yardbarker

Aggregation question

Moderator: Smitty731

Post#1 Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:05 pm by HartfordWhalers

Just wanted to check in here and get confirmation that the non-aggregation wait period is based entirely off the team's cap status at the time of obtainment, and not the time of re-trading.

This explanation is found here:


http://www.hornets247.com/blog/2012/07/ ... more-31332

Dell Demps has just provided clarity to the situation at hand regarding the legality of today’s trade. Because Brad Miller was received by NOLA using room under the salary cap (not an exception), they were allowed to trade him immediately with another player. Though it was unclear in the CBA FAQ, the Hornets being over the cap right now does not matter as long as the player being dealt was received at the time by using cap space. (We’ll ask Mr. Coon to include that in his excellent site for future reference.)


So, in the Brad Miller case even though the team was over the cap when re-trading him, they could aggregate his salary anyway based upon the cap status when originally getting Miller?


And by corollary/inverse, then if a team over the cap gets a player can they not aggregate that player without any delay period if, they drop under the cap? I.e. Say Orlando swaps Richardson for Brad Miller (just as an example so Brad Miller can keep going around). The next day Orlando completes a large trade and drops under the salary cap. Can they still not use Brad Miller to aggregate in a trade, even though they now are under the cap?

Thanks!
HartfordWhalers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Posts: 14,391
And1: 1,368
Joined: Apr 6, 2010
Top

Post#2 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:20 pm by DBoys

A - The qualifier revolves around the first trade (only). If the player moves in that first trade to a new team who adds him to their roster using cap space, then he can be aggregated immediately in a subsequent trade. Otherwise (if he moves using an exception), not.

B - The Coon FAQ does indeed make mention of this rule, in #97.
"For two months after receiving the player in trade, if the trade aggregates the player's salary with the salaries of other players. However, the team is free to trade the player immediately, either by himself or without aggregating his salary with other salaries. This restriction applies only to teams over the salary cap."
[underline added]

C - The CBA wording is incredibly straightforward and there's really no reason for it to be misunderstood or misconstrued:
"...no Player Contract acquired pursuant to an Exception may, for a period of two (2) months from the date the Player Contract is acquired, be aggregated with any other Contract for purposes of a trade."
[underline added]

If the Hornets were stymied by some perceived vagueness in the Coon FAQ, and couldn't figure it out by looking at the CBA itself, then wow.

D - Since the restriction is one of non-aggregation of exceptions, if the second trade was one in which the team was under the cap at the end, by definition they would be able to consummate said deal because they wouldn't be taking players onto their roster by exceptions at all, which would render moot the question of whether they were aggregating.
DBoys
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,432
And1: 40
Joined: Aug 22, 2010
Top

Post#3 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:39 pm by HartfordWhalers

Thanks. The CBA wording definitely clarified both situations.

However, I disagree and think Coon's referencing of the restriction's limits in #97 is unclear for what its worth. It doesn't differentiate between the time of acquiring a player and the time of re-trading. As such a team that took a player while over the cap and then subsequently got under the cap still wouldn't be able to aggregate within the first two months. However, looking at the faq it would look like the restriction would no longer apply to them, as "This restriction applies only to teams over the salary cap."

Some wording such as "This restriction applies only to teams over the salary cap at the time the team acquires the player." would resolve this confusion.
HartfordWhalers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Posts: 14,391
And1: 1,368
Joined: Apr 6, 2010
Top

Post#4 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:44 pm by HartfordWhalers

DBoys wrote:D - Since the restriction is one of non-aggregation of exceptions, if the second trade was one in which the team was under the cap at the end, by definition they would be able to consummate said deal because they wouldn't be taking players onto their roster by exceptions at all, which would render moot the question of whether they were aggregating.


Looks like you added this one in while I was responding to the original response. I thought this obvious, but to spell the hypothetical out, there certainly could be a situation in which a team:
a) was over the cap while getting a player.
b) dropped under the cap
c) wanted to trade said player in an aggregating trade

For c to matter it would c') take the team over the cap again.

So, I don't think it was moot.
HartfordWhalers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Posts: 14,391
And1: 1,368
Joined: Apr 6, 2010
Top

Post#5 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:17 pm by DBoys

1 Your hypothetical was saying that they are under the cap at the end of the 2nd trade, correct? In that case, there would have been no aggregating of exceptions in the second trade no matter what, because it wouldn't have used exceptions at all ...which was the point I made.

2 If they are over cap at the end of trade one, and then again (or still) at the end of trade two, they can't aggregate a player from trade one in trade two if those trades are within 2 months of each other.

3 Yep, maybe Coon 97 is fuzzy and could be cleaned up a bit to clarify "This restriction applies only to teams over the salary cap." He probably should have said it conversely - that it "doesn't apply to teams under the salary cap" and then added "after either trade."

If trade one is an under-cap trade result, no restriction applies. Or if trade two is an under-cap trade result, no restriction applies.

