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

[RekesNotWeak]

Watch the starting five will be this to start the season:

C: Lopez
PF: Davis
SF: Anderson
SG: Gordon
PG: Vasquez
6th: Rivers

I don't think this should be the lineup as I would have Davis at the 5, Anderson at 4, and Amjnu at the 3. I don't know why, but I think Monty and Dell see Anderson as Peja in his prime. They are pretty much exact replicas in height & weight and can shoot the 3. Maybe I'm wrong and hope I am to a degree, but for some reason I feel that is how Monty and Dell envision Anderson. This is what they see as our team in different positions that we will see them on the court.

C: Lopez / Davis / Smith / Anderson
PF: Davis / Anderson / Smith / Thomas
SF: Anderson / Aminu / Miller / Henry / Thomas
SG: Gordon / Rivers / Henry / Dyson
PG: Vasquez / Rivers / Gordon / Dyson

[42]

Not gonna lie... Havn't read most of the thread, just this page so I don't know why he would say that Lopez is signed for 2 mil. However, it is pretty clear that the guy is wrong so stick it to 'em 42.

If we get Lopez for $2m for 2y-4y, then this guy can be right ALL DAY LONG (no DST).

There is no accounting for crazy, and that deal would be crazy. Crazy.

[Mr. West]

I think we all know why the Eric Gordon thing played out the way it did. I didn't want to to type up the whole story, but it appears that you are forcing my hand - odd, considering you, yourself, should know the details, and if you do know said details, then you wouldn't have quoted that part of the message. That is neither here nor there. I shall proceed.

1) We didn't offer Gordon the 5-year max extension that he wanted. He got pissed.

2) We offered him a deal in the neighborhood of 4 years/$50 million. He wanted the max.

3) He went on a tour begging for the max, and Phoenix was desperate enough to give it to him and, coincidentally, stupid enough to believe that we wouldn't match.

4) Since the contract couldn't be finalized for a few days, Gordon went on a media splurge where he said a few things that he now regrets in order to protect his newly acquired contract.

5) Gordon has since rescinded his statements and has asked for the forgiveness/acceptance of the Hornets fans.

Twas just a friendly jest, trying to make light of a bad conversation. Tis no need to explain the Gordon situation to me, friend. I am well read on the matter.

[phrazbit]

Steve Nash.
Amare.
Should I keep going?

And you still cannot subtract. What grade are you in? And aren't you up late, even in a land where they can't afford to save daylight?

Coyotes.

25% unemployment.

Real estate nightmare.

Anthony Davis.

LOL! Nash and Amare both wanted to stay, if the Suns had offered Nash the deal he got from LA then he would still be in Phoenix, and Amare CLEARLY stated that for the same money New York offered he would have stayed a Sun, and Phoenix was definetly in the right to not offer that disastrous deal that New York did. Please, point out where either of those 2 guys tore into the team.

And if you want to get into a city vs city debate in the minds of NBA players then you should give Eric Gordon a ring and ask him the driving factors.

[sfernald]

You see, you say $5m. I say $6m, which is another report.

This is a larger number.

What I'm about to do is called "subtraction." Say that with me . . . "Sub trac tion." Very good.

****** = **** + ?

******
****
**

? = **

So with Warrick eating up $4m, Lopez gets $2m. Yay!

Now we check

**** + ** = ?

****** = ?

****** is the room we started with. Yay!

Yay!

Wouldnt we be trading the contract of Brad Miller (5.1M) and possibly Dyson (0.8M). Let's say that's 6M. Under the new CBA we could take up to 150% in trade, so we could take back contracts in the amount of 9M.

Subtract out Warrick's contract (4M) and we could potentially sign Lopez to a deal starting at 5M (which would be my guess).

Does this make any sense or am I missing something here?

