Yeah, under my interpretation of the 15% rule, then either: a) Vancouver was under the cap (I have no idea whether they were or not) or b) unsigned rookies' salary slots do count in trades. Heyparner, I know Larry Coon said they didn't, but he's not perfect. see http://www.members.home.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#81
or C) Orlando had enough cap room to aborb the trading surplus caused by the Hou/Van part of the 3-way Aelliot...that's the whole point of Orlando being involved. Orlando was under the cap...so they could absorb more than 15%. Do you see how that works? That is why we needed Orlando in the deal! 1. Houston trades a surplus to Vancouver 2. Vancouver trades a surplus to Orlando 3. In #2, Orlando can legally absorb enough of the #1 surplus to get Vancouver under 15% total gap, because Orlando can fit their entire surplus under the cap. Another way to explain it is: Since you can always sign free agents if you can fit them under the cap, the NBA allows your trading surplus to exceed 15% as long as you can fit it under the cap. Easy...let's not complicate the spirit of trading with salary caps. This makes perfect sense to me. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited February 14, 2000).]
in summary, we got around $2.75 surplus from the Francis deal, and $1.75 from the Pippen deal for a total of $4.5. The Pippen surplus is much easier to calculate because the 15% of his big contract is a significant amount of cash.
Aelliot...that's the whole point of Orlando being involved. Orlando was under the cap...so they could absorb more than 15%. Do you see how that works? That is why we needed Orlando in the deal! At the end of the trade, EVERY party of the trade must meet those rules (within 15% or fit the salary under the cap). Having one party way under the cap doesn't allow any of the other teams to trade up more than 15% in salary. The 3rd party with the cap space simply provides a way to distribute the salaries so that the other two teams meet that requirement. Go back an look at the example on question #62: Washington trades $5 million BYC plus $3.61 million salary, or $8.61 million. They can receive 115% plus $100,000 of $8.61 million, or exactly $10 million, in return (this is why $3.61 million was correct above). Washington receives Player B's $10 million salary, along with a draft pick that has zero trade value (see question number 59) for a total of $10 million. The numbers exactly match. Seattle trades $10 million in salary, and recives $10 million in salary, so they're fine. Chicago trades $0 and receives $3.61 million, but since they're more than $3.61 million under the salary cap, they can absorb the increase. Notice when they summarize the deal they go to EACH team and make sure that they're either recieving no more than 115% of the trade value they gave up or that they can fit the entire salary that they are receiving under the cap. If Vancouver was over the cap and rookie salary slots don't count, then it wouldn't matter how much money Orlando had available. Under NO circumstances can a team that is over the cap trade UP in salary of more than 15%. The NBA rules are specific to each team in the trade. There is nothing magic about adding a 3rd team that allows you to circumvent the rules. It's the same for a two, three or six team deal. It's only that the more players/teams involved the better chance you have of coming up with a way to allocate the players to the teams and still meet the salary cap requirements.
Aelliot, why do you keep quoting the FAQ, when I'm quoting a direct correspondence with the author. Each part of the 3-way deal does not have to satisfy the 15% rule, it is treated as one trade. ONE TRADE. At the end of the day, you must have (1) traded down, (2) be under the cap, or (3) traded up no more than 115%. (1) Houston traded down, (2) Orlando was under the cap, and (3) Vancouver traded within the 15% rule The scenario you give above did not have a team under the cap like Orlando...we are totally out of context of #62. If you don't believe me that it is all treated as one trade, then tell me how dickerson, carr, othella and price add up to what Vancouver gave us = TMass. Even though Francis does not count, throw him in too, and tell me that that part of the trade was within 15%. Aelliot...believe LC or not. Don't quote his FAQ on one hand, then dismiss his direct correspondence with me on the other. I think Feigan is correct on the numbers. So does LC. Apparently, you don't. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited February 14, 2000).]
Here's the trade to refresh your memory. The Houston Rockets acquired the draft rights to 1999 NBA lottery pick Steve Francis and forward/center Tony Massenburg from the Vancouver Grizzlies and forward Don MacLean and a future first round draft pick from the Orlando Magic in a three-way, 11-player trade. In exchange for the three players and draft pick, the Rockets sent Antoine Carr, Michael Dickerson, Othella Harrington, Brent Price and a future first-round draft pick to Vancouver, while Orlando received Lee Mayberry, Makhtar Ndiaye, Rodrick Rhodes and Michael Smith from Vancouver. The Grizzlies also received a future second round draft pick from Orlando in this trade, the largest in NBA history. Tell me how our piece with Orlando works, also. We sent nothing to Orlando. It all works because it is treated as ONE simultaneous trade.
heypartner. Sorry but Im going with aelliott on this one. I believe that its quite clear that: 1. Teams over the cap must trade within 15 percent of each other. 2. Both teams were over the cap. 3. A third team was involved to make all 3 teams traded players to fit within the 15 percent rule. 4. If you noticed, all the traded players to each individual team makes the salaries about even. Or at least within 15 percent of each other. Now Im not saying "Man your sooooo wrong." Its my interpretation of the trade.
