CLE/PHX

[SideSwipe]

sideswipe,

The important rule you keep missing is that each team can structure the deal separately. So for Phoenix it's really simple:

Morris for Harris. They take back less salary than they send out so they are legal.


It's only 2 simultaneous trades on the Cleveland side because they have to use the TPE to take on Morris' money. So for them its Morris for the 2nd and then Harris for nothing. But because they happen simultaneously Phoenix doesn't have to send them something else for Harris because Morris satisfies that obligation.

The PHX side is easy, it's the CLE side where I have doubts. Harris for nothing as part of a second trade does not meet the leagues requirements per Coon for having assets on each side included in a trade on the CLE side.

[HartfordWhalers]

sideswipe,

The important rule you keep missing is that each team can structure the deal separately. So for Phoenix it's really simple:

Morris for Harris. They take back less salary than they send out so they are legal.


It's only 2 simultaneous trades on the Cleveland side because they have to use the TPE to take on Morris' money. So for them its Morris for the 2nd and then Harris for nothing. But because they happen simultaneously Phoenix doesn't have to send them something else for Harris because Morris satisfies that obligation.

The PHX side is easy, it's the CLE side where I have doubts. Harris for nothing as part of a second trade does not meet the leagues requirements per Coon for having assets on each side included in a trade on the CLE side.

But it is not a second trade in the sense needed for minimum consideration. I provided the Brooklyn example showing that you can have 'separate trades' in terms of the apportioning for TPE's and it isn't applied there but to just the greater trade.

[SideSwipe]

You are mistaken.

1) Joe Harris is a minimum salary player. He is paid the minimum for a 2nd year player.
2) The Brooklyn example shows you can apportion salary for TPE's and not worry about the minimum consideration within the apportions. What matters is that you meet it for the entirely of the transaction that consists of the trade call.
3) Trade rules apply to the taking in of salary. Cleveland can take in Morris via their TPE. Phoenix can take on Harris either through the minimum player exception or via matching with Morris but
4) Even if Harris was not a minimum player, you can have the teams account for a trade differently. And all that matters is each team is adding the players they add legally in their accounting I.e.

If Cleveland trades Morris for Mo Williams it can be broken down:
-- Cleveland uses TPE from previous trade for Morris (and doesn't use Williams for matching but just trades him separately and who cares how Phoenix makes that legal or if it is illegal).
-- Phoenix uses Morris for matching for Williams getting a TPE equal to their difference (and doesn't care that smaller TPE + Williams or Morris is illegal for Cleveland)
Both teams have a legal trade from their perspective, even though the perspectives are entirely different.

# 1
Per Coon:

"Any player whose contract is longer than two seasons cannot be signed or acquired using the Minimum Player Salary exception, even if he is paid the minimum salary."

Per multiple sources online Harris signed for three years. (Hoopshype, Sportrac...Sham's not up yet)

#2,3,4
The trick with CLE is a non-simultaneous trade is already still open- hence the exception. With the non-simultaneous trade still open, if CLE wants to use the exception they have to satisfy the requirements of first closing that trade. That trade cannot be closed using Harris, by what I thought and everything I am reading from Coon and NBA. Because it cannot be closed with Harris, it needs the pick proposed. Harris would then be included in a second simultaneous trade between two over the cap teams. In theory Harris could now be fit into PHX's newly created TPE (from the imbalanced salary of trading away Morris), while PHX would send out a pick or other asset (cash...)

Either way I am still not seeing any reference showing that this could be done in a single trade for CLE. Also, we have no examples that we can find that match the type proposed by the OP. It looks like the distilled topic in question is really whether or not an additional player can be added going out from a team with a TPE as part of that trade. If anyone has a link to this or know where I can find that info outside of Coon or NBA FAQ's, please let me know. Thanks.

[HartfordWhalers]

You are mistaken.

1) Joe Harris is a minimum salary player. He is paid the minimum for a 2nd year player.
2) The Brooklyn example shows you can apportion salary for TPE's and not worry about the minimum consideration within the apportions. What matters is that you meet it for the entirely of the transaction that consists of the trade call.
3) Trade rules apply to the taking in of salary. Cleveland can take in Morris via their TPE. Phoenix can take on Harris either through the minimum player exception or via matching with Morris but
4) Even if Harris was not a minimum player, you can have the teams account for a trade differently. And all that matters is each team is adding the players they add legally in their accounting I.e.

If Cleveland trades Morris for Mo Williams it can be broken down:
-- Cleveland uses TPE from previous trade for Morris (and doesn't use Williams for matching but just trades him separately and who cares how Phoenix makes that legal or if it is illegal).
-- Phoenix uses Morris for matching for Williams getting a TPE equal to their difference (and doesn't care that smaller TPE + Williams or Morris is illegal for Cleveland)
Both teams have a legal trade from their perspective, even though the perspectives are entirely different.

