PDA

View Full Version : When and why did the Pacers get frugal?



Bball
08-02-2006, 11:52 AM
Letting Brad Miller go...
Letting James Jones go and in trade for a second round pick (not another player)...
Letting Samaki go last season before his contract would become guaranteed...
Neglecting to sign any short term warm bodies during another injury depleted round last season...
FINALLY severing ties with Bender...
Letting AJ go for essentially a salary dump...
Letting Freddie go...
Letting Peja go (did receive a TE tho so far unused)...
Apparently in no hurry to re-sign Pollard...
Carlisle is still here after losing the team and now is a lame duck coach...

And the stalled Al Harrington negotiations could also be on the Pacers as well. It takes two to tango so I don't know that we should entirely place the blame for the stall on Billy Knight.

So what has happened? Did all of the past overpaying of our own finally be deemed a bad idea? Is Bird to blame (or praise, depending on your pov) somehow (either directly or indirectly... since it seems the change coincided with his arrival)? Are the chickens coming home to roost from past overpaying issues? Is continuity no longer as important to TPTB as it once was? Are the Simons watching the bottom line closer? JO's monster salary eating too much cap and bottom line?

Or is the perception wrong and flawed in the first place?

-Bball

rexnom
08-02-2006, 11:55 AM
I think you forgot to mention the parts right before the letting Brad Miller go...where we overpaid our guys and it seriously restriced us in the upcoming seasons. At least now I feel like we have some flexibility.

Evan_The_Dude
08-02-2006, 11:59 AM
Yeah I'd rather let guys go that aren't really worth the $$$ than to try to work with our hands behind our backs for the next few seasons.

Sollozzo
08-02-2006, 12:13 PM
I still don't understand the Anthony Johnson deal.

I understand it was a salary dump, but Johnson's value was at an all time high. How can anyone say that 38 year old Darrell Armstrong was the best player we could have gotten for him?

Since86
08-02-2006, 12:19 PM
If you got a better player for him, it would of cost more, then it wouldn't have been a salary dump.

They got what they wanted.

blanket
08-02-2006, 12:21 PM
I don't think we're frugal, as we've had one of the top 5 payrolls for the past 5 or so years. Also, DW historically pays his players very well (perhaps too well), including giving significant extentions to Foster, Bender, and Tinsley, giving Croshere the contract of a starter just before acquiring a starter at his position in JO, giving max contracts to Reggie, Jalen and JO, and giving Reggie an extra year after retirement at $6M.

If anything, we're now paying the price for some of our lack of frugality and attempting to be more fiscally sound in order to avoid paying the luxury tax and gain more flexibility with our player contracts.

mugsy27
08-02-2006, 12:23 PM
i gotta feeling were getting as much room as we can so when the big name contracts come up in 3 years (LBJ, D-Wade, etc) and the salary cap goes up...we can make a strong push at one of them.

Sollozzo
08-02-2006, 12:26 PM
If you got a better player for him, it would of cost more, then it wouldn't have been a salary dump.

They got what they wanted.




I'm still not convinced that there isn't a more useful player out there than Darrell Armstrong that could have come cheap.

When Tinsley goes down as usual, people will wish Johnson was back.

Bball
08-02-2006, 12:43 PM
I forgot about letting Dale Davis walk the second time around.

Also, on the other side of the coin, we did sign Sarunas last season.

-Bball

JayRedd
08-02-2006, 12:44 PM
[quote=Adam1987]I'm still not convinced that there isn't a more useful player out there than Darrell Armstrong that could have come cheap.
[quote]

Aren't the reports saying that this gave us the trade exception that we will use to get James Edwards? Wasn't this the whole point of the deal? We gave up AJ to get a trade exception to get the Harrington deal finalized because Atlanta didn't want any players back for him but wanted us to take Edwards salary? Wasn't acquiring Armstrong about this?

