nixluva wrote:There will be some teams that will be looking for some cap relief to either avoid tax issues, particularly when they look to resign players. There will be some deals to be made IMO.

Team Salaries
		 2015/16	
Brooklyn 	 $86,507,757
Golden State 	 $78,772,757
Miami 		 $77,564,006
Oklahoma City 	 $76,446,212
Washington       $70,272,160
Charlotte        $65,676,979
Indiana 	 $63,916,636 
Chicago 	 $61,771,869
Houston 	 $60,798,932
Denver           $60,354,095
LA Clippers 	 $59,762,476
Cleveland 	 $58,117,366
New Orleans      $56,201,369 
Minnesota 	 $56,065,800
Sacramento       $52,300,070
Milwaukee        $50,425,313
Toronto 	 $48,195,074
Utah             $45,583,334
Dallas           $43,416,157
Detroit 	 $42,750,516
Phoenix 	 $42,360,760
Boston 		 $40,406,846 
Atlanta 	 $39,276,545
Orlando          $38,875,804 
Memphis 	 $38,063,143
LA Lakers 	 $36,176,261
San Antonio 	 $33,780,380 
Portland 	 $32,495,351
New York 	 $32,427,391 
Philadelphia 	 $24,109,173

So what we would be looking for are teams with players they want to let go who are under contract for the amount of our trade exception?

...And for providing this "service" we would ask for a draft pick to accompany that player?

VCoug wrote:

JesseDark wrote:Wouldn't a second high 1st round pick get over the hurt of missing out Ok4 and KAT?

The Iman Shumpert exception could be offered to OKC for Jeremy Lamb and #14.

We could offer it, but OKC would laugh at us and hang up the phone.

Or it could start a negotiation.

OR,as part of dual transactions. We could take back Steve Novak for a trade exception as well.

Man, I miss the days when the Suns were giving up multiple first round picks to save a few million in salary!

TripleThreat wrote:

VCoug wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:.... In your examples we are using the trade exception as a virtual player, to match salaries.

In the examples you give, we are always trading for a player and a pick. Am I also to assume that the Wikipedia article simply gives one example of how to use the exception, and that yours is also OK?n the examples you give, we are always trading for a player and a pick.

Longmire brings up a very good point.

IIRC, the current CBA ( and all previous CBAs covering the trade exception situation) require that an actual "tangible" asset be moved in a legitimate NBA sanctioned trade.

IIRC, this has more to do with the bylaws concerning trades period than the trade exceptions, but the trade exceptions situation will fall under the trading provisions in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The Knicks would have to send out a player under contract and on their 15 man roster ( he can be a minimum salary non guaranteed contract guy, which would be ideal) or a pick, but it has to be something tangible.

And I believe the Knicks can't just sign a guy off the street, then immediately trade him with the exception. I have to look a bit harder at the CBA tonight, but how the article above lists the potential trades doesn't look actually feasible.

From a practical standpoint, with the cap going up and more teams with more cap flexibility, a lot of teams would have better options to move salary off their books than moving a "semi bad contract" plus a pick. Sadly those days are over, giving up a pick to move an undesirable and his contract off the roster. I think you still do some trades as such happen occasionally, but often they are panned by the analysts because it's not seen as the most effective use of resources, nor the best option possible.

A draft pick, does, across the league, have an associated informal "dollar value", and as picks are cost controlled until 2020, that valuation is constantly rising because while the cost of draftees is stable, the rest of personnel costs are facing a very sudden jump very soon.

From the Knicks standpoint, they have very few guys under contract for next year. The mechanisms to make the kind of trade as such might require a timeline of player acquisition that would require the Knicks to actually make a trade to pick up those kind of disposable assets in the first place to made the kind of trade in that article. And that's even assuming that trade scenario is the best overall option for said non Knicks team compared to what the other 30 teams could offer in some other variable deal.

That's incorrect. We're actually not allowed to send anything out with a trade exception, it has to be buy itself. We would have to bring salary back in a trade. Also, we lose our exceptions as soon as we're under the cap.

No, I believe you are wrong here.

From, IIRC, Larry Coon -

Each team in a trade must send something out and take something back, where the following requirements must be met:

In all trades (no matter how many teams are involved), each team must send out and take back at least one of the following:
A player under contract.
A future draft pick. If a pick is protected (see question number 87), then no more than 55 picks in a single draft can be protected.
The draft rights to an "NBA prospect" -- a player with a reasonable chance of becomming an NBA player during his career, or a contributing player in a reputable professional league (as determined by the league office).
The right to swap unencumbered picks in a future draft.
$75,000 or more.
In addition to the above, in a three (or more) team trade, each team must "touch" at least two other teams in the trade. To qualify as a touch, at least one of the following must be sent (in either direction):
An active player contract
At least $750,000 cash
A future pick that will actually be conveyed (for example, a team can't meet the touching requirement by sending a top-55 protected pick, that switches to $100,000 cash if it falls within the top 55)
The draft rights to an actual NBA prospect (same description as above)
For example, a three-team trade in which Team A exchanges players with both Team B and Team C, but Teams B and C do not exchange assets, is illegal. However, the above trade is legal if Team B sends Team C an unprotected draft pick or Team C sends Team B one.
Cash cannot be the only asset sent out in trade for a first round draft pick. In other words, teams can't "sell" their first round draft picks, but they can sell second round picks, player contracts or draft rights.