# 1
Per Coon:

"Any player whose contract is longer than two seasons cannot be signed or acquired using the Minimum Player Salary exception, even if he is paid the minimum salary."

Per multiple sources online Harris signed for three years. (Hoopshype, Sportrac...Sham's not up yet)

#2,3,4
The trick with CLE is a non-simultaneous trade is already still open- hence the exception. With the non-simultaneous trade still open, if CLE wants to use the exception they have to satisfy the requirements of first closing that trade. That trade cannot be closed using Harris, by what I thought and everything I am reading from Coon and NBA. Because it cannot be closed with Harris, it needs the pick proposed. Harris would then be included in a second simultaneous trade between two over the cap teams. In theory Harris could now be fit into PHX's newly created TPE (from the imbalanced salary of trading away Morris), while PHX would send out a pick or other asset (cash...)

Either way I am still not seeing any reference showing that this could be done in a single trade for CLE. Also, we have no examples that we can find that match the type proposed by the OP. It looks like the distilled topic in question is really whether or not an additional player can be added going out from a team with a TPE as part of that trade. If anyone has a link to this or know where I can find that info outside of Coon or NBA FAQ's, please let me know. Thanks.

1) It is my understanding that all that matters is the remaining years, and hence Harris is indeed a minimum salary player. Same way the Disabled player exception can only take on a 1 year contract, but has been used to take on guys in the last year of a contract that originally had many years. This wouldn't effect the main point, but I will triple check as its an interesting thing that hasn't come up before.

2-4) This is the same thing again. And again. And again. It is 1 trade for Phoenix. It doesn't matter if it is two trades for Cleveland it can still be 1 trade for Phoenix. It can even be 2 trades for both teams in terms of aggregation and still be 1 (big) trade for the minimum consideration.

[HartfordWhalers]

# 1
Per Coon:

"Any player whose contract is longer than two seasons cannot be signed or acquired using the Minimum Player Salary exception, even if he is paid the minimum salary."

Per multiple sources online Harris signed for three years. (Hoopshype, Sportrac...Sham's not up yet)

1) It is my understanding that all that matters is the remaining years, and hence Harris is indeed a minimum salary player. Same way the Disabled player exception can only take on a 1 year contract, but has been used to take on guys in the last year of a contract that originally had many years. This wouldn't effect the main point, but I will triple check as its an interesting thing that hasn't come up before.

So, the actual CBA has 2 clauses in the disabled player exemption.
1) a team can sign a player for 1 year contract and
2)

If a Team wishes to acquire a Replacement Player pursuant to this Section 6(c), the Replacement Player must have only one Season remaining on his Player Contract...

(emphasis mine)

The minimum player exception in contrast has no such language:

Minimum Player Salary Exception.
A Team may sign a player to, or acquire by assignment, a Player Contract, not to exceed two (2)Seasons in length, that provides for a Salary for the first Season equal to the Minimum Player Salary applicable to that player (with no bonuses of any kind). A Player Contract signed or acquired pursuant to the MinimumPlayer Salary Exception covering two (2) Seasons must provide for a Salary for the second Season equal to the Minimum Player Salary applicable to the player for such Season (with no bonuses of any kind).

So, on a strict wording it would appear that it in contrast does hold and for instance a player in their 3rd year of a 3 year minimum deal cannot be acquired that way.

However,looking at the Nets TPE's from that season, they appear to have taken in both Brandon Davies and Casper Ware using the minimum player exception. They generated full TPE's for their players, and didn't have other TPE's to take on both minimum contracts.

Davies was in year 2 of a 3+1 deal, and Casper was in year 1 of a 3+ 1 deal. So, unless I'm missing some other way Brooklyn took them on, the minimum exception was used for players with 3 or 4 year contracts even. Which wouldn't be the first time something happened that shouldn't.

[Smitty731]

Everyone has covered everything else, but the trade could be as simple as Chuck said.

Phoenix - Harris for Morris. Phoenix takes in less than they send out and Phoenix ends up with a TPE for the difference, assuming they wouldn't then be under the Cap. I didn't do the math, so I'm not sure on that.

Cleveland - Morris absorbed using a portion of the Haywood TPE.

It isn't more complex than that. Each team is a trade is allowed to structure the trade however they want, as long as it is legal. Nothing else needs to change hands. It isn't more than one trade. It is one trade structured differently for each side.