I also think you need to realize that the top brass are expecting big things our of Granger, and are going to offer him an big extension in two years. That has to factor in when you already have all the long-term deals on the books that we do.

I don't see it as frugality. Just fiscal responsibility in a League where lacking this discipline effects your ability to compete.

Signing Peja long-term is just bad business. Brad Miller wanted too much money. Overpaying for Freddie when he's not in your long-term plans is bad business. What does re-signing Pollard have to do with us being competitive over the next 3-5 years? Samaki Walker is not good at basketball. Not even sure what you mean by "severing ties with Bender".

I just don't see how virtually any of your examples say anything about us being unwilling to spend money. Those were mostly all good business decisions in my eyes.

Slick Pinkham
08-02-2006, 01:00 PM
Trying to spend more toward the middle of the pack in the NBA after spending near the top as the smallest market team in that spending group is hardly being frugal.


It's like your wife goes shopping with 10 friends.

2 spend 10 grand,
2 spend 3 grand,
she spends 1 grand,
and the other 5 spend $100.

I wouldn't call your wife frugal because she didn't keep up with the two big spenders, call them "Zeke" and "Cubes" if you will.

Kegboy
08-02-2006, 01:00 PM
Well, if you look at the timeline, it started when Larry Bird was hired.

:tinfoil:

Seriously, for being so frugal, we still had the 4th highest payroll last year.

Bball
08-02-2006, 01:08 PM
I just don't see how virtually any of your examples say anything about us being unwilling to spend money. Those were mostly all good business decisions in my eyes.

My point was these actions are not what TPTB have done in recent history. We historically re-signed our own (to the point of overpaying IMHO). Really, Walsh was on record not all that long ago being against sign and trades. Then we do one for BMiller-Pollard. ...and have now done more.

Something has changed. It has coincided with Bird's arrival but that doesn't mean it isn't coincidence or even a symptom of the change, not the root cause.

I suppose it could be argued we finally had several players we didn't want to re-sign...

-Bball

Evan_The_Dude
08-02-2006, 01:09 PM
I still don't understand the Anthony Johnson deal.

I understand it was a salary dump, but Johnson's value was at an all time high. How can anyone say that 38 year old Darrell Armstrong was the best player we could have gotten for him?

They got Armstrong for his leadership, not necessarily for his on-court abilities. It takes a bit of stress off Tinsley's shoulders as well. He doesn't have to worry about Johnson competing for his minutes anymore, and instead he gets a guy that can sort of act as a mentor - something he's never had. Doesn't look like much on paper, but it does wonders in the locker room.

CableKC
08-02-2006, 01:09 PM
Please clarify......are you essentially asking....when did the Pacers get cheap on us?

Bball
08-02-2006, 01:15 PM
Please clarify......are you essentially asking....when did the Pacers get cheap on us?

I wasn't really thinking of it from that angle.... I suppose it could be considered but then our payroll would need to drop down from a while from the heights where it was to see if we're lowering overall payroll considerably or simply re-evaluating players and needs.

I'm more thinking what happened to re-signing our own at almost any cost? I think that is a real change in philosophy and I wonder who's at the root of it and why?

I don't necessarily have a problem with the change in tactics overall but am curious if it is for flexibility reasons or for Simon bottom line reasons... or other (see original post)?

-Bball

btowncolt
08-02-2006, 01:17 PM
I bet this thread will be full of optimism and new ideas.

Oh, and free of useless sarcasm from me.

DisplacedKnick
08-02-2006, 01:20 PM
It takes a bit of stress off Tinsley's shoulders as well. He doesn't have to worry about Johnson competing for his minutes anymore, and instead he gets a guy that can sort of act as a mentor - something he's never had. Doesn't look like much on paper, but it does wonders in the locker room.

Tinsley? Stress?

Do you mean the Pacers are saying to him, "We know it's been 4 years since you've played a full season and lately you really haven't done all that well when you've been in so we'll get rid of the guy who might have actually pushed you to perform better by threatening to start over you if you don't shape up." ???

