.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 24 of 58 FirstFirst ... 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 34 ... LastLast
Results 576 to 600 of 1427

Thread: [Official - trade complete] Hornets Trying to Land RFA Lopez from the Suns {merged}

  1. #576
    Quote Originally Posted by 42 View Post
    Ok. But to go over the cap you need to HAVE a trade exception. We do not have one. We can create one by sending out more money than we take in and including a draft pick in a nonsimultaneous deal.

    However, per the later post, we are under the cap, so we don't get those exceptions. We get cap room, which is better. It may be superior to be over the cap since you are spending more money on talent, but cap space is far more flexible, though the team may be `worse' when they are using it.

    Right now, if we send out more salary than the we take back (Jack), we can cap room, not an exception.

    So there are no exceptions to use.

    Dd you read this?

    "As described in question number 79, a team below the cap may disregard salaries when making trades, as long as the team finishes no more than $100,000 above the cap as the result of a trade. However, a team below the cap can choose to use the trade rules for teams above the cap if it works to the team's advantage. For example, if a team is $1 million below the cap, then by using the trade rules for teams below the cap it can trade an $8 million player for a player making up to $9.1 million. By using the rules in place for teams above the cap, the team could trade the $8 million player for a player making up to $12.1 million."

  2. #577
    Quote Originally Posted by sfernald View Post
    This is the part of the FAQ I think you are missing:


    "As described in question number 79, a team below the cap may disregard salaries when making trades, as long as the team finishes no more than $100,000 above the cap as the result of a trade. However, a team below the cap can choose to use the trade rules for teams above the cap if it works to the team's advantage. For example, if a team is $1 million below the cap, then by using the trade rules for teams below the cap it can trade an $8 million player for a player making up to $9.1 million. By using the rules in place for teams above the cap, the team could trade the $8 million player for a player making up to $12.1 million."
    I was referring to the Beasley comment. I guess I should have bolded it...

    With regards to the salary cap debate, I don't have the grasp on it to participate in said debate. I do, however, trust 42's intelligence, so when he says something, I take it to be fact.

  3. #578
    Quote Originally Posted by nolaslim213 View Post
    I love watching the good doctor work.
    Your good doctor is really lost in this debate.

  4. #579
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Silverfoxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,941
    Quote Originally Posted by nolaslim213 View Post
    The deal started back up again man. You didn't read the thread?
    Haha sorry bro, been a little caught up today.
    True Love

  5. #580
    By the way, I just want to state that I have nothing to do with the annoying Suns troll. Im going to ignore him. I'm just trying to get at the truth.

  6. #581
    Quote Originally Posted by Silverfoxx View Post
    Haha sorry bro, been a little caught up today.
    All good homie.

  7. #582
    Mostly Harmless 42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Between 41 and 43
    Posts
    4,900
    Quote Originally Posted by sfernald View Post
    This is the part of the FAQ I think you are missing:


    "As described in question number 79, a team below the cap may disregard salaries when making trades, as long as the team finishes no more than $100,000 above the cap as the result of a trade. However, a team below the cap can choose to use the trade rules for teams above the cap if it works to the team's advantage. For example, if a team is $1 million below the cap, then by using the trade rules for teams below the cap it can trade an $8 million player for a player making up to $9.1 million. By using the rules in place for teams above the cap, the team could trade the $8 million player for a player making up to $12.1 million."
    If we can go over the cap. I'm not convinced we can because we don't have the exception to do so. You still need the exception.

    http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q80

    As described in question number 79, exceptions are the mechanisms that allow teams to sign players or make trades that leave them above the salary cap. Any trade which leaves the team over the salary cap requires an exception -- even if the team is moving downward in salary. For example, if the salary cap is $60 million, a team has a team salary of $65 million, and they want to trade a $5 million player for a $4 million player, they still have to use an exception. Even though their team salary is decreasing by $1 million as a result of the trade, the fact that they would finish over the salary cap ($64 million) means that an exception is required.

    "Any trade which leaves the team over the salary cap requires an exception"

    So where is our exception? Going under the cap wiped out any we may have had, and we haven't created one.

    So what's the damage if we can? The idiot still has proven nothing. We get Lopez cheap or he's wrong about the deal.