[42]

some (badly pasted) advanced stats on the $2m man

Season Age Tm Lg G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
2008-09 20 PHO NBA 60 614 11.6 .566 .518 10.3 12.1 11.2 1.8 0.9 4.9 14.4 14.0 112 111 0.6 0.4 1.1 .083
2009-10 21 PHO NBA 51 986 17.6 .621 .588 12.6 15.6 14.2 1.1 0.5 3.8 10.6 17.3 123 110 2.5 0.8 3.2 .158
2010-11 22 PHO NBA 67 991 13.9 .539 .501 9.5 15.6 12.6 1.3 0.9 3.4 10.7 20.4 105 110 0.8 0.8 1.5 .074
2011-12 23 PHO NBA 64 895 15.2 .526 .461 11.5 14.8 13.2 3.4 1.0 4.8 11.5 18.9 108 105 1.2 0.9 2.1 .115
Career NBA 242 3486 14.9 .562 .517 11.0 14.8 12.9 1.9 0.8 4.1 11.4 18.0 112 109 5.1 2.9 8.0 .110

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...lopezro01.html

While Smith, who would be paid more, give us

Season Age Tm Lg G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
2007-08 21 PHI NBA 76 1107 10.7 .491 .461 8.2 16.6 12.3 2.8 1.1 3.6 12.2 16.1 101 106 0.2 1.4 1.5 .067
2009-10 23 PHI NBA 56 658 10.6 .491 .460 9.5 14.7 12.1 7.5 1.7 3.4 15.4 15.8 101 109 0.1 0.6 0.7 .048
2010-11 24 NOH NBA 77 1102 10.8 .490 .443 9.8 16.9 13.3 5.3 1.3 2.4 13.6 16.9 100 105 0.2 1.4 1.6 .070
2011-12 25 NOH NBA 40 947 16.6 .537 .522 9.2 15.3 12.3 6.8 1.2 3.6 9.8 20.4 107 105 1.2 1.0 2.2 .110
Career NBA 249 3814 12.2 .504 .475 9.1 16.0 12.6 5.3 1.3 3.2 12.4 17.3 102 106 1.6 4.3 6.0 .075


http://www.basketball-reference.com/...smithja02.html

Still looking logical?

It might be right, but it's crazy.

[phrazbit]

Wouldnt we be trading the contract of Brad Miller (5.1M) and possibly Dyson (0.8M). Let's say that's 6M. Under the new CBA we could take up to 150% in trade, so we could take back contracts in the amount of 9M.

Subtract out Warrick's contract (4M) and we could potentially sign Lopez to a deal starting at 5M (which would be my guess).

Does this make any sense or am I missing something here?

Woah woah woah, dont do anything to rain on the parade of arrogance going on around here. Not cool.

[JJackisangry]

Me too. And if that's the case, I think Anderson and Davis would definitely work.

Steve Nash.
Amare.
Should I keep going?

And you still cannot subtract. What grade are you in? And aren't you up late, even in a land where they can't afford to save daylight?

Coyotes.

25% unemployment.

Real estate nightmare.

Anthony Davis.

how can you not add joe johnson sir Jason of Calmes? Long story short i hate phoenix slightly less than cleveland (which is alot). They pull their fake phoney bull**** to manipulate players into feeling wanted. News flash: it was an act EJ!!! I hope people stay away from that desolate wasteland from now on.

[luckyman]

And if you want to get into a city vs city debate in the minds of NBA players then you should give Eric Gordon a ring and ask him the driving factors.

That wasn't city vs. city. That was "coddle me" vs. "we'll match so STFU", franchise vs. franchise, money vs. money.

There was no quotes from anyone, including Gordon, regarding cities.

[42]

LOL! Nash and Amare both wanted to stay, if the Suns had offered Nash the deal he got from LA then he would still be in Phoenix, and Amare CLEARLY stated that for the same money New York offered he would have stayed a Sun, and Phoenix was definetly in the right to not offer that disastrous deal that New York did. Please, point out where either of those 2 guys tore into the team.

And if you want to get into a city vs city debate in the minds of NBA players then you should give Eric Gordon a ring and ask him the driving factors.

I still don't see any logic about the deal.

Would you like an online tutorial?

Care to address the $2m deal you think Lopez will take as being anything but an endictment of your team?

[phrazbit]

That wasn't city vs. city. That was "coddle me" vs. "we'll match so STFU", franchise vs. franchise.

There was no quotes from anyone, including Gordon, regarding cities.

... it was in response to 42's post making it about aspects of cities. Take it up with him.

[nolaslim213]

Twas just a friendly jest, trying to make light of a bad conversation. Tis no need to explain the Gordon situation to me, friend. I am well read on the matter.

This guy has me riled up, and you know how I get when that happens haha.

[42]

Wouldnt we be trading the contract of Brad Miller (5.1M) and possibly Dyson (0.8M). Let's say that's 6M. Under the new CBA we could take up to 150% in trade, so we could take back contracts in the amount of 9M.

