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

[K.J.]

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...

In addition, we do not have to expend the entire trade exception at one go.

[ssspence]

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...

In addition, we do not have to expend the entire trade exception at one go.

But I'm just talking about a straight up deal -- sheed and a pick for howard.

[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.

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...

I guess it depends on what your interpretation of the term "Room" means.

I saw it as meaning we would need to have room under the cap.  I'm guessing you're interpreting it as just needing to fit under the traded player exception.  The wording isn't exactly clear, so I interpreted it as it read, not what it might be implying.

If, we only need to fit Howard's salary into the traded player exception, then we;re good.  If it has to fit unde the cap, it's a no go.

It would definetly be better if you're right, just offering an explanation for why Aldridge is saying there is a hold up in the deal.

[K.J.]

But I'm just talking about a straight up deal -- sheed and a pick for howard.

As long as the wages fit within 125% plus 100k, the proposed trade will go through.

[K.J.]

If, we only need to fit Howard's salary into the traded player exception, then we;re good.  If it has to fit unde the cap, it's a no go.

We only have to fit Howard's salary into the trade player's exception.

[droopdog7]

Are the Wizards under the cap?  Because if they renounced Howard, they would not be able to go over the cap to sign (and trade him).

[K.J.]

Are the Wizards under the cap?  Because if they renounced Howard, they would not be able to go over the cap to sign (and trade him).

According to http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q79, '(a) sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players who have been renounced ...'

[droopdog7]

Are the Wizards under the cap?  Because if they renounced Howard, they would not be able to go over the cap to sign (and trade him).

According to http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q79, '(a) sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players who have been renounced ...'

But if the Wizards renounced Howard (and I am not sure of this), then they cannot go over the cap to sign him.  Would have to sign him for whatever they have in cap space or they would be restricted to whatever exceptions they have (I think?).

Also, if Howard is not on the Wizards roster, they don't need Sheed to shed salary.  They have that already.  We would have to really sweeten the deal for them or bring in a third team that wants to shed salary.

[K.J.]

Are the Wizards under the cap?  Because if they renounced Howard, they would not be able to go over the cap to sign (and trade him).

According to http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q79, '(a) sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players who have been renounced ...'

But if the Wizards renounced Howard (and I am not sure of this), then they cannot go over the cap to sign him.  Would have to sign him for whatever they have in cap space or they would be restricted to whatever exceptions they have (I think?).

Also, if Howard is not on the Wizards roster, they don't need Sheed to shed salary.  They have that already.  We would have to really sweeten the deal for them or bring in a third team that wants to shed salary.

Yes, but the Wizards have more than USD7M in cap space.  The Wizards may wish to use the Traded Player Exception to accumulate assets later in the season.  According to http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q79, sign and trades may not use 'the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual or Disabled Player exceptions'.

[LarBrd33]

Why would we need to acquire a trade exception before trading for Josh Howard?  Why couldn't we just trade Sheed for Howard?  lol

[ssspence]

Why would we need to acquire a trade exception before trading for Josh Howard?  Why couldn't we just trade Sheed for Howard?  lol

exactly. this discussion has become convoluted. it's strictly a question of whether howard can be sign-and-traded before december 15th, which it certainly seems he can.

[Lucky17]

Larry Coon commented on this recently via Twitter (on the ESPN NBA front page):

#    ...doubt anything gets done soon; and 2) Looks like they renounced him. @CSL_Duke     31 minutes ago  via TweetDeck

# ...rule applies to trades of recently signed players (except through sign-and-trade). However: 1) Since he's not healthy, I @CSL_Duke 31 minutes ago via TweetDeck

# They can S&T him before Dec. The no-trade until Dec RT @CSL_Duke: can you explain why the Wiz can't S&T Josh Howard until December? 32 minutes ago via TweetDeck

To translate:

They can S&T him before Dec. The no-trade until Dec rule applies to trades of recently signed players (except through sign-and-trade). However: 1) Since he's not healthy, I doubt anything gets done soon; and 2) Looks like they renounced him.

So, Wizards can sign and trade Howard at any time, provided they have enough cap space to resign him.

[Roy Hobbs]

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...

That's correct.  There are lots of sign-and-trades where one or both teams are over the cap.  The team just needs to be able to obtain the contract under the CBA (either by being under the cap, or having a trade exception, or via the 125% + 100k rule, etc.)

[slamdunk]

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.

[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.