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

[Jon]

The question with Aldridge is the following: is this Aldridge's own inference from the situation or has he been told this by a Wiz/Celt insider person?  If it's the former, he's probably wrong.  If it's the latter, he's probably right. 

At TP to Lucky for answering my question. 

[Who]

So, a team cannot sign and trade a player after they renounced their rights? Even though they still have cap space and that player played for them the previous year?

I did not know that. It makes sense though.

So, this pretty much rules Josh Howard out as a Celtics target? Yeah?

I trust Larry Coon on salary cap matters over David Aldridge.

After renouncing a player, the team is still permitted to re-sign that player, but must either have enough cap room to fit the salary, or sign the player using the Minimum Salary exception.  . . .

After renouncing a player, a team can still trade the player in a sign-and-trade agreement

A sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players who have been renounced, but cannot be made when the player is signed using the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual or Disabled Player exceptions.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q34

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q79

Yeah, I would trust Larry Coon over Aldridge too. Thanks for clearing that up.

So, Josh Howard is still on as a potential target.

[Lucky17]

So, a team cannot sign and trade a player after they renounced their rights? Even though they still have cap space and that player played for them the previous year?

I did not know that. It makes sense though.

So, this pretty much rules Josh Howard out as a Celtics target? Yeah?

I trust Larry Coon on salary cap matters over David Aldridge.

After renouncing a player, the team is still permitted to re-sign that player, but must either have enough cap room to fit the salary, or sign the player using the Minimum Salary exception.  . . .

After renouncing a player, a team can still trade the player in a sign-and-trade agreement

A sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players who have been renounced, but cannot be made when the player is signed using the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual or Disabled Player exceptions.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q34

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q79

Yup, I'll take Coon's cap knowledge over Aldrige any day.

So, Washington could sign and trade Howard to Boston, provided they have cap space to do so.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/washington.htm

If those numbers are accurate, and assuming Armstrong is around minimum money, then Washington has around $9 million in cap space, give or take.

If that's true, then there's no reason why a trade of Howard for Sheed's contract can't be done immediately.

[Chris]

I emailed Aldridge for clarification, since I cannot come up with any reason why this would be true, but I just want to make sure we are not missing anything.  

Judging by the December date he gave, my guess is he was more confused about sign and trades happening in general, rather than renounced players, but who knows.  

If I hear back from him, I will post here.

[Jon]

So, a team cannot sign and trade a player after they renounced their rights? Even though they still have cap space and that player played for them the previous year?

I did not know that. It makes sense though.

So, this pretty much rules Josh Howard out as a Celtics target? Yeah?

I trust Larry Coon on salary cap matters over David Aldridge.

After renouncing a player, the team is still permitted to re-sign that player, but must either have enough cap room to fit the salary, or sign the player using the Minimum Salary exception.  . . .

After renouncing a player, a team can still trade the player in a sign-and-trade agreement

A sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players who have been renounced, but cannot be made when the player is signed using the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual or Disabled Player exceptions.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q34

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q79

Yup, I'll take Coon's cap knowledge over Aldrige any day.

So, Washington could sign and trade Howard to Boston, provided they have cap space to do so.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/washington.htm

If those numbers are accurate, and assuming Armstrong is around minimum money, then Washington has around $9 million in cap space, give or take.

If that's true, then there's no reason why a trade of Howard for Sheed's contract can't be done immediately.

Other than Washington not feeling all that inclined to help us out.  I'm still wondering what we'll have to give as a sweetener.  I don't think they'll just do this out of good will.  Money?  Picks?  Both? 

[Mr October]

So, a team cannot sign and trade a player after they renounced their rights? Even though they still have cap space and that player played for them the previous year?

I did not know that. It makes sense though.

So, this pretty much rules Josh Howard out as a Celtics target? Yeah?

I trust Larry Coon on salary cap matters over David Aldridge.

After renouncing a player, the team is still permitted to re-sign that player, but must either have enough cap room to fit the salary, or sign the player using the Minimum Salary exception.  . . .

After renouncing a player, a team can still trade the player in a sign-and-trade agreement

A sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players who have been renounced, but cannot be made when the player is signed using the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual or Disabled Player exceptions.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q34

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q79

Yup, I'll take Coon's cap knowledge over Aldrige any day.

So, Washington could sign and trade Howard to Boston, provided they have cap space to do so.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/washington.htm

If those numbers are accurate, and assuming Armstrong is around minimum money, then Washington has around $9 million in cap space, give or take.

If that's true, then there's no reason why a trade of Howard for Sheed's contract can't be done immediately.

Other than Washington not feeling all that inclined to help us out.  I'm still wondering what we'll have to give as a sweetener.  I don't think they'll just do this out of good will.  Money?  Picks?  Both? 

both, but not much... its all free stuff for them

[greg_kite]

I emailed Aldridge for clarification, since I cannot come up with any reason why this would be true, but I just want to make sure we are not missing anything.  