Robertmto
08-02-2006, 01:21 PM
Aren't the reports saying that this gave us the trade exception that we will use to get James Edwards? Wasn't this the whole point of the deal? We gave up AJ to get a trade exception to get the Harrington deal finalized because Atlanta didn't want any players back for him but wanted us to take Edwards salary? Wasn't acquiring Armstrong about this?

Do you mean John Edwards?

Frank Slade
08-02-2006, 01:27 PM
Do you mean John Edwards?

I think he meant former Pacer James Edwards :shrug:

http://www.cavshistory.com/images/players/James_Edwards.jpg

I am not sure how quick he is now, though.

Kegboy
08-02-2006, 01:31 PM
I think he meant former Pacer James Edwards :shrug:

http://www.cavshistory.com/images/players/James_Edwards.jpg

I am not sure how quick he is now, though.

Hey, we need that veteran leadership!

Anthem
08-02-2006, 01:37 PM
I think the AJ thing was done so that we could take back John Edwards from Atlanta. Then the deal fell through.

arenn
08-02-2006, 01:59 PM
If anything, the problem is exactly the opposite of frugality. We signed way too many players to lengthy and above average contracts.

- Croshere's deal after one good series in 2000.
- Big money for Bender that didn't pan out
- Overpaying Foster for what he is worth
- Signing Tinsley to a long term deal
- Doesn't Sarunas make like $4 million/year?

One shouldn't fail to mention paying Reggie significantly above market for some time.

Not all of these were bad deals or bad risks, but they created a lack of financial flexibility - and an inability to shake up the team - for us.

I'd personally rather let second tier talent like Peja or Dale walk out the door than overpay, as the risk/reward ratio on these contracts is just not worth it.

CableKC
08-02-2006, 02:24 PM
I wasn't really thinking of it from that angle.... I suppose it could be considered but then our payroll would need to drop down from a while from the heights where it was to see if we're lowering overall payroll considerably or simply re-evaluating players and needs.

I'm more thinking what happened to re-signing our own at almost any cost? I think that is a real change in philosophy and I wonder who's at the root of it and why?

I don't necessarily have a problem with the change in tactics overall but am curious if it is for flexibility reasons or for Simon bottom line reasons... or other (see original post)?

-Bball

To-may-toe....Tow-May-ter

To me.....frugal is a civilized way of saying "cheap" ( or at least that is what my Wife tells me :rolleyes: )

J/K...sort of.

Either TPTB think that the players are worth what it took to develop them to the point that they are respectable FA......but not worth the money that they are looking for.....or that they are too che.....I mean...frugal to keep them.

But I see where some of you are getting at.....maybe they aren't cheap....but because of past moves that we have made...like giving Croshere such a huge long-term contract and the strain that Bender's contract has put on the Salary cap situation.....has limited what we can do with players like Harrington, JJ, Freddie and Brad.

Maybe its being gun-shy because of those 2 specific situations....but I still think that TPTB...in the end...are going to be "frugal".

CableKC
08-02-2006, 02:31 PM
If anything, the problem is exactly the opposite of frugality. We signed way too many players to lengthy and above average contracts.

- Croshere's deal after one good series in 2000.
- Big money for Bender that didn't pan out
- Overpaying Foster for what he is worth
- Signing Tinsley to a long term deal
- Doesn't Sarunas make like $4 million/year?

One shouldn't fail to mention paying Reggie significantly above market for some time.

Not all of these were bad deals or bad risks, but they created a lack of financial flexibility - and an inability to shake up the team - for us.

I'd personally rather let second tier talent like Peja or Dale walk out the door than overpay, as the risk/reward ratio on these contracts is just not worth it.

Given what other Big Men make...and for what Foster does....I don't think that he is overpaid. Also......I won't say that Sarunas is overpaid...or not...until the tradedeadline...if we trade him..or the end of the 2006 season. But to say that he is overpaid after a single season is premature....next season...if he is doing the same thing...np...he's overpaid.