DS, You two are starting to show a serious state of denial. You are wrapped up in irrelevant tangents. I am not here to take sides. I'm here to report my leg work. What do we have: 1. Aruba77 reports Feigan said $4.5m 2. We don't believe that at face value so, 3. aelliot just says aruba77 is wrong and quotes the FAQ 4. that's not enough for me, so i seek a consensus question to ask the author of the faq directly, 5. The author of the FAQ says flat out to me that the Pippen trade cannot produce $4.5 surplus by itself, but he ask were there other trades, 6. BINGO, yes of course, and he says "Oh duh, I forgot about the francis trade, too. He immediately said there's the extra surplus because Francis salary does not count towards salary matching. That salary represents a trade gap. Are you going to deny Feigan and LC? Is that your final answer? If you want get to the bottom of this I am willing to help. I will show you the complete trade by the numbers. Do some legwork, and publish the salaries for the players listed above and tell me who was base-year? I will then show the whole the trade. And prove that aelliot is complicating the issue. But I'm not tracking down Orlando and Vancouver salaries because they are irrelevant to the Rockets end of the trade. The Rocket's surplus is easy to calculate in that trade: dickerson, othella, carr, and price minus maclean and tmass. do you want to see the email. do you want to remain in denial. Why do we even get involved in CBA talk if we aren't willing to share our efforts. But the real question is: do you want $4.5m in trade exception. I know aelliot will never concede he's ever wrong about the CBA, like I'm willing to concede. But I thought you'd at least listen to what LC told me. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited February 14, 2000).]
Hey partner, I'm with you. I'm not saying that I know whether or not your right, but I follow what your saying and it makes sense to me. All things considered, Houston took in less salary than it sent out (in both Pippen and Francis deals). That's where we get the 4.5. Vancouver was within the 15% since they were over the cap or, perhaps, they too gave up more than they got (salary wise). Orlando ate the majority of the salary money in the deal because they were under the cap, and as long as they remained under the cap they could take on as much salary as they wanted (they just wanted last year players). Is that the gist of what you're saying? [This message has been edited by TraJ (edited February 14, 2000).]
Just be happy we got this 4.5 mil bonus. I don't care where it came from, we got it. End of discussion. Be happy. You guys are over anyalzing the thing. For example, if a guy came up and gave you one million dollars for free, would you ask the guy how he got it, etc.? Just say thanks and start spending.
DS, Look in the FAQ: 1. A team can trade down in salary with no restrictions. 2. A team under the cap can trade up in salary with no restrictions. 3. only teams that are trading up in salary who are over the cap have to be within 15% So, in this trade, only Vancouver has to be within 15%. In all two-way trades, the team trading down is within 15% as well, as a reciprocating fact. But, they don't have to be. The third team comes into to play generally every single deal that involves a BYC player. Francis was a BYC player in this deal...he contributed no salary to the trade. DS: I'm giving you info directly from speaking to the writer of the FAQ. Just add-up who we gave away, subtract who we received (don't count Francis), the remainder is our trade exception in that deal. Add that to 15% of Pippen's salary, and that is our aggregate trade exception.
heypartner/Dreamshake, Here's my understanding of the 15% rule(totally disregarding the specifics of the Rocket's deals). It doesn't really matter how many teams are involved in the deal. It's all a matter of how much you gave up and how much you are allowed to get back. When teams add a third party, it doesn't negate this rule. Intead it simply allows a team to dump some additional salary in order to meet the 15% requirements. A perfect example is given in question #62 of the Salary Cap FAQ : http://www.members.home.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#62 <hr> Basically, at the end of the trade here's the 3 things that you need to know for FOR EACH TEAM: 1. How much salary did you give up? 2. How much salary did you acquire? 3. Am I over the cap? If you are over the cap, then the salary you gave up cannot exceed 115% of the salary you gave up. If you are under the cap and you can fit the salaries that you received under the cap, then there are no restrictions. Otherwise, the 15% rule applies. In order for a deal to be legal, all the teams involved have to meet these rules. Did that make any sense at all?