The only time picks (heavily protected or not) or rights to some guy who will never come over come in to play is when each side needs to trade something. You can't just trade a guy for nothing at all.

And, finally, TPEs aren't traded. They are created when a team sends out more salary than they take back and are still over the Cap.

[Smitty731]

Oh and my understanding is that a guy on a minimum deal can be traded for using the Minimum Exception as long as there are no more than 2 years remaining.

The key is how many years are left. Not how many years the deal was original for.

I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it.

[Smitty731]

Oh and my understanding is that a guy on a minimum deal can be traded for using the Minimum Exception as long as there are no more than 2 years remaining.

The key is how many years are left. Not how many years the deal was original for.

I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it.

I'm quoting myself, because I took the time to look it up. The FAQ does say guys can't be acquired using the min exception for deals more than 2 years in length. But I'm fairly certain that applies to years left and not years originally signed for.

I'm looking for the language in the CBA itself, but I can't find it at the moment. And it may not be in the CBA either. It could be in the Operations Manual, which I don't have handy at the moment.

[HartfordWhalers]

Oh and my understanding is that a guy on a minimum deal can be traded for using the Minimum Exception as long as there are no more than 2 years remaining.

The key is how many years are left. Not how many years the deal was original for.

I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it.

Both Davies and Ware I believe were absorbed with it with more than 2 years remaining.

I see the Nets with no other means to absorb them { the only thing they had at the time was Trade Exception (TyShawn Taylor, expiring 1/21/15) — $788,872 which shouldn't have been large enough }

and to also create the old TPE's:

Trade Exception (Marquis Teague, expiring 10/24/15) — $1,120,920
Trade Exception (Andrei Kirilenko, expiring 12/11/15) — $3,326,235
Trade Exception (Jorge Gutierrez, expiring 12/11/15) — $816,482

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/brooklyn-nets-team-salary/brooklyn-nets-salary-archive-201415/



I really think the CBA wording is such that it should be regardless of years remaining but apparently is not enforced.

[HartfordWhalers]

Oh and my understanding is that a guy on a minimum deal can be traded for using the Minimum Exception as long as there are no more than 2 years remaining.

The key is how many years are left. Not how many years the deal was original for.

I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it.

I'm quoting myself, because I took the time to look it up. The FAQ does say guys can't be acquired using the min exception for deals more than 2 years in length. But I'm fairly certain that applies to years left and not years originally signed for.

I'm looking for the language in the CBA itself, but I can't find it at the moment. And it may not be in the CBA either. It could be in the Operations Manual, which I don't have handy at the moment.

I quoted it directly from the CBA above as well as the disabled exception to provide the contrast.

[Smitty731]

Oh and my understanding is that a guy on a minimum deal can be traded for using the Minimum Exception as long as there are no more than 2 years remaining.

The key is how many years are left. Not how many years the deal was original for.

I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it.

I'm quoting myself, because I took the time to look it up. The FAQ does say guys can't be acquired using the min exception for deals more than 2 years in length. But I'm fairly certain that applies to years left and not years originally signed for.

I'm looking for the language in the CBA itself, but I can't find it at the moment. And it may not be in the CBA either. It could be in the Operations Manual, which I don't have handy at the moment.

I quoted it directly from the CBA above as well as the disabled exception to provide the contrast.

My guess is that the CBA itself may not say anything about the Minimum Exception in trades. That seems like more of an Operations Manual thing and I can't find it in the CBA anywhere.

I would throw a question on the CBA Board. DBoys may be able to chime in and answer it.

[HartfordWhalers]

I'm quoting myself, because I took the time to look it up. The FAQ does say guys can't be acquired using the min exception for deals more than 2 years in length. But I'm fairly certain that applies to years left and not years originally signed for.

I'm looking for the language in the CBA itself, but I can't find it at the moment. And it may not be in the CBA either. It could be in the Operations Manual, which I don't have handy at the moment.

I quoted it directly from the CBA above as well as the disabled exception to provide the contrast.

My guess is that the CBA itself may not say anything about the Minimum Exception in trades. That seems like more of an Operations Manual thing and I can't find it in the CBA anywhere.

I would throw a question on the CBA Board. DBoys may be able to chime in and answer it.

No, it does. Same language it uses for disabled exception in trades, etc:

Minimum Player Salary Exception.
A Team may sign a player to, or acquire by assignment, a Player Contract, not to exceed two (2)Seasons in length, that provides for a Salary for the first Season equal to the Minimum Player Salary applicable to that player (with no bonuses of any kind). A Player Contract signed or acquired pursuant to the MinimumPlayer Salary Exception covering two (2) Seasons must provide for a Salary for the second Season equal to the Minimum Player Salary applicable to the player for such Season (with no bonuses of any kind).

