http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime The biggest trade exception in the league expires Tuesday, but the latest signals from Houston indicate that the Rockets aren't terribly optimistic about their ability to use it. Houston's $4.2 million trade exception was created in February 2005 when the Rockets convinced the Hornets to take on Moochie Norris for Maciej Lampe in a salary dump. Yet as we learned during the interminable Al Harrington saga over the summer, trade exceptions don't equal salary-cap space and can't be added to player salaries or other exceptions to make trades easier to complete. In other words, Houston can't add the trade exception to, say, Juwan Howard's $6.4 million salary and trade for a $10-$11 million player. To try to simplify this as much as possible, trade exceptions pretty much only help teams acquire players who earn up to or less than the amount of the exception. Yet what makes trade exceptions attractive, especially to teams that face a luxury-tax bill, is the ability to send Houston a player earning in the $4.2 million range without having to take any salary back. PURELY HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE: Dallas could send Anthony Johnson (and his $2.6 million salary) to the Rockets (who would love a veteran point guard to back up Rafer Alston) for a future draft pick if the Mavs simply wanted to shed some cap dollars. Dallas would never help an in-state rival in this manner, of course, but you get the idea. As long as such a deal is closed by Tuesday, Houston's trade exception allows it to take in up to $4.2 million (plus $100,000) more in salary than it ships out. A few other HYPOTHETICAL examples of players who could work in such a trade, with their current teams taking back nothing but draft considerations: Atlanta's Tyronn Lue ($3.5 million), Memphis' Chucky Atkins ($3 million) and Philadelphia's Kevin Ollie ($3.2 million). The Rockets, though, appear to be finding that teams aren't as motivated as Houston is to deal now because the exception expires more than a week before the Feb. 22 trading deadline. The Rockets can also still be players in a small deal before the deadline without the exception, since the injured Bobby Sura's contract (with only $1 million guaranteed next season) is essentially a $3.8 million expiring contract. But Houston likely wouldn't take back any contract richer than $3.6 million this season in any deal because then it would become a tax-paying team. If the Rockets' exception goes unused, like Minnesota's $4.2 million exception did last month, New Jersey would have the largest trade exception in the league: $3.8 million good through Jan. 3, 2008, as created by dealing Jeff McInnis to Charlotte.
according to Patricias NBA Salary website, he is signed through 2008, no? When people refer to "expiring contracts" they are talking about expiring *this* year. You're stretching it with the 'expiring contract" angle.
unfortunately i be able to get anything good out of this TE. however, i'm sure for a future second rounder the rox can pickup a decent role playing big. i'd like to see 2 moves by the rox: 1. the TE and a future first for david harrison. 2. sura for damon stoudamire.
Alright, thx for the info. I haven't been following this closely enough. I still think you are underestimating the value of a Disabled Player Exception vs a TE. DPE's can be used to sign free agents; TEs can't. Trading Sura does not produce a TE...unless the team we are trading to as cap room or a TE. You're right though about the 76er scenario, our current TE may have enough influence in trades to make someone take Sura (as an expiring contract), thus producing a new TE. This option of using the TE simultaneously with trading Sure goes away after Tuesday, so if nothing goes down, then getting a ~$2.3m DPE for using on free agents is better than what we'll get via trading a disabled player. imo
Exactly, that's why a DPE to use on free agents (or in trades like a TE) is more powerful than a TE, which is more difficult to use than a DPE coupon to cash on free agents.
Not to mention the TE expires before the deadline so we don't have the third party teams trying to take advantage of it at the last minute. I would bet it expires, we still have Sura's contract as a tradeable asset. DD
I would agree that getting a player via trade now for Sura is better than getting a player via DPE later, because forget about the future; let's get someone now. That said, I question how valuable a disabled player is in a salary-matching trade. How many teams are interested in Sura's below league average salary as an expiring contract enough to give us a rotation player. Now compare that to getting a ~$2.3m DPE to use to sign a free agent this summer. What is more valuable?
what if we look of a situation where we trade the TE for a player, then trade one of our players for that teams TE? that's better than a straight swap because both teams swap players and gain a TE. both sides would love that. sura's near expiring deal, his DPE coming this summer, and a TE should be enough of a package to net a decent big.
not sure if i'm following, but it reads like the other team does not end up with a TE...they consume it in the 2nd trade, no? Our TE cannot be combined with anything. trading sura's near expiring deal and getting a DPE are mutually exclusive; ie, if one occurs, then the other can't. so, all three things you list there are mutually exclusive. only, two of them can occur, and they can't be combined into "enough of a package to net a decent big."
well i was thinking of a situation in which both teams had a TE going into the deal. the 2 teams could make 2 trades. each deal being a player for a TE. At the time i posted i assumed that more teams would have TE's large enough for bob's contract. i was mistaken. again, if the other team had a TE large enough to take bob's contract they would recieve him and then in a second deal our TE for thier player. as i admitted earlier, most teams don't have a TE large enough for bob's contract.
