newbie question

[windycity00]

I may not understand the 25% trade rule.

just to practice the math, i traded k.perkins for j.teague.

09-10 salary
perkins = 4,750,000
teague = 1,373,880

trade checker comes back saying, "both teams are over the cap,
atlanta/boston had to be no more than 125% + 100,000 of the salary given out for the trade
to be accepted...only boston met"

does this mean atl did not meet, because they received a contract greater than 125% + 100,000 of teague's salary?

1.25 x 1,373,880 = 1,717,350. that + 100,000 = 1,817,350

so a 1-on-1 trade with teague will only work for atlanta if the returning salary is less than 1,817,350 difference?

what if one, or both, of the teams were under the cap?

thanks

[Three34]

does this mean atl did not meet, because they received a contract greater than 125% + 100,000 of teague's salary?

No. The maximum amount that a team over the cap can take back in a trade is 125% + $100,000 of the salary they are sending out. So while the trade works from Boston's point of view - because they are taking back far far less than that maximum - it doesn't work for Atlanta, because they're taking on far more than what they sent out.

If Atlanta traded Teague and only Teague in a trade, the most they can take back is $1,817,350. That figure, as you showed above, is 125% of the amount they're sending out, plus $100,000. So if Atlanta wanted to trade Teague for Oleksiy Pecherov ($1,547,640), then that would work. But if they want Perkins, they'll have to add more salary.

An example of something that might work financially would be Teague and Mo Evans for Perkins; Teague and Evans combined to earn $3,873,880, and 125% + $100,000 of that is $4,942,350, which is enough to take on Perkins.

what if one, or both, of the teams were under the cap?

If both were under the cap, no problems. If we take your initial scenario (of Teague for Perkins) and pretend that Atlanta was over the cap and Boston wasn't, the trade still would not work, because Atlanta would still be bound by the 125% + $100,000 rule, and therefore could still only take back $1,817,350, which isn't enough. However, if Atlanta was under the cap by about $5 million or so, they no longer would be; they could use the cap room to absorb Perkins's deal, and the trade could go through.

[windycity00]

ok, how is this looking?

det:
stuckey = 2,767,126
maxiell = 5,000,000
daye = 1,803,720
#7
(not including draft pick salary in total) total = 9,570,846 x 1.25 + 100,000 = 12,063,557.5

pistons team '10-'11 salary = 54,920,704
- so...does the 25% rule not apply
or
- it does apply, since portland's incoming 11,061,748.75 puts them over the cap

por:
oden = 6,760,524
fernandez = 1,246,680
cunningham = 762,195
total = 8,769,399 x 1.25 + 100,000 = 11,061,748.75

portland's '10-'11 team salary = 70,663,568

also, there is still a 1,001,808.75 difference in total exchanging salaries, is this okay?
why or why not?

[Three34]

Yes, the trade works. The small difference remainder you've got there doesn't matter, because the rest of the deal fits within the parameters.

[windycity00]

is the formula: 1.25 x (outgoing) + 100,000 used in all trade situations?
in other words, EVERY time you want to trade, this formula MUST be applied -
even in the circumstance where teams FAR under the cap are trading very small contracts?

for example:
Player A = 1,234,567 who's team's cap is 30,000,000
for
Player B = 2,345,678 who's team's cap is 30,000,000

still, and always, use that formula?

[Three34]

No. Like I said, and like Trade Checker said in the thing you quoted, it's only for teams over the cap.

[windycity00]

No. The maximum amount that a team over the cap can take back in a trade is 125% + $100,000 of the salary they are sending out.

if the above is true, than how could you say the trade works, from portland's point of view, because they took back 12,063,557.5, which is more than 125% + $100,000 of the salary they sent out (which was 11,061,748.75) ?

The small difference remainder you've got there doesn't matter, because the rest of the deal fits within the parameters.

i don't know exactly what you mean by the "rest of the deal" but even if i did - and it were true, i still can't get passed the fact portland is taking back more than 125% + $100,000 of the salary they sent out, (which is an issue since they're over the cap), yet you say it works.

edit: wait a minute....without applying 125% + $100,000 to the salary detroit is sending out, the raw figure is 9,570,846, which is less than 11,061,748.75 (the figure after the "125% + $100,000" formula is applied to the raw salary portland is sending out).......is this why it works, because 9,570,846 is less than 11,061,748.75 ?

[Three34]

I don't know what you're saying. But I'll try anyway.

If Detroit is sending out $9,570,846, they can take back a maximum of $9,570,846 * 125% + $100,000, which is $12,063,558. Meanwhile, Portland are sending Detroit $8,769,399. This is less than $12,063,558. And so Detroit can accept it.

So what's the problem?

[windycity00]

YES! i understand it......the example you just gave was from detroits point of view..........they take back 8,769,399 from portland, so it works for det............i was confused how it worked for portland...........but it makes sense to me now, portland is only taking back 9,570,846, (in raw detroit player salary, without the formula applied to detroit's outgoing salary) which turns out to be less than 11,061,748.75 (what portland is sending out, after the formula is applied to their raw outgoing salary), which is why it works for portland - because 9,570,846 (what they're getting from detroit, without applying the formula to 9,570,846 ).......is less than 11,061,748.75....!

i applied the forumla to the raw/unformulated salary detroit was sending out - and it made it greater than 11,061,748.75 (the total portland could receive back) - so i thought it wouldn't work for portland ---- but what mattered was the raw/unformulated figure/salary detroit was sending out ---- without the formula applied to it ----- when seeing how much portland was taking back - and then seeing if that figure was over/under!

yes! ha, thanks