    Which is it? Dude isn't getting $7m or whatever.
    __________
    "Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur." - François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire)

  8. #583
    Quote Originally Posted by phrazbit View Post
    Your good doctor is really lost in this debate.
    I think you're a little lost in general. This is a hornets forum. You must have mistaken it for a Phoenix troll forum, but you are now illuminated. Kindly, shut up.
    Last edited by nolaslim213; 07-25-2012 at 12:35 AM.

  9. #584
    Pretty cool. Mr. West's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    'Round Shreveport
    Posts
    3,506
    Quote Originally Posted by phrazbit View Post
    Your good doctor is really lost in this debate.
    He maybe wrong, but I doubt it.


  10. #585
    Mostly Harmless 42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Between 41 and 43
    Posts
    4,900
    Quote Originally Posted by sfernald View Post
    By the way, I just want to state that I have nothing to do with the annoying Suns troll. Im going to ignore him. I'm just trying to get at the truth.
    Appreciated. I'm walking through this as best I can. If I'm screwing up, so be it. Doing what you are doing will help us both arrive at the same place. As long as it is correct, I don't care if it's what I was thinking when I woke up today.

    Everyone gets their lessons, and I'm fine getting mine.

    What this other guy is doing is not helping anyone, so he's getting the fun treatment.

  11. #586
    this thread is way too long for a supposed simple topic

  12. #587
    between this thread and the black hole show Im watching on SCI channel, my heads really spinning.
    We had quite a few interesting conversations as we pondered and navigated the nightly canopy.

  13. #588
    Quote Originally Posted by 42 View Post
    If we can go over the cap. I'm not convinced we can because we don't have the exception to do so. You still need the exception.

    http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q80

    As described in question number 79, exceptions are the mechanisms that allow teams to sign players or make trades that leave them above the salary cap. Any trade which leaves the team over the salary cap requires an exception -- even if the team is moving downward in salary. For example, if the salary cap is $60 million, a team has a team salary of $65 million, and they want to trade a $5 million player for a $4 million player, they still have to use an exception. Even though their team salary is decreasing by $1 million as a result of the trade, the fact that they would finish over the salary cap ($64 million) means that an exception is required.

    "Any trade which leaves the team over the salary cap requires an exception"

    So where is our exception? Going under the cap wiped out any we may have had, and we haven't created one.

    So what's the damage if we can? The idiot still has proven nothing. We get Lopez cheap or he's wrong about the deal.

    Which is it? Dude isn't getting $7m or whatever.

    Well, I don't care about that dumb troll.

    But even if you forget the FAQ which I think clearly states we can take back 150% from the passage I quoted, it doesn't even make logical sense that teams under the cap would be penalized in this way and put to a disadvantage with teams over the cap. Teams under the cap should have more advantages, not less. Yes, they do lose the mid-level exceptions and such, but that is all different from a traded player exception.

  14. #589
    We need a 4th big - so I think it's not a terrible move to take Lopez......but he is NOT starter material. He's regressed greatly in the past 2 seasons and lost a lot of athleticism from an injury a few seasons back. I'm not sure why people are considering him our answer at starting C.

    As a 4th big - he'll probably provide us some hard fouls and a little bit of bulk inside. He has not been an effective player at all since 09-10. Unless he reverts back to his old form, we're getting 6 hard fouls off the bench and not much more. It's not the end of the world to have him come off the bench, but I think many people on this thread are making him out to be a more effective player than he is.

  15. #590
    THINK Contributor redrum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Old Metairie
    Posts
    550
    You guys are killing me!
    My wife is from Arizona, Phoenix is a good city;
    I am from New Orleans, Good City!
    Hornets have never been an ideal franchise;
    Suns have never been an ideal franchise!
    Gordon is a tool and played both franchises for his money! Hooray!
    Lopez is big.
    None of us completely understand every aspect of the NBA salary cap and trade rules! (Need a Law degree I think, or at least be a CPA}

    Now can we just talk about basketball and stop with the insults!
    It's that the Hornets unashamedly quit so quickly in Game 4 after fans in New Orleans showed up this season with greater regularity than the team could have ever dreamed, shaming misinformed know-it-alls like me who kept telling you that local residents couldn't possibly invest their time and money into something as trivial as rooting for the local basketball team while still recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. - Mark Stien ESPN

  16. #591
    Mostly Harmless 42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Between 41 and 43
    Posts
    4,900
    The FAQ has been wrong before, and Coon makes errors too. He didn't have the max salary right for this season. He found out when trying to figure out the Asik deal. The numbers he got on for the high end of the deal were lower than reported, then he sorted it out and updated the FAQ.