Page 198 http://tinyurl.com/nbacbapdf

[Smitty731]

I quoted it directly from the CBA above as well as the disabled exception to provide the contrast.

My guess is that the CBA itself may not say anything about the Minimum Exception in trades. That seems like more of an Operations Manual thing and I can't find it in the CBA anywhere.

I would throw a question on the CBA Board. DBoys may be able to chime in and answer it.

No, it does. Same language it uses for disabled exception in trades, etc:

Minimum Player Salary Exception.
A Team may sign a player to, or acquire by assignment, a Player Contract, not to exceed two (2)Seasons in length, that provides for a Salary for the first Season equal to the Minimum Player Salary applicable to that player (with no bonuses of any kind). A Player Contract signed or acquired pursuant to the MinimumPlayer Salary Exception covering two (2) Seasons must provide for a Salary for the second Season equal to the Minimum Player Salary applicable to the player for such Season (with no bonuses of any kind).

Page 198 http://tinyurl.com/nbacbapdf

I must have skimmed right by it. That PDF document sucks. I mean really bad.

I'm truly stumped. Seems like it is supposed to be two years, but I think you are right on what Philadelphia did. No clue how that worked.

[HartfordWhalers]

My guess is that the CBA itself may not say anything about the Minimum Exception in trades. That seems like more of an Operations Manual thing and I can't find it in the CBA anywhere.

I would throw a question on the CBA Board. DBoys may be able to chime in and answer it.

No, it does. Same language it uses for disabled exception in trades, etc:

Minimum Player Salary Exception.
A Team may sign a player to, or acquire by assignment, a Player Contract, not to exceed two (2)Seasons in length, that provides for a Salary for the first Season equal to the Minimum Player Salary applicable to that player (with no bonuses of any kind). A Player Contract signed or acquired pursuant to the MinimumPlayer Salary Exception covering two (2) Seasons must provide for a Salary for the second Season equal to the Minimum Player Salary applicable to the player for such Season (with no bonuses of any kind).

Page 198 http://tinyurl.com/nbacbapdf

I must have skimmed right by it. That PDF document sucks. I mean really bad.

I'm truly stumped. Seems like it is supposed to be two years, but I think you are right on what Philadelphia did. No clue how that worked.

Not Philly, their end was legal! But the Nets look to have claimed some small useless TPE's that they shouldn't have been able to (Even Stein in his article on one of them said they got the small TPE).

The thing to do is to ask Pincus and Coon on twitter.. and then tag https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42 into the conversation.

[jbk1234]

Cleveland could absolutely take Morris in to the Haywood TPE. Al they would have to send back is a heavily protected second round pick that will never actually convey if they wanted to.

But the Cavs aren't brining him in. He doesn't help them at all, since he can't play the 3 very well. That is his brother who can do that. He's almost strictly a PF with the ability to play small ball 5. Cleveland has enough guys who can do that already.

This. Markeiff would cost three times his salary on the Cavs roster. Dan Gilbert says no thanks. Mozgov may cost less than anticipated next summer but Delly is going to cost more than anticipated.

[SideSwipe]

Well I seem to have completely derailed this topic, for that I am sorry, but... good discussion. After this post I will move it over into the CBA thread. http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1420936

The CBA says "contract length". Also the Coon quote says length of the contract not years remaining, as well FWIW. Length of a contract doesn't change because you are a year into it, legally speaking. I think your interpretation goes with "remaining term" In looking further several sites are reporting that he actually signed a minimum, rookie-scale 4 year deal, with the fourth year being his RFA/QO year- and some reporters called it a 2 year deal. I suspect it was reported that way since it was two guaranteed years- with the other contract years being non-guaranteed. That would really nullify this point of discussion as he would still have three years remaining on his contract- 1 guaranteed and 2 unguaranteed.

I am still not sure how the previous non-simultaneous trade gets satisfied with an additional player. I have a lot of you saying that is how it's done which bears merit, but I have not seen the sources or examples that match the case above. The CBA (pg 155-157,198) is not clear on this, all examples provided show one or two players going into an exception, but no examples or clarity on what can be included by the team that has an open non-simultaneous deal. Also there are no examples similar to the OP that have actually happened (ie a team including a player going out without compensation in the same trade as they are taking a player into an open TPE- all of the deals similar to this that have been done that I recall or have seem included a parallel trade.)

HW provided a BKN example, but this is still different. Arranging it in the teams interests within the rules is allowed, but the suggested solution may not work within the rules- depending on the interpretation. Coon gives good examples of how this works out, but does not examine a case similar to the above.