PDA

View Full Version : Pacers have a trade exception.



Will Galen
12-14-2005, 09:47 AM
The Pacers have a trade exception they got in the James Jones trade. Does someone remember how much that is for?

With so many people working out trades it would help to know this.

Fool
12-14-2005, 10:35 AM
2.4 million according to the source below, but the Suns trade exception (that the Pacers received part of) might have been 6.1 million (not the 6 million that the article reports) in which case the Pacers got a 2.5 million trade exception.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/1204JJ1204.html

A $6 million trade exception ($3.6 million) remains after acquiring James Jones in another sign-and-trade deal).

I believe trade exceptions are good for a year from when they are created (in this case when the Suns traded Joe Johnson away) so it should be good until Aug. 19, 2006 (or there abouts) unless I am incorrect.

Mordecaii
12-14-2005, 10:37 AM
So the Pacers might be able to throw in the trade exception to sweeten the deal... that could really help.

Hicks
12-14-2005, 10:58 AM
That could help considerably in trading Ron.

Will Galen
12-14-2005, 11:09 AM
I've been reading about trade exceptions, but I'm just not getting it today. I think all our traded exception would do would let us take back more salary than Ron's. So I don't see us using it.

I'm sorry I brought it up.

Hicks
12-14-2005, 11:14 AM
I've been reading about trade exceptions, but I'm just not getting it today. I think all our traded exception would do would let us take back more salary than Ron's. So I don't see us using it.

I'm sorry I brought it up.

Good point. So it's a good thing if we REALLY want somebody who makes around $8mm, but otherwise we'd likely rather not take back more salary, and would include a second player instead of the exception.

Mordecaii
12-14-2005, 11:14 AM
Well if it helps us get that player this season, since we have some expiring contracts then it's possible that we could use it. With Pollard coming off the books and Bender almost certainly coming off the books, then the people in the front office might be willing to spend that little extra to pick up a better player for a couple extra mil. Then again, who knows...

Fool
12-14-2005, 11:54 AM
I've been reading about trade exceptions, but I'm just not getting it today. I think all our traded exception would do would let us take back more salary than Ron's. So I don't see us using it.

I'm sorry I brought it up.

Wait, how else would it be helpful? If it worked the other way around, you would be able to send out more salary then you got back ... so you could send Ron's 6.5 mill and get back a guy making 4 or 4.1 mill? You can already do that, expect the other team would have to add another player for filler. How would that be helpful (aside from slashing salaries, by a small amount, which I doubt many would be all that happy if thats what this Artest trade ends up amounting to for the Pacers).

The "problem" cited most often with these Artest trades is that Ron's salary is too low to get back a (even somewhat) comparable player. This trade exception allows you to trade Ron as though he were a 9 mill a year player instead of a 6.5 mill guy. As far as getting talent, I would say thats very helpful.

(BTW, I haven't been reading all that many trade articles but I haven't seen this exception mentioned. That makes me wonder if the exception is still usable as I would think it would have been mentioned.)

DisplacedKnick
12-14-2005, 12:36 PM
I've been reading about trade exceptions, but I'm just not getting it today. I think all our traded exception would do would let us take back more salary than Ron's. So I don't see us using it.


I dunno - nobody in the league at Artest's level other than guys on rookie contracts makes as little as he does. Could help quite a bit in balancing things out.

Bball
12-14-2005, 02:01 PM
But this all assumes someone is willing to part with an 8 million dollar player to get Artest. This might be why Walsh was quoted as saying he wants a younger player.... He's not wanting anyone's 'bad' contract for Ron. Either it's an up and comer or the real thing (and he might not even be wanting a 'real thing' or realizes that is asking too much).

We'll have to see if he has that kind of leverage.

-Bball

DisplacedKnick
12-14-2005, 02:55 PM
But this all assumes someone is willing to part with an 8 million dollar player to get Artest.

I'd be willing to part with Mo Taylor - and he makes 9.

(Hides)

t1hs0n
12-14-2005, 02:56 PM
It could be used to bring back a bigger expiring deal.
IE: Ron for Rook contract guy and 7ish mill a year expiring guy.

Instead of the regular ron for rook contract guy and 5ish mill a year expiring guy.