I think what you might be referring to is using a player and his contract PLUS a trade exception to create larger salary offset to do a match for a more expensive player.

http://midlevelexceptional.com/2014/07/03/nba-salary-cap-trade-exception

A trade exception cannot be combined with another player or exception to acquire a more expensive player – To me, the easiest way to think about each trade exception is as a bank account that you cannot add money back into. You can take some out here and there as long as the balance never gets below zero. The important difference from a bank account is the separation – trade exceptions are each separate assets that can only acquire a player or players who make the same amount or less than the value of that specific exception itself plus $100,000. A $10 million TPE and a $5 million player or exception cannot be used in concert to get a $14 million player, for example. This same logic applies to all exceptions, so teams cannot combine their Mid-Level and a player to get someone for more money or add two trade exceptions together to pick up a player with a higher salary than either one.

The Knicks simply can't take in a draft pick and a player another team over the cap doesn't want and send nothing else but the trade exception to the Non Knicks team.

There's a reason why most trade exceptions expire without use. If the exceptions worked as you state ( sending nothing but the exception in return), teams would be using them all the time.

I don't know who wrote the blog, but writing a blog on what they think the Knicks can do without fully researching the CBA seems irresponsible to me.

I would imagine in trades like these the $75K would be what gets it done.

nixluva wrote:

VCoug wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fwk00 wrote:

VCoug wrote:

JesseDark wrote:Wouldn't a second high 1st round pick get over the hurt of missing out Ok4 and KAT?

The Iman Shumpert exception could be offered to OKC for Jeremy Lamb and #14.

We could offer it, but OKC would laugh at us and hang up the phone.

Or it could start a negotiation.

Teams are gonna be looking to make deals. The Knicks are in a great position to be involved in deals. They have the ability to take on salary which will be important for teams looking to clear some cap.

I thought we were going to split our cap space up for 3 players? Now, where going to burn cap space on other teams' castoffs?

You don't know who the player is. Also the idea is to get a player and a pick. Shved was a guy no one thought was worth anything but he had value to us and we got a couple of picks. We can make deals like that. We have some players who are inconsequential that can be moved if needed.

We got picks for Prigioni, not for taking Shved off their hands.

thought I finally understood this stuff. Should have done the pre-law degree instead of Philosophy.

So we got picks and a trade exception for Prigs, but we can't use the trade exception to take back a pick and a player?

If we can to the trade exception thing to collect some extra picks, do we still have our $3M to spend this year on extra picks? Didn't we just give the Lakers money when we got Douglas?

As much as we kick dirt on Mills, you have to believe that he had some idea of what he was talking about, and bringing up the trade exceptions after the lottery, and learning about their possible use, leads me to think that he was thinking about using them to bring back some picks...No?

WaltLongmire wrote:Geeeezzz...

thought I finally understood this stuff. Should have done the pre-law degree instead of Philosophy.

So we got picks and a trade exception for Prigs, but we can't use the trade exception to take back a pick and a player?

If we can to the trade exception thing to collect some extra picks, do we still have our $3M to spend this year on extra picks? Didn't we just give the Lakers money when we got Douglas?

As much as we kick dirt on Mills, you have to believe that he had some idea of what he was talking about, and bringing up the trade exceptions after the lottery, and learning about their possible use, leads me to think that he was thinking about using them to bring back some picks...No?

We actually used a TPE when trading Prigs but that's besides the point. I believe we still have our $3M to spend, I don't think we've used it yet. TPEs aren't related to cash considerations. We can use our TPE to take back a player and picks though based on what TripleThreat posted we would have to include something like cash or a future pick to make the trade legal.

TripleThreat wrote:But the major factor in ANY TRADE for the Knicks is, and I've said this before, their trade offer has to tend to be the best possible option for the non Knicks team compared to the offers of potentially 30 other NBA teams. Again, why trade exceptions are rarely used.

Can Orlando get MORE than just Labeyrie as pure cannon fodder and a trade exception for something like Tobias Harris and a pick? If Orlando has 10 different ways to clear cap space for tax purposes and the Knicks option is only desirable as No#7 on that list of options, then the Knicks ARE NOT MAKING THAT TRADE.

Again, whomever wrote that blog IMHO did so irresponsibly. Even if you are not paid for it, it's not professional to push forward illegal deals or deals where it's clear the person doesn't fully understand the process involved. If the blog site carries any type of ads for revenue, then it's actually devaluing those sponsors by association.

I wrote the blog. To hear what Steve Mills discussed you need to go to MSG and listen to his post-lottery comments (why these things can't be easily shared is beyond me).

I clearly explained that all of the trades I suggest "work" using the ESPN Trade Machine. If they don't work then you need to take it up with them.

