The holdup with Howard / Rasheed for a trade exception (merged)

[hpantazo]

Why would WSH renounce Howard?  Off the top of my head I can't recall any FA signings by them that would require them to renounce him. It makes no sense to me.

I think they had to renounce him to facilitate the Hinrich deal.

why did they want the Hinrich deal so much then?

[Roy Hobbs]

Why would WSH renounce Howard?  Off the top of my head I can't recall any FA signings by them that would require them to renounce him. It makes no sense to me.

I think they had to renounce him to facilitate the Hinrich deal.

why did they want the Hinrich deal so much then?

Would you rather have Hinrich and the #17 pick, or an injured Josh Howard's Bird rights?

[hpantazo]

Why would WSH renounce Howard?  Off the top of my head I can't recall any FA signings by them that would require them to renounce him. It makes no sense to me.

I think they had to renounce him to facilitate the Hinrich deal.

why did they want the Hinrich deal so much then?

Would you rather have Hinrich and the #17 pick, or an injured Josh Howard's Bird rights?

good point Roy

[birdisgod33]

I think Aldridge is , like most of others, confused by the rules. Case and point:

Boston would like to use the contract of Rasheed Wallace, who has told the Celtics he will retire, to get a trade exception. If Boston sends Wallace's contract to another team -- which could remove the salary from its cap as long as Wallace stays retired -- for a draft pick, the Celtics could get a trade exception for as much as the $6.3 million Wallace was due to receive.

This makes no sense. First, it would have to be a team under the cap. Second, why would that team do it without the Celtics giving up cash/picks? Aldridge makes it sound like WE would get the draft pick. Sheeds contract is only valuable to teams looking to shed a player/salary. Trading Sheed for a TPE is a pipe dream.

[kozlodoev]

What's the problem with giving up cash and picks? What team will refuse free money and a free second rounder?

[birdisgod33]

There is no "problem" at all. You need to find a team that has about 7 million in cap space willing to do it and the Celts willing to throw in probably the max cash amount allowed ($3 million. Just don't think it is a likely scenario since there are so few teams with the extra cap room

[Lucky17]

There is no "problem" at all. You need to find a team that has about 7 million in cap space willing to do it and the Celts willing to throw in probably the max cash amount allowed ($3 million. Just don't think it is a likely scenario since there are so few teams with the extra cap room

True.

What I don't understand is why Aldridge believes the Celtics need to generate a TE to get this done.

They can simply trade Sheed's contract for a signed-and-traded Howard. Easy.

[Cman]

I think Aldridge is , like most of others, confused by the rules. Case and point:

Boston would like to use the contract of Rasheed Wallace, who has told the Celtics he will retire, to get a trade exception. If Boston sends Wallace's contract to another team -- which could remove the salary from its cap as long as Wallace stays retired -- for a draft pick, the Celtics could get a trade exception for as much as the $6.3 million Wallace was due to receive.

This makes no sense. First, it would have to be a team under the cap. Second, why would that team do it without the Celtics giving up cash/picks? Aldridge makes it sound like WE would get the draft pick. Sheeds contract is only valuable to teams looking to shed a player/salary. Trading Sheed for a TPE is a pipe dream.

Can it only be a team under the cap, or can it also be a team with a trade exception?  There were a bunch of those exceptions created when Boozer, Stoudamire, James, Bosh signed with new teams (but there've been some trades, so not sure who has what remaining).

I think Aldridge meant that the Celtics would have to give up a draft pick, but he wrote it wrong (he should have not included the second "--").

[kozlodoev]

There is no "problem" at all. You need to find a team that has about 7 million in cap space willing to do it and the Celts willing to throw in probably the max cash amount allowed ($3 million. Just don't think it is a likely scenario since there are so few teams with the extra cap room

True.

What I don't understand is why Aldridge believes the Celtics need to generate a TE to get this done.

They can simply trade Sheed's contract for a signed-and-traded Howard. Easy.

Which would be a waste if Howard is willing to sign for less, and you can use the remainder of the exception to sign another above-vet-min free agent.

[Lucky17]

There is no "problem" at all. You need to find a team that has about 7 million in cap space willing to do it and the Celts willing to throw in probably the max cash amount allowed ($3 million. Just don't think it is a likely scenario since there are so few teams with the extra cap room

True.