4 But it's still an embarrassment that a team/GM is clueless in the ability to read and use the CBA firsthand. That particular CBA wording is not difficult at all.
DBoys
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,432
And1: 40
Joined: Aug 22, 2010
Top

Post#6 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:25 pm by HartfordWhalers

DBoys wrote:1 Your hypothetical was saying that they are under the cap at the end of the 2nd trade, correct? In that case, there would have been no aggregating of exceptions in the second trade no matter what, because it wouldn't have used exceptions at all.

2 Yep, maybe Coon 97 is fuzzy and could be cleaned up a bit to clarify "This restriction applies only to teams over the salary cap." He probably should have said it conversely - that it "doesn't apply to teams under the salary cap" and then added "after either trade."

If trade one is an under-cap trade in its means of acquiring players, no restriction applies. Or if trade two is an under-cap trade in its means of acquiring players, no restriction applies.

But it's still an embarrassment that a team/GM is clueless in the ability to read and use the CBA firsthand. That particular CBA wording is not difficult at all.


No. Sorry, I guess my spelled out version wasn't clear enough.

Trades:
1) Team over the cap takes on player 1
2) Team over the cap does some unrelated trade and gets under the cap -- lets say by trading player 2 to another team.
3) The team now under the cap, but within 2 months of trade 1, trades player 1 with player 3 for player 4. Player 4 makes more then player 1 and player 2, thus moving teh team over the cap and requiring the team to aggregate.

I guess specifically there are 3 windows of cap status above. A) at time of acquiring, B) status of team at time of re-trading, C) status upon the completion of the trade.

The CBA actual wording is in terms of A) only. To me at least, Coon's faq looks to refer to B. And conversely, trade salary matching is specifically spelled out based upon C, so I could see someone assuming that.
HartfordWhalers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Posts: 14,391
And1: 1,368
Joined: Apr 6, 2010
Top

Post#7 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:10 pm by DBoys

"The CBA actual wording is in terms of A) only."

I'm not sure I agree. We're dealing with implications, rather than the words themselves (since "Team Salary" and "cap" appear nowhere in the rule itself), and imo those implications in practical terms are that being under the cap at the completion of EITHER trade removes the restriction.

"Coon's faq looks to refer to B"

To me Coon's FAQ doesn't clearly refer to ANY specific time, and seems to me that's a major source of the haziness.
DBoys
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,432
And1: 40
Joined: Aug 22, 2010
Top

Post#8 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:27 pm by DBoys

HartfordWhalers wrote:I guess specifically there are 3 windows of cap status above. A) at time of acquiring, B) status of team at time of re-trading, C) status upon the completion of the trade.

The CBA actual wording is in terms of A) only. To me at least, Coon's faq looks to refer to B. And conversely, trade salary matching is specifically spelled out based upon C, so I could see someone assuming that.


Just to make sure I'm not misreading you ...

Although you use "at time of" for both A and B, I take it you haven't actually used those synonymously ...my understanding being, you are using in A to refer to "completion" and in B to "prior to" the trade in question. Right?
DBoys
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,432
And1: 40
Joined: Aug 22, 2010
Top

Post#9 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:38 pm by HartfordWhalers

DBoys wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:I guess specifically there are 3 windows of cap status above. A) at time of acquiring, B) status of team at time of re-trading, C) status upon the completion of the trade.

The CBA actual wording is in terms of A) only. To me at least, Coon's faq looks to refer to B. And conversely, trade salary matching is specifically spelled out based upon C, so I could see someone assuming that.


Just to make sure I'm not misreading you ...

Although you use "at time of" for both A and B, I take it you haven't actually used those synonymously ...my understanding being, you are using in A to refer to "completion" and in B to "prior to" the trade in question. Right?


To be under consideration for this hypothetical a team would over the cap with acquiring the player as stated. If you want to make a distinction between a team that starts over the cap and stays such, and one that starts under the cap but goes over, feel free to. Since this distinction doesn't matter at all, I didn't see how anyone could possibly have needed it, o why someone would want to.

If you really can't understand the situation I'm not sure how I can spell it out more. A team originally in the situation that would trigger the non aggregation subsequently drops below the cap. After this they wants to do a trade that requires aggregation.
HartfordWhalers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Posts: 14,391
And1: 1,368
Joined: Apr 6, 2010
Top

Post#10 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:36 pm by DBoys

I follow your hypothetical. But you proceeded from there to discuss the CBA and the FAQ, and I'm looking for clarification of your wording in that ensuing stuff. In it, you used the same phrase in two parallel situations you were describing. I took it you meant two polar opposite things when using the same term, but figured I better ask.

at time of acquiring <-- it looks to me you're using "at time of" to denote "after" or "at completion of"
status of team at time of re-trading <--- it looks to me you're using "at time of" to denote "before"
DBoys
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,432
And1: 40
Joined: Aug 22, 2010
Top