I can't argue with the Croshere situation....but just like the Bender and Tinsley situation...they are all victims of their circumstance. I seem to recall that some of you mentioned that Croshere was in Zeke's doghouse. If he wasn't...would he have played enough in the early part of his contract to shed that label? Bender....well...we all know what happened there.....the guy's injuries prevented us from realizing his true potential......and Tinlsey...same thing there. We essentially have contracts that are huge but not truly worth their value simply because those players didn't play as much.

Dr. Goldfoot
08-02-2006, 02:37 PM
As far as Anthony Johnson is concerned, I think it has more to do with AJ than Tinsley. As long as Tinsley is a Pacer, he will be the starter. They decided to let AJ go to free up time for Runi. Tinsley may have a history of injuries, but on a per game basis he put up better numbers than any of the other guys we've had since Mark Jackson. In the last three injury riddled seasons, he outperformed Johnson in PPG, APG, RPG, SPG.

Feel free to bring up number of games played or laughing emoticons but it's true. The only competition at point guard this year, barring trades, is for backup minutes.

As for the rest of the frugality, they've just decided to let some of these aging/medicore players go elsewhere. All of the guys that are gone will be or have been replaced by someone who can do the same thing for less money. That's really what it's all about right?

Teams stocked with Joe Smiths, Keith Van Horns and Austin Crosheres are wasting money that could be put to use in areas that need addressing.

Since86
08-02-2006, 02:42 PM
To-may-toe....Tow-May-ter

I thought it was toe-may-toe...tow-mah-toe:confused:

Bball
08-02-2006, 02:44 PM
I thought it was toe-may-toe...tow-mah-toe:confused:

I thought maybe he was from Kentucky.... :tongue:

But then that would be "maters" wouldn't it?

-Bball

JayRedd
08-02-2006, 03:15 PM
Do you mean John Edwards?

Yup....Can't believe I messed up the name of the former-Crossing Over star turned VP candidate turned basketball player.


I suppose it could be considered but then our payroll would need to drop down from a while from the heights where it was to see if we're lowering overall payroll considerably or simply re-evaluating players and needs.

I'm more thinking what happened to re-signing our own at almost any cost? I think that is a real change in philosophy and I wonder who's at the root of it and why?

I don't necessarily have a problem with the change in tactics overall but am curious if it is for flexibility reasons or for Simon bottom line reasons... or other (see original post)?

As I said before, I think it's just us realizing the invaluable discipline of fiscal responsibility when it comes to payroll.

This is something that GMs/Owners in all sports are slowly coming to grip with now that we're fully into the "Free Agent Era". It's gotten to the point where one bad deal can prevent a team from being competitive for years. Nowhere is this more visible than the NBA. In the NFL, contracts aren't guarenteed and the teams are so big that even things like the TO incident or a player tearing their ACL don't really hurt you long-term financially. In the MLB, teams can hamper their long-term flexibility with contracts like in the NBa, but if you have the money, you have the money. The Sox/Yanks/Dodgers/Chicago teams of the world don't have to worry becauset they have dough and there's no cap.

But in the NBA, you are always one Allan Houston/Kenyon Martin/Erick Dampier level deal away from seriously hampering your ability to acquire and/or retain talent. The system is designed in such a way where you effectively lose the ability to gain any talent aside from the draft after you "mess up" enough contracts. Look at LA. Kobe getting the max, Lamar Odom and Kwame being overpaid, and the aftermath of the Brian Grant fiasco are all holding them back from doing anything. Without a good GM move in the next year or two, they could possible waste the middle of Kobe's prime and continue having summers where there "Big Moves" are signing Radmonavic and trading picks for Mauirce Evans.

I truly think that if we gave Peja a deal anywhere close to what he got in Nawlins, people would be saying the same about us. "Look at the Pacers". Even seemingly minor things like paying Austin Croshere 4-5 million too much per year have set us back severely.