What I don't understand is why Aldridge believes the Celtics need to generate a TE to get this done.

They can simply trade Sheed's contract for a signed-and-traded Howard. Easy.

Which would be a waste if Howard is willing to sign for less, and you can use the remainder of the exception to sign another above-vet-min free agent.

Immaterial. Presuming Washington is sufficiently below the cap to resign Howard, Boston can trade Sheed's contract for him, and the amount of the difference between Sheed's contract and Howard's new deal will generate a TE for Boston that can be used on yet another player.

[birdisgod33]

I think Aldridge is , like most of others, confused by the rules. Case and point:

Boston would like to use the contract of Rasheed Wallace, who has told the Celtics he will retire, to get a trade exception. If Boston sends Wallace's contract to another team -- which could remove the salary from its cap as long as Wallace stays retired -- for a draft pick, the Celtics could get a trade exception for as much as the $6.3 million Wallace was due to receive.

This makes no sense. First, it would have to be a team under the cap. Second, why would that team do it without the Celtics giving up cash/picks? Aldridge makes it sound like WE would get the draft pick. Sheeds contract is only valuable to teams looking to shed a player/salary. Trading Sheed for a TPE is a pipe dream.

Can it only be a team under the cap, or can it also be a team with a trade exception?  There were a bunch of those exceptions created when Boozer, Stoudamire, James, Bosh signed with new teams (but there've been some trades, so not sure who has what remaining).

I think Aldridge meant that the Celtics would have to give up a draft pick, but he wrote it wrong (he should have not included the second "--").

Technically yes. Say Toronto is at/over the cap. They could use part of the Bosh TPE and trade for Sheed. But are the Celts willing to throw in picks and/or cash? There has to be a decent benefit for Toronto to do this and I doubt what the Celts would be willing to offer is worth it to them

[droopdog7]

I think Aldridge is , like most of others, confused by the rules. Case and point:

Boston would like to use the contract of Rasheed Wallace, who has told the Celtics he will retire, to get a trade exception. If Boston sends Wallace's contract to another team -- which could remove the salary from its cap as long as Wallace stays retired -- for a draft pick, the Celtics could get a trade exception for as much as the $6.3 million Wallace was due to receive.

This makes no sense. First, it would have to be a team under the cap. Second, why would that team do it without the Celtics giving up cash/picks? Aldridge makes it sound like WE would get the draft pick. Sheeds contract is only valuable to teams looking to shed a player/salary. Trading Sheed for a TPE is a pipe dream.

Can it only be a team under the cap, or can it also be a team with a trade exception?  There were a bunch of those exceptions created when Boozer, Stoudamire, James, Bosh signed with new teams (but there've been some trades, so not sure who has what remaining).

I think Aldridge meant that the Celtics would have to give up a draft pick, but he wrote it wrong (he should have not included the second "--").

Technically yes. Say Toronto is at/over the cap. They could use part of the Bosh TPE and trade for Sheed. But are the Celts willing to throw in picks and/or cash? There has to be a decent benefit for Toronto to do this and I doubt what the Celts would be willing to offer is worth it to them

But wouldn't the team that signs and trades a player also need to be under the cap (and thus be able to pay someone like Howard over the vet minimum)?  A TE does't allow a team to go over the cap to sign a player does it?

[Roy Hobbs]

But wouldn't the team that signs and trades a player also need to be under the cap (and thus be able to pay someone like Howard over the vet minimum)?  A TE does't allow a team to go over the cap to sign a player does it?

If a team has Bird rights, it can go over the cap to sign a player and then make a trade involving a trade exception.

In the case of Washington, they're under the cap, so it's sort of moot.  They can sign him with their cap room.

[billysan]

So hypothetically speaking, if we traded Sheeds contract of 6 million per (approx) for two years to the Wizards for Howard (Re signed) at 8 million over two years we get a 4 million (give or take) trade exception?

Since the Wizards are under the cap they take on the extra money (difference of contracts) for trade purposes but still clear the amount of Sheeds first year off their payroll?

If I am understanding this correctly, Aldridge may be right that the Wizards would give up the pick because they spend 4 million to save six million. A net of two million per?