    If I'm reading it wrong, fine. I've got a clear, logical, data-based argument that could be wrong. So be it. I'm not just making stuff up and repeating trash like Suns-boy.

    No problem with that sort of defeat.

    Plus, he still can't subtract. If all this stuff is true, he didn't start there. He's just flopping around saying anything, changing his tune once it doesn't fit.

  17. #592
    Im off to bed. Hopefully this trade will be done in the morning and we won't have wasted our brains for nothing.

  18. #593
    Quote Originally Posted by sleepingbunch View Post
    We need a 4th big - so I think it's not a terrible move to take Lopez......but he is NOT starter material. He's regressed greatly in the past 2 seasons and lost a lot of athleticism from an injury a few seasons back. I'm not sure why people are considering him our answer at starting C.

    As a 4th big - he'll probably provide us some hard fouls and a little bit of bulk inside. He has not been an effective player at all since 09-10. Unless he reverts back to his old form, we're getting 6 hard fouls off the bench and not much more. It's not the end of the world to have him come off the bench, but I think many people on this thread are making him out to be a more effective player than he is.
    That's how we used to feel about Jason Smith too... I'd reserve judgement for a year or two.

  19. #594
    Mostly Harmless 42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Between 41 and 43
    Posts
    4,900
    Quote Originally Posted by sfernald View Post
    Well, I don't care about that dumb troll.

    But even if you forget the FAQ which I think clearly states we can take back 150% from the passage I quoted, it doesn't even make logical sense that teams under the cap would be penalized in this way and put to a disadvantage with teams over the cap. Teams under the cap should have more advantages, not less. Yes, they do lose the mid-level exceptions and such, but that is all different from a traded player exception.
    I just read this as there being several parameters for trades. The rule you quoted (which was violated in the $1.5m Ayon for $8.7m Anderson deal), is one. I think the cap rule I quoted is another. I think the TPE rule also would apply if we had one.

    Plus, there are vagaries:

    http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q26

    So being under the cap does not necessarily mean a team has room to sign free agents. For example, assume the cap is $58 million, and a team has $51.5 million committed to salaries. They also have a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $5 million and a trade exception for $5.5 million. Even though their salaries put them $6.5 million under the cap, their exceptions also count toward their team salary, increasing their total to $62 million, or $4 million over the cap. So the team actually has no cap room to sign free agents, and instead must use its exceptions to sign players.

    So there are at least two different ways to be under the cap: with exceptions and without.

    To me, the Anderson trade means we have no exceptions other than the room exception and vet mins (inalienable). I make sense of the totality of what you have posted and what I have posted is that teams under the cap but within `exceptions' of being over and then use those rules if they want. Once you give up the exceptions, you can't.

    In my reading, we are in the latter category, and the Anderson trade is evidence.

    Thoughts?

    ETA: More from the same Question:

    A team's exceptions may be lost entirely, or the team may never receive them to begin with. This happens when their team salary is so low that when the exceptions are added to the team salary, the sum is still below the salary cap. If this happens when the exceptions arise, then the team doesn't get their exceptions at all. If the team salary ever drops below this level during the year, then any unused portions of their exceptions are lost (and do not return if the team salary increases).

    For example, assume there is a $58 million salary cap, and during the offseason a team has $50 million committed to salaries, along with a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $5 million, a trade exception for $2.5 million, and an unrenounced free agent whose free agent amount is $2 million. Their salaries and exceptions total $59.5 million, or $1.5 million over the cap. What if their free agent signs with another team? The $2 million free agent amount comes off their cap, so their team salary (including their remaining exceptions) drops to $57.5 million. This total is below the cap so the team loses its Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level and trade exceptions.

    There is logic behind this. The whole idea behind an "exception" is that it is an exception to the rule which says a team cannot go over the salary cap. In other words, an exception is a mechanism which allows a team to function above the cap. If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. A rule of thumb is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but it can't have both at the same time. However, a team in this situation does qualify to use the Room Mid-Level exception (see question number 25).
    Last edited by 42; 07-25-2012 at 12:51 AM.

