed to salaries. They also have a Mid-Level exception for $5 million and a Traded Player exception for $5.5 million. Even though their salaries put them $6.5 million under the cap, their exceptions are added to their salaries, putting them at $53.5 million, or $4 million over the cap. So they actually have no cap room to sign free agents, and must instead use their exceptions.

Teams have the option of renouncing their exceptions in order to claim the cap room. So in the example above, if the team renounced their Traded Player and Mid-Level exceptions, then the $10.5 million is taken off their team salary, which then totals $43 million, leaving them with $6.5 million of cap room which can then be used to sign free agent(s).

Starting January 10 of each season, the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Larry Bird, Early-Bird and Non-Bird exceptions begin to reduce in value. For example, if there are 180 days in the season, then these exceptions (if they are still unused) reduce by 1/180 of their initial value each day starting January 10. If a team uses their $5 million Mid-Level exception on February 1, then the exception is actually worth $4,361,111.

The Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and Traded Player exceptions may be lost entirely, or the team may never receive them to begin with. This happens when their team salary is so low that when the exceptions are added to the team salary, the sum is still below the salary cap. If the team salary is below this level when the exception arises, then the team doesn't get the exception. If the team salary ever drops below this level during the year, then any exceptions they had are lost.

For example, with a $49.5 million salary cap, assume it's the offseason, and a team has $41 million committed to salaries, along with a Mid-Level exception for $5 million, a Traded Player exception for $2.5 million, and an unrenounced free agent whose free agent amount is $2 million. Their salaries and exceptions total $50.5 million, or $1 million over the cap. What if their free agent signs with another team? The $2 million free agent amount comes off their cap, so their team salary drops to $48.5 million. This total is below the cap so the team loses its Mid-Level and Traded Player exceptions.

There is logic behind this. The whole idea behind an "exception" is that it is an exception to the rule which says a team has to be below the salary cap. In other words, an exception is a mechanism which allows a team to function above the cap. If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. The effect is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but they can't have both.
Click to expand...

Yetti · May 21, 2006

HillBoy said:

Sad but true. In fact, I'm amazed that a thread on bringing back Padgett has reached 4 pages. That tells me that there's still a lot of folks here living in a state of denial about how bad this situation is now and can get in the future. Clutch is right on point in saying that folks don't realize how many players this team needs in order to just become competative in the West.

About the only people who'd want Padgett on this team are our competition because they understand that a player like him is not the kind of difference maker that they would have to worry about. And that's what's wrong with this team: Aside from Yao & TMac, there's no one on this team that creates concern on the part of the opposition so they simply concentrate their attention on stopping those two and there goes the Rockets. Getting Padgett will do nothing to change this.
Click to expand...

Please post this at the top of every page of this thread till the numbsculls including JVG get it into their heads. Thanks Y

jopatmc · May 21, 2006

The trade for Padgett is not about getting Padgett as much as it is about getting a bigger trade exception that we could turn into a S&T for somebody like Mike James, still leaving our full MLE to be used for something else. A $5.4 million TE could possibly be used to get Toronto to do a S&T to us for a future #1 pick and the TE.

It would also leave us with our first rounder and second rounder plus maybe an additional pick or two in this year's draft to bring in some bench strength. If NY would trade Marc Jackson and both of their picks for Stromile, then you would think they would consider Padgett and those picks plus a re-signed Vaughn or some other trash to get Stro. If we brought back Padg, we would have our range shooting 4, and Vaughn would give us our 3rd string point guard. If we signed James in a S&T deal, then we've got the ability to draft a big guard with the pick or maybe work another trade for a big guard that can defend and shoot the 3 ball, plus we should be able to get another young point guard like Rando or some other kid to develop with one or two of those lower first round picks from New Jersey. And we would still have our MLE.

That trade would be important if it went down in conjuction with a S&T of James to us.

ROXTXIA · May 22, 2006

It's Monday morning and I'm too lazy to check what I might have already posted in this thread.

As has been mentioned by (an)other poster(s), Jersey did make us an offer of Marc Jackson and their two late first rounders for Stromile Swift.

Granted, giving up Stromile isn't as easy as some posters tend to believe. If nothing else, he provides backup at the 5 as well as the 4, and Deke isn't really cutting it anymore (or, rather, the organization saw the team get really old, really fast, and decided to infuse it with youth).

The fact that this page has gone on for four pages or more is not a testament to Padgett as a great player but as a role player that can give this team 15-odd quality minutes off the bench, a 4 with range.

As part of a larger trade, Swift still makes sense for the Nets and Padgett makes sense for the Rockets. If those draft picks are still on the table, and considering the Nets have a 2.5 mil trade exception from the Marc Jackson/Boki debacle, maybe: Swift/#32 for Padgett/#22/#23 makes some sort of sense (if it works in the Collective Bargaining Agreement).

Yetti · May 22, 2006

Sorry Roxtxia although you are looking forward & only thinking positivly I think its much too early to be focusing on lower level players such as Jackson or Padgett. If we are to trade Swift it should enable us to have an upgrade not stay at the same level.Both Jackson and Padget are inconsistant role players.

clutch0734 · May 22, 2006

Well if the Nets are going to waive him, we might as well pick him up for a minimal salary...we can def. get rid of Lampe and Bowen..those 2 are jokes on our roster...

Forums

[NY Daily News] Nets may waive Padgett

tiger0330 Member

HillBoy Member

DJ Naztorious Member

Yetti Member

jopatmc Member

ROXTXIA Member

Yetti Member

clutch0734 Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!