The cap and personnel flexibility are almost more important than accumulating talent nowadays, as far as long-term competitiveness. If you don't think so, look at the mess Miami will be in in two years. Sure they won a title, but the future is bleak. Possibly for the Spurs too if Timmy's injuries continue.

And, if that's how it is now in this League, then I'm glad Larry, Donnie, the Simons or whoever have recognized it and realized how it effects us long term.

DisplacedKnick
08-02-2006, 03:24 PM
They decided to let AJ go to free up time for Runi.

That's exactly right.

Unfortunately, it's pretty much identical to what DW did with Bender - signed him to a big extension when he'd done nothing on the court to demonstrate that he deserved it.

In this case, Bird is handing the backup PG shot to Saras. But so far he's been pretty much a bust. But that wouldn't be the huge issue until you consider what happens if Tinsley misses 30-40 games again. Who runs the team? Saras? Armstrong? I like Armstrong and think he's OK for 10 mpg but for 35?

It's nothing more than a repeat of trying to forcibly justify what so far looks like a bad move personnel. Maybe it'll work out - maybe Saras will show he can bring the ball up the court and run an offense under defensive pressure. But I'd sure wait to trade my backup PG until after that happens.

ABADays
08-02-2006, 04:13 PM
Tinsley? Stress?

You caught me in mid snicker on this one? Another thing about Tins. If Armstrong doesn't carry any street cred with him - he's not going to listen to him. Tinsley believes Tinsley knows best. Starbury would have more of an affect on Tinsley than anyone we have.

I have to agree with JayRedd too. I don't think we are being cheap or frugal. I think we are being smart and responsible.

CableKC
08-02-2006, 04:17 PM
I thought it was toe-may-toe...tow-mah-toe:confused:

I see that you have not seen the movie "Cars" yet......:laugh:

Since86
08-02-2006, 04:19 PM
Nope, but I let me guess who said it, the truck that uses Larry the Cable Guy's voice?

vapacersfan
08-02-2006, 04:23 PM
I forgot about letting Dale Davis walk the second time around.

Also, on the other side of the coin, we did sign Sarunas last season.

-Bball

We didnt let Dale walk. He didnt want to come back, and after seeing how last season played out can you blame him?

PacerMan
08-02-2006, 04:34 PM
They intelligently locked up their good young players with long term contracts that would have paid off in the long run IF those players became the core of the team. Unfortunately Austin and Bender didn't turn out to be those kinds of players. That tied our hands for several years. Now, having learned from that experience, we WISELY let Peja go, thus freeing up money for the next 3 years.
NEVER have we been miserly.
Top 10 in payroll for some years now.
And a SMALL market club to begin with!

Bball
08-02-2006, 04:38 PM
We didnt let Dale walk. He didnt want to come back, and after seeing how last season played out can you blame him?

Unless you know the Pacers made him an offer in the neighborhood of Detroit's then it is only speculation to say that he wouldn't have returned anyway. Probably good speculation... but speculation never-the-less.

And I was under the impression that it was common knowledge we didn't offer him much if anything to stay. Unless that is wrong, then my point remains valid. We're out of the business of attempting to re-sign our own at almost any cost.

-Bball

vapacersfan
08-02-2006, 04:49 PM
Unless you know the Pacers made him an offer in the neighborhood of Detroit's then it is only speculation to say that he wouldn't have returned anyway. Probably good speculation... but speculation never-the-less.

And I was under the impression that it was common knowledge we didn't offer him much if anything to stay. Unless that is wrong, then my point remains valid. We're out of the business of attempting to re-sign our own at almost any cost.

-Bball

Well I am dead tired and going off of less then 4 hours of sleep (so it is possible that I am totally wrong on this) but I seem to remember Dale's agent saying he was never offered a contract, and the Pacers only talks figures after the Det. one was all but completed.