Post#11 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:43 pm by HartfordWhalers

DBoys wrote:I follow your hypothetical. But you proceeded from there to discuss the CBA and the FAQ, and I'm looking for clarification of your wording in that ensuing stuff. In it, you used the same phrase in two parallel situations you were describing. I took it you meant two polar opposite things when using the same term, but figured I better ask.

at time of acquiring <-- it looks to me you're using "at time of" to denote "after" or "at completion of"
status of team at time of re-trading <--- it looks to me you're using "at time of" to denote "before"


I'm not sure if you actually have trouble understanding syntax. But I think I used more then just those two words to pretty distinctly spell out the situation. :-?
HartfordWhalers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Posts: 14,391
And1: 1,368
Joined: Apr 6, 2010
Top

Post#12 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:03 pm by DBoys

Hmm, I've asked you several times to clarify your meaning in a certain place, and you keep going off on tangents to talk about the whole hypothetical. I'll try one more time.

Here's the paragraph.

"I guess specifically there are 3 windows of cap status above. A) at time of acquiring, B) status of team at time of re-trading, C) status upon the completion of the trade."

Here's my understanding of those "3 windows" you are describing.
"A)" refers to "after trade one" involving the player in question
"B)" refers to "before trade two" involving the player in question
"C)" refers to "after trade two" involving the player in question


With that understanding, I'm interpreting you were using "at time of" in one place (item A) to denote "after" an event, and in the next instance (item B) to denote "before" an event ...but hoping you would clarify.

So, to ask again, is my understanding (noted in bold) of your meaning in that paragraph (the one in italics) correct?
DBoys
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,432
And1: 40
Joined: Aug 22, 2010
Top

Post#13 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:09 pm by HartfordWhalers

DBoys wrote:Here's my understanding of those "3 windows" you are describing.
"A)" refers to "after trade one" involving the player in question
"B)" refers to "before trade two" involving the player in question
"C)" refers to "after trade two" involving the player in question



Looks perfect, yes. :)
HartfordWhalers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Forum Mod - 76ers
Posts: 14,391
And1: 1,368
Joined: Apr 6, 2010
Top

Post#14 Re: Aggregation question
Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:44 pm by DBoys

1 My conclusion is, the rule can probably be clarified with a FAQ 97 modification that changes the ending sentence in the paragraph regarding this rule to:

"This restriction does not apply to teams whose Team Salary is at/under the salary cap at either the end of (1) the trade that acquires the player, or (2) the one that sends him elsewhere."

The key elements that eliminate any FAQ haziness would be clear specifications of (a) how cap status is defined, and (b) when, to remove the restriction.

2 And to address your query that began this thread ("Just wanted to check in here and get confirmation that the non-aggregation wait period is based entirely off the team's cap status at the time of obtainment, and not the time of re-trading") ...

The answer would be, it can be based off of either. Being under the cap as a result of EITHER of the two trades removes any re-trade restriction.
DBoys
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,432
And1: 40
Joined: Aug 22, 2010
Top

Post#15 Re: Aggregation question
Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:42 am by Dunkenstein

HartfordWhalers wrote:So, in the Brad Miller case even though the team was over the cap when re-trading him, they could aggregate his salary anyway based upon the cap status when originally getting Miller?

Since Phoenix had so much cap room, was it even necessary to aggregate Milller's contract with Dyson's? Couldn't they be treated as two separate trades?
Dunkenstein
Starter
Posts: 2,424
And1: 5
Joined: Jun 16, 2002
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Top

Post#16 Re: Aggregation question
Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:16 am by DBoys

Dunkenstein wrote:Since Phoenix had so much cap room, was it even necessary to aggregate Milller's contract with Dyson's? Couldn't they be treated as two separate trades?


If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't a Phoenix issue. It was NO who had Miller, and they were the ones needing to aggregate outgoing TPE from Miller (with Dyson's) to accept the salaries of Warwick and Lopez. Had they not been able to do so, it would have reduced the amount they could offer Lopez by around $1M in 1st year salary, clearly enough to kill the deal.
DBoys
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,432
And1: 40
Joined: Aug 22, 2010
Top

Post#17 Re: Aggregation question
Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:32 am by Dunkenstein

DBoys wrote:
Dunkenstein wrote:Since Phoenix had so much cap room, was it even necessary to aggregate Milller's contract with Dyson's? Couldn't they be treated as two separate trades?


If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't a Phoenix issue. It was NO who had Miller, and they were the ones needing to aggregate outgoing TPE from Miller (with Dyson's) to accept the salaries of Warwick and Lopez. Had they not been able to do so, it would have reduced the amount they could offer Lopez by around $1M in 1st year salary, clearly enough to kill the deal.

I see. Thanks.
Dunkenstein
Starter
Posts: 2,424
And1: 5
Joined: Jun 16, 2002
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Top


Return to CBA & Business


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users