Subtract out Warrick's contract (4M) and we could potentially sign Lopez to a deal starting at 5M (which would be my guess).

Does this make any sense or am I missing something here?

We are under the cap and are bound by it, not arrogance (the other `guy' said that, not you). It's weird that facts are perceived to be arrogant.

See here:

Teams under the salary cap may make trades as they please, as long as they don't finish more than $100,000 above the salary cap following any trade. But if a team finishes more than $100,000 over the cap, whether they started out above or below the cap, then an exception is required. An exception is the mechanism that allows a team to make trades or sign players and finish over the salary cap. Since most teams are usually over the salary cap, trades are usually completed using exceptions.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q79

This is from Larry Coon. So if I'm wrong, he's wrong.

What you are correctly pointing out, sfernald, is that the amount of imbalance in a trade is bound from the perspective of the team adding salary in some cases. Meeting these bounds, however, does not mean a trade is legal. There are other rules, such as total team salary figure, that factor in.

You will also note that the Anderson trade did not obey that rule. This is because we were under the cap (see the thing I quoted).

Cool?

[luckyman]

... it was in response to 42's post making it about aspects of cities. Take it up with him.

He might have done that on his own accord and personal opinion, but you tried to extend it to Gordon and NBA players in return. There's a difference.

[42]

... it was in response to 42's post making it about aspects of cities. Take it up with him.

You brought it up with the Gordon wanting out, as if those are not mere negotiations played out. Check the guy's agent.

[phrazbit]

I still don't see any logic about the deal.

Would you like an online tutorial?

Care to address the $2m deal you think Lopez will take as being anything but an endictment of your team?

Maybe you should address you issues with the reporters who have been describing the parameters of the trade...

or...

Wouldnt we be trading the contract of Brad Miller (5.1M) and possibly Dyson (0.8M). Let's say that's 6M. Under the new CBA we could take up to 150% in trade, so we could take back contracts in the amount of 9M.

Subtract out Warrick's contract (4M) and we could potentially sign Lopez to a deal starting at 5M (which would be my guess).

Does this make any sense or am I missing something here?

Also:
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/12/08/l...hed/index.html

Traded Player Exception for non-taxpayers increased to the lesser of 150% of salaries of players being traded or the salaries of players being traded plus $5 million. For trades in which the salaries being traded exceed $20 million in total, the Traded Player Exception for non-taxpayers will be 125% of such salaries plus $100,000.

Bwaaaa bwaaaaaaaaaaaa bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. I'd ask for an apology and a handshake but I have a feeling you'd spit in your palm.

[Mr. West]

We are under the cap and are bound by it, not arrogance (the other `guy' said that, not you). It's weird that facts are perceived to be arrogant.

See here:

Teams under the salary cap may make trades as they please, as long as they don't finish more than $100,000 above the salary cap following any trade. But if a team finishes more than $100,000 over the cap, whether they started out above or below the cap, then an exception is required. An exception is the mechanism that allows a team to make trades or sign players and finish over the salary cap. Since most teams are usually over the salary cap, trades are usually completed using exceptions.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q79

This is from Larry Coon. So if I'm wrong, he's wrong.

What you are correctly pointing out, sfernald, is that the amount of imbalance in a trade is bound from the perspective of the team adding salary in some cases. Meeting these bounds, however, does not mean a trade is legal. There are other rules, such as total team salary figure, that factor in.

You will also note that the Anderson trade did not obey that rule. This is because we were under the cap (see the thing I quoted).

Cool?

I learned today.

[42]

Here's what they guy said:

it has to be pointed out that your best player didnt want to stay with YOUR team and was begging to come to Phoenix. New Orleans does not have the greatest track record of happily retaining their best players. When Lopez starts tearing into the Suns franchise like Gordon did... you let me know.

So I listed things they have trouble holding on to, jested about DST, and said Anthony Davis.

Sue me.

[42]

Maybe you should address you issues with the reporters who have been describing the parameters of the trade...

or...


Also:
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/12/08/l...hed/index.html


Bwaaaa bwaaaaaaaaaaaa bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. I'd ask for an apology and a handshake but I have a feeling you'd spit in your palm.

Still not reading well?

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

We went under the cap to do the Anderson trade, thus have no exceptions to use for this, except the room exception, which is just over $2m, so we win if Lopez takes that, but then again, we have the cap space.