HeyPartner, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm NOT saying that you treat a three way as two separate trades between two parties. Go back an re-read what I said "At the end of the trade, EVERY party of the trade must meet those rules ". Notice that it says "At the end of the trade"? Nowhere do I say that you calculate each individiual trade within the whole 3 way deal (i.e Houson to Vancouver or Houston to Orlando). Also notice that I said that each PARTY within the trade must meet those rules. That means Houston, Vancouver and Orlando. That doesn't mean the Houston to Vancouver portion or the Houston to Orlando portion. You're previous posts just restated the very same thing that I said. I believe that we're saying the same thing on this issue, we're just all misinterpreting the other guys point. Where I think the differences arose is if Vancouver came out within 115% of of the salary that they gave up. The ambiguity (to me at least) is based on Othella's salary. In order for Vancouver to be within 15% on their portion of the deal, Harrington would have to be making less than I thought he had signed for. That's what I was refering to in my previous post when I mentioned that Vancouver was trading up in salary. I can't find any good salary info on Harrington. The scenario you give above did not have a team under the cap like Orlando...we are totally out of context of #62. Here's a quote from question #62: This is where a third team must get involved. And not just any third team, but a third team that is far enough under the salary cap, or has a trade exception (see question number 73) to absorb the additional $3.61 million in salary. Let's say Chicago (a team way under the salary cap) gets involved. Here is an example three-team trade: How do you figure that this example doesn't involve a team under the cap? Reread the FAQ question, notice the parts where it says "And not just any third team, but a third team that is far enough under the salary cap" or where it says "Let's say Chicago (a team way under the salary cap) gets involved". The scenario is using Chicago as an example of a team that is under the cap, so how is that out of context? Don't quote his FAQ on one hand, then dismiss his direct correspondence with me on the other. Here's a couple of thoughts on that: 1. The Salary Cap FAQ was originally written by Tony Minkoff and almost all of the salary cap related information came from articles by Garret Okamoto. Okamoto or Minkoff, would probably be the guys to ask, but Coon is fine. 2. The response that you get from someone is dependent on how you frame the question. Just as in the examples above, we're both erroneously interpreting what the other guy is saying. The question you asked LC (and how you phrased it) could greatly alter the validity of his answer in the context of our discussion. A final point: Nowhere did I EVER say that Houston didn't have a $4.5M trade exception. Aruba reported that Feigan said that we had a $4.5M trade exception from the Pippen deal and that it could be used to sign a free agent. Go back and look at my old posts. What did I say? I said that there was no way that we got $4.5M from the Pippen trade. Everyone seems to now agree with that. I also said that the trade exception could not be used to sign a free agent. Nobody seems to question that any longer. So did I question Feigan? Sure I did. I questioned him on the fact that we got $4.5 from the Pippen deal and that you could use the exception to sign a free agent. Was I correct on those issues? Seems like I was. Can you find anyplace where I said that Houston didn't have an aggregate $4.5M in trade exceptions? My whole problem with the aggregate trades was making the numbers add up (i.e Vancouver being within 115%). Again, I was questioning how to make the numbers add up, not whether or not the $4.5M exemption existed. After that, I think we both misinterpreted what the other guy was saying and each ended up trying to convice the other of something that they already believed. I also never said that Larry Coon was wrong. What I said, based on my notion of that Vancouver got back more than 115% of what they gave up, was that either Vancouver was under the cap or Coon was wrong about the rookie scale. The numbers didn't add up and I was simply listing the possible reasons for the differences. You didn't see where I was coming from on the Vancouver salaries and I misinterpreted what you meant by the "c) Orlando has enough cap room" reply. The actual additional choice should have been c) Othello Harrington makes a low enough salary to keep Vancouver within 15% of the salaries that they lost". rocketsfan34, I think we all agree that we're happy that the Rockets have a trade exception. It's just that a few of us like to understand the numbers work out the way they do. Sorry if we confused the issue.
Trajl, Yes. That is exactly what I've been reporting. RF34 Your right...but let us have our fun. DS, aelliot and I enjoy capology...we've had similar discussion before amongst ourselves. We aren't really arguing. aelliot...all you had to tell me was you were having trouble finding othella's salary. quit quoting the FAQ. If we have the salaries, I can post the complete deal. I just don't want to do all the legwork, because I understand this deal, and don't need to know Orlando and Vanc. You never gave me a chance to explain it. And you never accepted the statement that Francis doesn't count. As for framing the question to LC, I told you, Q "draft picks don't count in trades...do unsigned rookies?" Answer: "No. Don't count Francis. If you want to see what surplus the Rockets have, add up othella, carr, dickerson, price and subtract maclean and tmass."...I said that like 4 times to you. Add that to 15% of Pippens salary, and you have the max possible trade exception. If you want to get to the real numbers, I'll add it up later. Fact is now we have further confirmation from CD that $4.5 exists.