With that said, I would still bet you a paycheck that he would not have come back.

Im not sure how you can make the last comment you did, considering you lead the crusade against Bender. We didnt seem to be out of the business at re-signing him, and he was a Pacers before he got his extension, was he not?

Bball
08-02-2006, 04:56 PM
Well I am dead tired and going off of less then 4 hours of sleep (so it is possible that I am totally wrong on this) but I seem to remember Dale's agent saying he was never offered a contract, and the Pacers only talks figures after the Det. one was all but completed.

With that said, I would still bet you a paycheck that he would not have come back.

Whether he would've accepted a Pacer offer to return is moot. Unlike in so many years past, the Pacers didn't try and re-sign their own at nearly any cost.

Dale's another example of a change in philosophy (or what I am thinking is a change in philosophy).




Im not sure how you can make the last comment you did, considering you lead the crusade against Bender. We didnt seem to be out of the business at re-signing him, and he was a Pacers before he got his extension, was he not?

My point was that there's been a change. Bender is the perfect example of the prior modus operandi. But recently we're letting them (our own players) walk or opting for sign and trades.

-Bball

sixthman
08-02-2006, 06:01 PM
When did the Pacers get frugal? Same time the former big spenders in Dallas got frugal...when the luxury tax became a certainty each and every year.

AnotherBirdCreation
08-02-2006, 06:06 PM
What upsets me is that we let Freddie walk and traded A.J. in order to free up logjams, but also to save money, and then we won't cough up the full three mil in cash to get Al. We also saved dough on Croshere, short-term anyway. I will be seriously pissed if Al goes somewhere else because of that. Then again, maybe Al and the Pacers are doing this to strong arm Billy into submission. Could be.

vapacersfan
08-02-2006, 06:23 PM
Whether he would've accepted a Pacer offer to return is moot. Unlike in so many years past, the Pacers didn't try and re-sign their own at nearly any cost.

Dale's another example of a change in philosophy (or what I am thinking is a change in philosophy).




My point was that there's been a change. Bender is the perfect example of the prior modus operandi. But recently we're letting them (our own players) walk or opting for sign and trades.

-Bball

My fault Bender, I just mis read your original post.

I see what you are saying now.

sportsmusicxboxpacer
08-02-2006, 06:38 PM
we lost brad miller for pollard didnt hurt much

we lost artest hurt much a bee sting then to a west nile virus

we lost fred jones for nothing hurt our shooting

we lost aj for old dude with leadership not half bad

pls for love god dont lose al!!!

JayRedd
08-02-2006, 06:58 PM
What upsets me is that we let Freddie walk and traded A.J. in order to free up logjams, but also to save money, and then we won't cough up the full three mil in cash to get Al. We also saved dough on Croshere, short-term anyway. I will be seriously pissed if Al goes somewhere else because of that. Then again, maybe Al and the Pacers are doing this to strong arm Billy into submission. Could be.

Again, wasn't AJ traded so that we could get an exception that Atlanta supposedly wants in exchange for Edwards? This deal had more of a point than saving $1 million I believe or acquiring Old Man River.

And Freddie maybe just wasn't valued by management. I think it's pure speculation to say either was to save money.

Naptown_Seth
08-03-2006, 02:52 AM
I forgot about letting Dale Davis walk the second time around.

Also, on the other side of the coin, we did sign Sarunas last season.

-Bball
Which is exactly why they didn't keep Dale.

They aren't frugal, they just don't want to pay double salary for stuff over the lux tax, and that kicked in right when the lux tax became an "always on" situation instead of just a "maybe depending on payrolls".

When did the Pacers get frugal? Same time the former big spenders in Dallas got frugal...when the luxury tax became a certainty each and every year.QFT

AJ isn't a dump, its a TE deal so they can do the Harrington deal (take on Edwards), and it serves the purpose of ending a logjam, and it brings in a vet leader who is interested in coaching (which gives RC extra help in the lockerroom).