Now, that is not to say that Larry Coon's attention to details is wrong - its simply to say that lawyers help execute these deals for billionaires. That simple fact makes a lot of things easier to understand.

Fact of the matter is that I (just like all of you) trust ESPN because they have A LOT to lose if they're just pulling the wool over our eyes with trade exceptions. My guess is that they get them right.

This still doesn't mean that I'm not an irresponsible blogger poking peoples' imagination, indignation, and knowledge. I'm guilty on all counts. So what? I have refused more than one offer to write for for-profit blogs. It ain't because of my looks.

Again, my guess is that playing the game of attacking the messenger (Me) is your way of saying, "If these trade exceptions actually work and are worth something - maybe Phil knows what he's doing, Isiah isn't the antichrist, and our team actually "has a chance"".

I happen to think we in fact have a chance.

But let's get something straight. Nobody is going to trade anything but their perceived failures to us for trade exceptions. Tobias harris isn't walking through that door. What we might get is a Shved-like talent who just needed to get out of the doghouse or from under the thumb of a coach with no use for them. In other words, a VERY risky player. But smart management will choose wisely and hope for the upside OR buy the guy a suit.

The prize AND THE ONLY REASON TO DO such a trade is for the additional lottery pick (this year or any year). Imagine drafting Mudiay AND Stein or Kaminsky Or..... Will you really care about player #15 eating a bit of cap space? It's a legitimate question.

Secondly, there are a plethora of teams that carry an undesirable and unfavorable contract that they would love to unload.

Part of the negotiation could entail the Magic accepting one or more of these contracts but requiring the opposing team/s to include draft picks as part of the trade.

It’s particularly attractive if Orlando negotiates with teams that are potentially draft lottery bound this year and the pick/s are unprotected or have minimal protection.

So for example, if Team Z has a player with $30 million left on his contract over the next two seasons and desperately wants to eliminate this contract from its payroll to avoid luxury tax penalties or simply to evade the salary cap line, this team may consider relinquishing a high first round draft pick just so they can rid themselves of this financial obligation.

It’s apparent the Magic don’t want to steepen its payroll too much over the next few years, but it could be extremely advantageous to bite the bullet, accept the “overpaid” player just so they can gain one or more high future first round draft picks.

Here is a look at some players that have uninviting contracts, but with Orlando’s trade exception, could be valuable in also netting high draft picks. And keep in mind; the idea with this list is not at all focused on what these players would necessarily offer the Magic on the court, but what the potential reward would be with Orlando’s trade exception.

Carlos Boozer (owed $47 million over three years) – While Boozer’s contract is extremely unflattering from a salary cap standpoint, would Chicago be willing to send as many as two unprotected future first round picks in a deal involving the underachieving power forward?

With Derrick Rose out indefinitely, it would seem possible that the Bulls could miss the playoffs entirely this year and would be headed for the draft lottery next June.

Boozer’s contract would destroy Orlando’s quest to be well under the salary cap for the next two years, but hypothetically, would you accept that if you were given a top 10 draft pick? Bear in mind, nonetheless, the Bulls still can use the one-time amnesty provision on Boozer after this season. But while his contract would not count toward the team’s salary cap if Chicago chose this option, the Bulls would then be forced to still pay Boozer.

Andrea Bargnani (owed $33 million over next three years) – Just like the Boozer theory, Bargnani would shatter the Magic’s chase to be well under the cap for the next couple of years.

However, one would assume Toronto will not make the playoffs this season and if the Raptors were willing to surrender an unprotected draft pick in 2013, again, would you be willing to sacrifice cap spending for a high lottery draft pick?

Emeka Okafor (owed $27 million over next two years) – Another team with another potentially high draft pick in 2013. The Wizards are certainly not expected to advance to the playoffs this season, but would probably crave to eradicate Okafor despite trading for him this past summer.

Washington already has Nene at center so the presence of Okafor seems illogical. But would the Wizards be eager to trade an unprotected draft pick to rid themselves of Okafor’s contract?

David Lee (owed $55 million over next four years) – Considering the amount of years remaining on Lee’s deal, one would probably want more than one draft pick in any trade.

With Lee still being a very formidable power forward, however, you have to flirt with this idea especially if Golden State was willing to capitulate multiple first round draft picks in a deal involving the former Florida Gator.

And again, one would assume the Warriors would be headed back to the draft lottery after this season.

These are just some examples of players with inauspicious contracts that could enable the Magic to obtain more future first round draft picks if that was the route they chose to travel.

More realistically, rather than the aforementioned list it’s more likely Orlando would only accept a player/s with far less money remaining on his deal so it doesn’t harm its cap situation.

However, one would assume that teams would not relinquish unprotected lottery picks unless they were able to stamp out those substantial, salary cap-damaging contracts.

It remains to be seen if Orlando decides to use its considerable trade exception by next August. But, it would seem valuable to consider it if it nets a star free agent via sign-and-trade next July or future draft picks that could continue to help the Magic rebuild.