Want to find more words that mean nothing to make you feel better?

Try "Beasley"

[sfernald]

We are under the cap and are bound by it, not arrogance (the other `guy' said that, not you). It's weird that facts are perceived to be arrogant.

See here:

Teams under the salary cap may make trades as they please, as long as they don't finish more than $100,000 above the salary cap following any trade. But if a team finishes more than $100,000 over the cap, whether they started out above or below the cap, then an exception is required. An exception is the mechanism that allows a team to make trades or sign players and finish over the salary cap. Since most teams are usually over the salary cap, trades are usually completed using exceptions.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q79

This is from Larry Coon. So if I'm wrong, he's wrong.

What you are correctly pointing out, sfernald, is that the amount of imbalance in a trade is bound from the perspective of the team adding salary in some cases. Meeting these bounds, however, does not mean a trade is legal. There are other rules, such as total team salary figure, that factor in.

You will also note that the Anderson trade did not obey that rule. This is because we were under the cap (see the thing I quoted).

Cool?

Well, I'm not a lawyer (I did go to law school though), but I don't interpret that FAQ as you do.

I see it as if we are under the cap, which we are, but will go over the cap by making the trade, we must use an exception as you state, a traded player exception for a simultanteous trade I believe.

Since we would be over the cap, but under the tax, I believe we would qualify under this table:

Non-Taxpaying Teams

Outgoing salary Maximum incoming salary
$0 to $9.8 million 150% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000
$9.8 million to $19.6 million The outgoing salary plus $5 million
$19.6 million and up 125% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000

So to me, it looks like we can take back 150% plus 100K off whatever contracts we send out. We certainly will be under the tax after this case, otherwise we could only take back less.

[42]

Well, I'm not a lawyer (I did go to law school though), but I don't interpret that FAQ as you do.

I see it as if we are under the cap, which we are, but will go over the cap by making the trade, we must use an exception as you state, a traded player exception for a simultanteous trade I believe.

Since we would be over the cap, but under the cap, I believe we would qualify under this table:

Non-Taxpaying Teams

Outgoing salary Maximum incoming salary
$0 to $9.8 million 150% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000
$9.8 million to $19.6 million The outgoing salary plus $5 million
$19.6 million and up 125% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000

So to me, it looks like we can take back 150% plus 100K off whatever contracts we send out. We certainly will be under the tax after this case, otherwise we could only take back less.

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.

[phrazbit]

Still not reading well?

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

We went under the cap to do the Anderson trade, thus have no exceptions to use for this, except the room exception, which is just over $2m, so we win if Lopez takes that, but then again, we have the cap space.

Want to find more words that mean nothing to make you feel better?

Try "Beasley"

From your own source:

The amount of salary a team can take back in a simultaneous trade depends on the outgoing salary and whether the team is a taxpayer. They always use the post-trade team salary when looking at whether a team is a taxpayer (so a team slightly under the tax level would be considered a taxpayer if the trade takes them over the tax level).

For non-taxpaying teams (again, they must be under the tax level after the trade), the salaries that can be acquired depend on the total salaries the team is trading away:
Non-Taxpaying Teams Outgoing salary Maximum incoming salary
$0 to $9.8 million 150% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000
$9.8 million to $19.6 million The outgoing salary plus $5 million
$19.6 million and up 125% of the outgoing salary, plus $100,000

Oops...

Got that spit lubed palm ready?

And BTW... I loath Beasley.

[Mr. West]

Want to find more words that mean nothing to make you feel better?

Try "Beasley"

[42]

From your own source:



Oops...

Got that spit lubed palm ready?

And BTW... I loath Beasley.

Loathe.

And, again, irrelevant.

You can't read or do math. What can you do besides drool and make people laugh?

There is more than one rule to look at to see if a trade is legal. For example, Miller can't go to Minne. Why? That rule doesn't cover it.

Gordon can't be traded for year without his permission. Why? That rule doesn't cover it.

Look at the other words, and a world of information will be available to you.

Reading Raiiinbooow.

[phrazbit]

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.

Now I think you might be the one not reading well. Check out your own reference. Those exemptions are for teams over the cap to sign free agents. Things like the MLE are not applicable in trade situations. This is NOT a free agent signing, this is a TRADE, as long as it conforms to the rules of teams operation below the LUXURY tax, then within 150% of salaries is a perfectly legal trade.