They ARE trying to get Al, and that would be for less than Peja took. Fred plateaued last year which is why they weren't interested in paying more. They have White at a lot less per year now.

As mentioned, they have remained a top salaried team for years and haven't skimped in forever. I can't remember when they were actually under the cap and in the FA market. It's been all over the cap trades for a long time now, or using the exceptions.

Eindar
08-03-2006, 06:17 AM
Maybe TPTB realized that Carlisle can win 42 games with a bunch of scrubs, or 60 and no rings if you want to spend like the Mavs, so they decided to go the scrub route :sarcasm:

Will Galen
08-03-2006, 06:29 AM
Is Bird to blame (or praise, depending on your pov)

-Bball

This is my thinking.

sixthman
08-03-2006, 06:58 PM
Unless you know the Pacers made him an offer in the neighborhood of Detroit's then it is only speculation to say that he wouldn't have returned anyway. Probably good speculation... but speculation never-the-less.

The Pacers had no way of competing with the Pistons offer once they decided Sarunas was the priority.

We didn't have Bird rights on DD, so to sign him we would have needed to use the MLE. That money was apparently reserved for Sarunas.

There was also the problem that a luxury tax would have also been paid on Dale's salary.

Bball
08-03-2006, 07:30 PM
The Pacers had no way of competing with the Pistons offer once they decided Sarunas was the priority.

We didn't have Bird rights on DD, so to sign him we would have needed to use the MLE. That money was apparently reserved for Sarunas.

There was also the problem that a luxury tax would have also been paid on Dale's salary.


I don't want to move the goalposts but I'm not sure how what you are saying changes my point. In year's past we simply wouldn't have gone after a FA, we would have re-signed our own (or attempted to).

The Pacers are taking a different tact in the NBA marketplace.

-Bball

tdubb03
08-03-2006, 08:11 PM
All this talk of the AJ deal being for the trade exception so we can take John Edwards off Atlanta's hands.

I was under the impression we'd trade our 7.5 mil Peja exception for Al. If we had another smaller one for AJ, how could we trade it to? I thought trade exceptions couldn't be combined with one another?

Bball
08-03-2006, 08:23 PM
All this talk of the AJ deal being for the trade exception so we can take John Edwards off Atlanta's hands.

I was under the impression we'd trade our 7.5 mil Peja exception for Al. If we had another smaller one for AJ, how could we trade it to? I thought trade exceptions couldn't be combined with one another?

2 separate trades with the the same team is how I understand it. And there'd have to be a wink and nod agreement to follow thru on both trades because I don't think you could 'technically' make one contingent on the other... outside of an (unbinding) gentleman's agreement.

So technically, after us taking Edwards, Atlanta could say "We changed our mind about doing the Harrington deal" and there wouldn't be anything we could do about it. But it would make for some serious bad blood amongst many people that Atlanta could want as friends at some point if they were to do that and therefore would be very, very unlikely.

At least that is how I understand it.

-Bball

Naptown_Seth
08-04-2006, 01:03 AM
All this talk of the AJ deal being for the trade exception so we can take John Edwards off Atlanta's hands.

I was under the impression we'd trade our 7.5 mil Peja exception for Al. If we had another smaller one for AJ, how could we trade it to? I thought trade exceptions couldn't be combined with one another?
This isn't yelling at you, just making it clear because it keeps getting misunderstood.

YOU DON'T TRADE A TRADE EXCEPTION.

It is just space in the cap for you to take on a salary, and a TE can't be used to take on a newly created contract - no signing an FA with the space. It can only accept an existing contract (existing before it gets to your team that is, thus the SIGN and then TRADE).

How you get the rights to that contract is a deal you must make, and that deal must meet the CBA requirements other than the contract(s) you will fit into the TE space you have.


