That's right. It slipped my mind. I guess it got lost in all the excitement.
This is a complex trade. There are obviously gray areas in the CBA that most people aren't aware of. It comes with the territory. It's a new CBA early in its lifespan. People are making mistakes left and right. Even the experts are. You are being unfair in that regard. There were a lot of intricate details in this trade that isn't common. We live and learn. You will not likely see very many deals similar to this one. Its unique due to Miller's situation.
trade being a little wrong intially, then trying to figure out what the correct configuration was. Waiting for it to happen or not is valid, but is also no fun and misses and chance to work through this. Then, there is the following line in the CBA FAQ (not the CBA, I understand):
"•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."
Now, in other places it says stuff like
"when a team is over the cap and acquires a player in trade, they cannot re-trade that player in combination with other players for two months."
Now, is that a clearer restatement? Is that and additional rule? Does one supersede the other? It reads to me that if I get a guy when I'm over the cap, then drop under right after (so I dump Ariza and Okafor, for example, after acquiring a cheaper player and get just under the cap), then I still can't aggregate this player's salary with another to get another player on another team with equal contract value to those two.
And, I talked to Larry Coon via email and he said, "The Hornets don’t have any trade exceptions left. There isn’t any way the trade works as reported."
This was after it was acknowledged by the pair of us (and more in the world) that the Miller trade to Minne was wrong, as it was not mentioned. Now, I didn't ask about trade exceptions and had mentioned the same thing here (not talking about TPE, he means the credits). So it seems to me this talking about fitting salary.
As it turns out, the CBA says
"no Player Contract acquired pursuant to an Exception may give rise to an aggregated trade exception for a period of two (2) months from the date the Player Contract is acquired" and does not have language in it to the other effect. So, the first quote confused not only me, but the author of the FAQ itself, until after the trade. Then I got an email with the above in it. The wording also appears in the 2005 CBA, which I recently got (working on 2011 now).
There was a real hangup, but as Dell said, it was a matter of interpretation. It turns out it was about the protection on the pick that was initially included had a provision where it could turn into cash. Since the Suns had received cash to the limit already, that was interpreted by some as receiving more cash. Subtle.
As far as seeming like an expert, I mentioned above that no one should just believe what I say, so I'm not sure I'm "talking like an expert." I'm trying to explain things and know there are holes in my knowledge, and this is the first major issue I've had with the CBA FAQ as a resource. So, I'm trying to the CBA itself to work from. Talking with you was very helpful, too.
I could not care less about post count etc. My motivation is to understand this team, etc. It does not bother me a lick that I don't understand certain parts of a document I have never seen. Not trying to learn about it bothers me though. I think the post count is so high because the trade lasted for days. Normal trade threads are many pages anyway, and they just appear out of nowhere in the Dell world. This one was anomalous in that respect.
So, that's my interpretation about the hubbub. You can choose to take whichever view you wish of it, of course, but it all seems fine to me.
"Aime la vérité, mais pardonne à l'erreur." - François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
I saw no one present the correct answer before the trade, and I do not know that the presentation would have been rejected.
It's quite easy to point to someone and say "you are wrong" when they are. It's quite another to present the right answer when that person is wrong, and before the answer is in fact revealed. I did not see this. Nor did I see any refuting of the aggregation hypothesis itself . . . so no one pointed out before the trade was official why the aggregation was ok.
As far as folks being made to worry: No one who knew the right answer would have worried. What was actually worrying people was the trade not actually having gone through. Trying to explain events in the world causes no worry; the events do. Fear of the bad ones does.
2nd largest thread in Hornets Nest history, wow. hahaha. times have changed
Formally known as WhoDatMan504
Times indeed have changed. Quite awesome indeed. Wait till we start playing games. Or the first time Davis or Rivers go off.
Now I do voice overs. Finally!
Click here for my first voice demo!
"I'm not going to allow my putative owner to answer that question, this is an NBA related press conference. Paul Tagliabue and Roger Goodell have collectively sung their praises of Tom and if uh ESPN has a problem with that tell Mr. Skipper to call me at my office."
Lopez is that most teams do start a true center, and they tend to be most involved at the beginning of games and don't really tend to play as many minutes as other starting positions, either because of fouls, worse conditioning than smaller players, or not being good at basketball.
Interesting if true: on Hoopsworld, only the first year of Lopez's deal is guaranteed. This would mean that if Lopez doesn't live up to his contract, he can be waived at the end of the year, giving the Hornets terrific flexibility. If he lives up to or exceeds the contract, we're locked in a young center on a very reasonable deal. Great move if true, really mitigates the risk from this deal.
Hat tip to Mike P. from Hornets247.
Again, not confirmed. Can't find specifics anywhere else. But it really would change my outlook for this deal from cautiously optimistic to thrilled.
Its surprising to see Jason Smith has a non guaranteed contract season.
Does this mean the Hornets will just guarantee his contract or do they now pay more than 2.5M?
WOW if his contract isn't guaranteed for the 2nd and 3rd year, then Demps is even better than I thought. I bet Lopez is going to make a lot of posters eat their words on this forum. I'm still calling for a starting lineup of Vasquez/Gordon/Anderson/Davis/Lopez. First sub will be Aminu for Lopez, and then Anderson and Davis slide over. Then Smith in for Anderson, then Lopez back in for Davis. That's the great thing about our lineup. Almost everyone on the team can play multiple positions. Not that it matters though because Monty is obviously a match up guy. I expect Lopez to average around 26 or so minutes a night and 30+ when we play the larger teams with a low post presence at C. I'm so excited about the future of the team, I'd re new my season tickets if I didn't live so far away.
Have a hard time believing that he would accept a 3 year contract with only 1 guaranteed. If that is the case, why would he not just have signed his QO and become a FA again next year? That would mean there was basically no market out there for him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)