Judging by the December date he gave, my guess is he was more confused about sign and trades happening in general, rather than renounced players, but who knows.  

If I hear back from him, I will post here.

Do you have direct access to David Aldridge?  Or just his open email?

[Chris]

I emailed Aldridge for clarification, since I cannot come up with any reason why this would be true, but I just want to make sure we are not missing anything.  

Judging by the December date he gave, my guess is he was more confused about sign and trades happening in general, rather than renounced players, but who knows.  

If I hear back from him, I will post here.

Do you have direct access to David Aldridge?  Or just his open email?

Just his open email, so I am not holding my breath on a response.

[KG Fan]

EDIT: Thanks for moving this. Sorry! My post was a duplicate.

[Rashi]

woopz....already posted

[EmilioBonilla]

http://www.nba.com/news/features/aldridge.2010.freeagency/#?ls=iref:nbahpt1

After using its mid-level exception on free agent Jermaine O'Neal, and not being able to use its biannual exception after using it on Marquis Daniels last season, the Celtics would only be able to offer Howard the veteran's minimum of $1.146 million for next season.

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.

The problem for Boston is that even if it could get that exception, the Wizards can't execute a trade involving Howard until December under collective bargaining rules.

Sorry guys, I apologize if there's a topic about this already, but here it is! I'm a little surprised..I thought Danny would be trying to get players out of the contract, not a trade exception to use for later..

He could be trying to get that exception for the sole reason that he may be able to get Howard and someone else with that freed up space. If he can get howard at lets say 3.5 mill out of 6 mil that leaves us with 2.5 to use on someone else im guessing since its kinda like using the mle?

[EmilioBonilla]

if thats how it works i mean

[KGs Knee]

After some digging around in the actual CBA, I think Aldrige is partially right.

According to Article 5, section 8:

](e)
(1) A Veteran Free Agent and his Prior Team may enter into a Player Contract pursuant to an agreement between the Prior Team and another Team concerning the signing and subsequent trade of such Contract, but only if (i) the Contract is for three (3) or more Seasons (excluding any Option Year), (ii) the Contract is not signed pursuant to the Mid-Level Salary Exception or the Disabled Player Exception, (iii) the first Season of the Contract is fully protected for lack of skill, and (iv) the acquiring Team has Room for the player’s Salary plus any Unlikely Bonuses provided for in the first Season of the Contract.

So, the way I read this, based on the Wizards situation and the C's, the Wizards could complete the deal but the C's can't.  According to paragraph e, sec. 5: the aquiring team must have room under the cap for the player salary. This fact seems to be missing from Larry Coon's explanation.  The C's don't have any room under the salary cap, thus preventing us from completing the deal.

[K.J.]

D. Aldridge has some interesting wrinkles into this

http://www.nba.com/news/features/aldridge.2010.freeagency/

The problem for Boston is that even if it could get that exception, the Wizards can't execute a trade involving Howard until December under collective bargaining rules.

If I understand this right, this is because the Wiz renounced his rights, so he's essentially a free agent like anyone else and you can't sign someone else's free agent and then trade them (until Dec).  Still, seems confusing.  DA always has his stuff together though, so I'll defer to him.

by the way, the above link also talks about Howard wanting to re-sign with the Wiz.   ...um, why?

given this, I won't be surprised if Danny trades Sheed for a trade exception and then waits for a reason to use it

This is not true as even renounced players could be signed and traded, according to http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q88.  In addition, there are no no-trade periods regarding trade exceptions except that they must be utilized within a year (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q88).

[ssspence]

After some digging around in the actual CBA, I think Aldrige is partially right.

According to Article 5, section 8:

](e)
(1) A Veteran Free Agent and his Prior Team may enter into a Player Contract pursuant to an agreement between the Prior Team and another Team concerning the signing and subsequent trade of such Contract, but only if (i) the Contract is for three (3) or more Seasons (excluding any Option Year), (ii) the Contract is not signed pursuant to the Mid-Level Salary Exception or the Disabled Player Exception, (iii) the first Season of the Contract is fully protected for lack of skill, and (iv) the acquiring Team has Room for the player’s Salary plus any Unlikely Bonuses provided for in the first Season of the Contract.

So, the way I read this, based on the Wizards situation and the C's, the Wizards could complete the deal but the C's can't.  According to paragraph e, sec. 5: the aquiring team must have room under the cap for the player salary. This fact seems to be missing from Larry Coon's explanation.  The C's don't have any room under the salary cap, thus preventing us from completing the deal.

But the trade proposed would fit in the 125% + $100K rule. My understanding of what you're reading is that the trade muct fall under cap rules, which this does...