AJ was worth more than the Pacers got back in contracts, so they got a TE for the difference. That is the right to "finish" the deal later, that right lasts for one year. It is a "right" because if you are over the cap and trade an amount out, you normally have the right to take up to that much back (as long as it stays below 125% of the contracts you sent out).

A TE comes up when you elect to get some or all of that contract amount back later. To have the right to save it for later, you give up the right to go 25% over.


Al is put into the Peja TE space
Edwards is put into the the AJ TE space

Once those TEs are used up, they disappear.


Perhaps a better example to make this clear is this - the Pacers COULD use part of the Peja TE to take on a $4m contract. They would retain the rest of that space, 3.6m, for later use (up to 1 year from original deal). The TE isn't traded away, not even part of it. The Pacers would just be using some of its space.


Normally TEs aren't CREATED (never traded) beause it requires a team that is able to receive a contract without sending the "same" (25% rule in effect) amount back out. Teams under the cap and that are willing to deal with you are a little rare. TEs of the Peja amount normally don't happen.



Let's look at the Harrington deal as proposed and see how this works.

Harrington into Peja TE, Edwards into AJ TE...still no actual deal done to get those contracts.
The deal then is cash and a pick to Atlanta. Neither have cap value so Atlanta doesn't have to send anything back to meet CBA requirements. Deal done.

If a player was used instead, say Jackson, then if Atlanta was over the cap they would need to send back a player within 25% of Jack's contract per the CBA trade rules. If Atlanta was under the cap then they aren't required to send any salary out....but that would create a new TE of Jack's value since that deal would be Jack for nothing, giving the Pacers the right to bring on salary of value equal to Jack's contract.

Note that in these cases we don't mention Al or Edwards when talking about the actual deal and if it meets CBA requirements or not. They aren't part of that deal, at least in terms of the CBA restrictions. They are just coming to Indy for "nothing", except that the other deal is what gives a team the incentive to send you those contracts.


In this case TAKING Edwards is actually one of the incentives. :)

Naptown_Seth
08-04-2006, 01:17 AM
BBall, I think those deals actually can be contingent upon each other.

Certainly standard SnT deals have a nullifier if the trade portion isn't completed within a few days, per the CBA (not an option that is). So you can't trick a player into signing with you under the guise of doing an SnT that is bogus.

I haven't looked at the FAQ or read much about concurrent deals involving the TE and the deal to use that TE, but since the TE is ALWAYS used in conjunction with a "proper" deal and since the TE is explicitly defined and regulated by the CBA, I'm willing to bet that there is a required standard contingency portion to any contracts between teams for these deals.

I doubt its just "honor code".

Bball
08-04-2006, 01:40 AM
BBall, I think those deals actually can be contingent upon each other.

Certainly standard SnT deals have a nullifier if the trade portion isn't completed within a few days, per the CBA (not an option that is). So you can't trick a player into signing with you under the guise of doing an SnT that is bogus.

I haven't looked at the FAQ or read much about concurrent deals involving the TE and the deal to use that TE, but since the TE is ALWAYS used in conjunction with a "proper" deal and since the TE is explicitly defined and regulated by the CBA, I'm willing to bet that there is a required standard contingency portion to any contracts between teams for these deals.

I doubt its just "honor code".

Wouldn't you be combining both TE's and a player in effect (if you made one deal contingent on another)? And that is specifically a no-no.

Maybe the CBA has addressed this issue but it seems like something that might get in the grayer areas of the CBA agreement. But I dunno....



-Bball

Will Galen
08-04-2006, 03:02 AM
As long as both trades work separately the NBA considers it one trade.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#69
72. Can exceptions be combined when making trades?

Only to a very limited extent. Teams can use different exceptions to acquire multiple players in the same trade if those players could also have been acquired individually using those exceptions.
-----------

So if Atlanta decides it doesn't want to do part of the trade then the whole deal breaks down.

In other words it's like I offered a boat and trailer for sale and you agreed to buy it. You can refuse the deal if I pull the trailer out of the deal.