Chris Forsberg reports on TE gained in Nets trade

[SHAQATTACK]

looks like the Lakers  and Nets could be eligible for the NBA's  "repeater tax".  ?

[Evantime34]

This is all kinds of awesome, I expected 5 MM at most.

After this information I would like to see us make a run at Larry Sanders with this exception ( plus the nets first in 2014 and maybe another). Add a lotto pick and Larry Sanders to our current core and I think we are a contender after a one year hiatus.

[lightspeed5]

So basically DJ white's salary made this possible?? He may have opened the door to our next piece. 

[Surferdad]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one

2011 CBA: Taxpaying teams can acquire no more than 125 percent plus $100,000 of the salaries they trade away (same as 2005 CBA). Non-taxpaying teams (based on their post-trade salary level) can acquire up to the lesser of 150 percent plus $100,000, or 100 percent plus $5 million of the salaries they trade away. The cash a team pays or receives in trade is limited to $3 million annually.

So, that first part of the deal that LC highlighted demonstrates that the Celtics assume non-tax paying status after the trade is processed.

Meaning, they could trade Pierce's deal for Bogans', and thereby create the exception.

I guess what's most interesting about this trade is that it was "aggregated" differently for each team. I'd assumed that the deal had to be identically structured (in terms of mechanics) for both sides.

Yes that is exactly my question as well.  How can it be viewed as 2 trades for Boston and only 1 trade for the Nets?  If it is one trade for both teams, why does an exception get generated?

[jayhovaone]

The Celtics get a 10.3 million dollar trade exception in the trade.  That is great and amazing.  Now they only get a year to use the exception.  Can't wait to see what danny does now!!!!! The trade exception means that we can absorb 10.3 million dollars in a big trade.

[danglertx]

Wouldn't the best way to use it be to take on an expiring deal this year to help out a cap hit contender and bring back picks?

Like taking away dead weight from a team so they can then use an exception to get the player they want, like Jennings maybe(?) picking are slim in the free agent market these days.  And a team sends us a first and second round pick to do that for them.

[Roy H.]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one

2011 CBA: Taxpaying teams can acquire no more than 125 percent plus $100,000 of the salaries they trade away (same as 2005 CBA). Non-taxpaying teams (based on their post-trade salary level) can acquire up to the lesser of 150 percent plus $100,000, or 100 percent plus $5 million of the salaries they trade away. The cash a team pays or receives in trade is limited to $3 million annually.

So, that first part of the deal that LC highlighted demonstrates that the Celtics assume non-tax paying status after the trade is processed.

Meaning, they could trade Pierce's deal for Bogans', and thereby create the exception.

I guess what's most interesting about this trade is that it was "aggregated" differently for each team. I'd assumed that the deal had to be identically structured (in terms of mechanics) for both sides.

Yes that is exactly my question as well.  How can it be viewed as 2 trades for Boston and only 1 trade for the Nets?  If it is one trade for both teams, why does an exception get generated?

Trades like this are allowed, and yet Doc and KG couldn't be involved in concurrent transactions due to restrictions on "side deals".

[danglertx]

Its so good it needs two threads.

[twistedrico14]

Very nice.

[TeamGreen.dm]

Kevin Love, please pretty pretty please.

[cltc5]

Where's the other thread first I've heard of this

[gpap]

Anybody hear the Celts are getting a $10.3 million trade exception?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Anybody hear the Celts are getting a $10.3 million trade exception?

Nope.

[nickagneta]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one

2011 CBA: Taxpaying teams can acquire no more than 125 percent plus $100,000 of the salaries they trade away (same as 2005 CBA). Non-taxpaying teams (based on their post-trade salary level) can acquire up to the lesser of 150 percent plus $100,000, or 100 percent plus $5 million of the salaries they trade away. The cash a team pays or receives in trade is limited to $3 million annually.

So, that first part of the deal that LC highlighted demonstrates that the Celtics assume non-tax paying status after the trade is processed.

Meaning, they could trade Pierce's deal for Bogans', and thereby create the exception.

I guess what's most interesting about this trade is that it was "aggregated" differently for each team. I'd assumed that the deal had to be identically structured (in terms of mechanics) for both sides.

Yes that is exactly my question as well.  How can it be viewed as 2 trades for Boston and only 1 trade for the Nets?  If it is one trade for both teams, why does an exception get generated?

Trades like this are allowed, and yet Doc and KG couldn't be involved in concurrent transactions due to restrictions on "side deals".

Yeah, I don't get this. They disallow a KG trade to LA because no side deals are allowed but a side deal in the breakdown of a trade between two teams over the cap that isn't within the percentage of salary that a trade should be within for two teams over the cap is allowed.

Logically, it makes zero sense.

On the other hand, I guess it worked out best for the Celtics in the long run.

[Celtics4ever]

I had read like 7 million TE earlier.   I think this will be used to offer up Humphries or Wallace to a playoff team that needs some pop for some assets.   Hopefully but Humphries and Wallace return to form and some playoff team needs depth and gives up picks or young assets for them and the TE.