RealGM

Does a TPE have to cover the a player's entire contract? Or just within 125% of it?

Suppose player A makes 5 million. Does team B need a 5 million (or larger) TPE or would a 4 million TPE be fine?

4*1.25=5 mil.

TPE's have to be within $100,000 of the contract. The 125% rule does not apply. So get a $5 million player with a TPE, you need at least a $4.9 mil TPE.

Is a TPE created after every trade?

deNIEd wrote:Is a TPE created after every trade?

I imagine that a TPE is only created when the 125% rule doesn't apply.

Smoke[MaxX] wrote:

deNIEd wrote:Is a TPE created after every trade?

I imagine that a TPE is only created when the 125% rule doesn't apply.

GS got a $810,520 TPE from the trade for Claxton (5,757,818) + Law (2,071,680) for Crawford (8,640,000) while both teams were over the cap with the 125% rule applying.

I've been reading the salary cap guide, and I was under the impression that TPE's were always created.

If LAL trades 20 mil in salary to SA. SA only gives 17 mil of salary to LA. LA would receive a 3 mil TPE.


Can anyone confirm or disprove this?

Assigned Player Exceptions are always used in all trades not between two teams under the cap, but the APEs commonly referred to as TPEs, for later use, are not always.

In your hypothetical trade, it would depend entirely on what the contracts behind those aggregate values are. But the shortest explanation I can give: if both teams can't legally look at some part of the trade as sending one single player out while receiving less than their salary back, there is no TPE.

In the previous poster's example, if law made $3 million instead of $2 million, the trade is still legal, but no TPE is created either way.

TPE's are not created in al trades. They are created in many, but not all.

There are two options for doing a trade. Option 1 gives you more money but less time. Option 2 gives you more time but less money.

Option 1: Trade must be completed immediately, and you can receive 125%.

Option 2: Trade must be completed within one year, and you can receive 100%.

Note: Option 2 is available only when trading away a single player, although trades that send out more than one player may sometimes be reconfigured into multiple, simultaneous, single-player trades. If this happens, then the trades that send out a single player eligible for Option 2.

So:

-- If you're sending out more than one player, it's Option 1 by definition.
-- If you're receiving back more than 100% of the salary you send out, it's Option 1 by definition.

If you send out only one player, and you take back less than 100% of that player's salary, then it's Option 2 by default. That one-year coupon to take back the remaining salary is a TPE.

Note: There's a $100K fudge factor on all trades, which I didn't mention above.

Modern_epic wrote:Assigned Player Exceptions are always used in all trades not between two teams under the cap, but the APEs commonly referred to as TPEs, for later use, are not always.

In your hypothetical trade, it would depend entirely on what the contracts behind those aggregate values are. But the shortest explanation I can give: if both teams can't legally look at some part of the trade as sending one single player out while receiving less than their salary back, there is no TPE.

In the previous poster's example, if law made $3 million instead of $2 million, the trade is still legal, but no TPE is created either way.

Actually, while TPEs used to be just a term that wasn't contained in the CBA to refer to non-simultaneous trades using the APE, in the 2005 CBA they got rid of the APE name and the entire thing is called the TPE now. So now, you would refer to a simultaneous TPE or a non-simultaneous TPE

As the lawyers rushed to get the final document ready on the summer of 2005, they overlooked a couple of references to the APE in their attempt to change the nomenclature to TPE. So you'll find references to both in the current CBA. But as Dan said, they mean the same thing.

Serves me right for not for not reading the whole FAQ again when the new CBA came out.

D21 wrote:GS got a $810,520 TPE from the trade for Claxton (5,757,818) + Law (2,071,680) for Crawford (8,640,000) while both teams were over the cap with the 125% rule applying.

From what Larry said this trade shouldn't generate a TPE since its 125%. Does anyone know if a TPE was actually generated?'

Edit: For anyone interested since GS only traded 1 player away(crawford) they can use the 100% rule and so they get the TPE. The Hawks used the 125% rule to get Crawford.

ranger001 wrote:

D21 wrote:GS got a $810,520 TPE from the trade for Claxton (5,757,818) + Law (2,071,680) for Crawford (8,640,000) while both teams were over the cap with the 125% rule applying.

From what Larry said this trade shouldn't generate a TPE since its 125%. Does anyone know if a TPE was actually generated?'

Edit: For anyone interested since GS only traded 1 player away(crawford) they can use the 100% rule and so they get the TPE. The Hawks used the 125% rule to get Crawford.

You are misunderstanding what Larry said there.

In this case (using the above numbers), there would indeed be a TPE that would allow the amount of $910,502 (the difference in salary plus $100k)


GS is the team generating the non-simultaneous TPE here. It doesn't really matter on their end that ATL is using the 125% plus $100k rule with a simultaneous TPE. Each side of the trade constructs their trade to be most beneficial to their side within what is allowable.