  20. #595
    The Artist    Contributor   
    bigdub81's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    623
    Why do they test you 42? Why?

  21. #596
    Quote Originally Posted by 42 View Post
    I just read this as there being several parameters for trades. The rule you quoted (which was violated in the $1.5m Ayon for $8.7m Anderson deal), is one. I think the cap rule I quoted is another. I think the TPE rule also would apply if we had one.

    Plus, there are vagaries:

    http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q26

    So being under the cap does not necessarily mean a team has room to sign free agents. For example, assume the cap is $58 million, and a team has $51.5 million committed to salaries. They also have a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $5 million and a trade exception for $5.5 million. Even though their salaries put them $6.5 million under the cap, their exceptions also count toward their team salary, increasing their total to $62 million, or $4 million over the cap. So the team actually has no cap room to sign free agents, and instead must use its exceptions to sign players.

    So there are at least two different ways to be under the cap: with exceptions and without.

    To me, the Anderson trade means we have no exceptions other than the room exception and vet mins (inalienable). I make sense of the totality of what you have posted and what I have posted is that teams under the cap but within `exceptions' of being over and then use those rules if they want. Once you give up the exceptions, you can't.

    In my reading, we are in the latter category, and the Anderson trade is evidence.

    Thoughts?

    ETA: More from the same Question:

    A team's exceptions may be lost entirely, or the team may never receive them to begin with. This happens when their team salary is so low that when the exceptions are added to the team salary, the sum is still below the salary cap. If this happens when the exceptions arise, then the team doesn't get their exceptions at all. If the team salary ever drops below this level during the year, then any unused portions of their exceptions are lost (and do not return if the team salary increases).

    For example, assume there is a $58 million salary cap, and during the offseason a team has $50 million committed to salaries, along with a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $5 million, a trade exception for $2.5 million, and an unrenounced free agent whose free agent amount is $2 million. Their salaries and exceptions total $59.5 million, or $1.5 million over the cap. What if their free agent signs with another team? The $2 million free agent amount comes off their cap, so their team salary (including their remaining exceptions) drops to $57.5 million. This total is below the cap so the team loses its Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level and trade exceptions.

    There is logic behind this. The whole idea behind an "exception" is that it is an exception to the rule which says a team cannot go over the salary cap. In other words, an exception is a mechanism which allows a team to function above the cap. If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. A rule of thumb is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but it can't have both at the same time. However, a team in this situation does qualify to use the Room Mid-Level exception (see question number 25).
    I just think that the idea of an exception is getting confused.

    Forget the mid-level exception, the biannual exception, the player exceptions you get for making uneven trades. This is just confusing you.

    Think of the "traded player exception" as the transaction created when you swipe your credit card. Every single time a team over the cap trades a player, a "traded player exception" is the means by which it happens. It is created by doing the trade, you don't need one to do the trade. It is just a set of restrictions you must abide by if you are over the cap, it is the rules of the transaction. And that paragraph I mentioned says that a team under the cap can use these over the cap exceptions if it is useful to them.

    That's how I see it anyway from the FAQ.
    Last edited by sfernald; 07-25-2012 at 01:04 AM.

  22. #597
    Mostly Harmless 42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Between 41 and 43
    Posts
    4,900
    They should. No one should just believe me. No one should just believe anyone. Respectually listen, fact check when you can. Not everyone can all the time, but the better educated we are as fans, the better off we'll be.

    We're the smallest market in the NBA, so we're going to get junk thrown at us. We can't be average. We have to be great fans. We have to be hospitable, fun, passionate, and educated.

    We should be testing each other the right way pretty often.

    They should test like sfernald. Dude had me working and was 100% cool. I do appreciate having to work and any learning that may come as a result, right or wrong on my part. This other guy . . . ugh.

  23. #598
    Pretty cool. Mr. West's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    'Round Shreveport
    Posts
    3,506
    Am I the only one who is shocked that X isn't involved in this trade?

    Also, am I the only one that read that Miller would be shipped out, got bummed, and then realized that it was Brad Miller not Darius?

  24. #599
    Vote Voodoo! Contributor Unknown Poster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    The Interwebs
    Posts
    9,573
    "Hornets means nothing." - Tom Benson

  25. #600
    Vote Voodoo! Contributor Unknown Poster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    The Interwebs
    Posts
    9,573

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •