Chris Forsberg reports on TE gained in Nets trade

[aingeforthree]

While I wouldn't describe the trade exception as "insanely valuable" like Forsberg does, it does have a lot of value.  We've seen teams like Cleveland and Utah gain assets for absorbing other teams' unwanted salary, and there's a chance that this can be used.

The value is mitigated to some degree because at least for this season, the team is unlikely to want to add salary.  Come draft time and early next summer, though, Danny could use this to add more to the deal.

I didn't like the trade for two reasons: 1) I thought the Celtics should reload, and 2) I didn't think the Celtics got good value.  The trade exception could potentially help a lot with #2.

The players drafted could also help with #2, as could the expiring deal of Kris Humphries.  A lot of potential moves could follow after a deal like this so its extremely tough to talk 'good value' without seeing the finished product of the trade.

[Lucky17]

The value is mitigated to some degree because at least for this season, the team is unlikely to want to add salary.  Come draft time and early next summer, though, Danny could use this to add more to the deal.

Yeah. I think it's much more likely that Ainge waits until summer 2014 -- the Celtics have much less in guaranteed payroll -- to use the TE (and perhaps some picks) to land a high-profile FA via a sign and trade.

For example, DeMarcus Cousins?

[Roy H.]

One poorly worded statement by Forsberg:

If the Celtics can free cap room, and have the trade exception at their disposal, there's an opportunity to add impact bodies that could thrust them through the transition state.

The trade exception acts as a cap hold.  Let's say that, on its face, the Celtics clear up $15 million in cap space, without factoring in the trade exception.  To sign a $15 million player, the Celtics would need to renounce the trade exception; they can't use both that $15 million in space and the trade exception as well.

[LooseCannon]

What's the terms on the picks? Are all of these protected?

The draft picks are unprotected...We also can swap picks with Brooklyn in 2017 if we want to.

Helluva trade by Danny...

For some reason I thought next years pick was contingent on Atlanta.

Also the 2014 free agent class is pretty bad unless guys opt out.

The Celtics get the least favorable between the picks of Atlanta and Brooklyn (I suppose Atlanta could decline its option to swap picks even if swapping gets the better pick), but if those two teams are #1 and #2 in the lottery, the Celtics will have the #2 pick.

[LooseCannon]

One poorly worded statement by Forsberg:

If the Celtics can free cap room, and have the trade exception at their disposal, there's an opportunity to add impact bodies that could thrust them through the transition state.

The trade exception acts as a cap hold.  Let's say that, on its face, the Celtics clear up $15 million in cap space, without factoring in the trade exception.  To sign a $15 million player, the Celtics would need to renounce the trade exception; they can't use both that $15 million in space and the trade exception as well.

However, if they had $15m in cap space and $10m was tied up in the cap hold for the trade exception, they could take the extra $5m in cap space and combine it with existing contracts to do a deal.  The Nets did something this last summer so that they kept the full MLE rather than dipping below the cap and being held to the using the room exception.

[Roy H.]

Anybody want to take a stab at how this deal was structured, to allow Bogans to be traded for Pierce (or at least, to allow a trade exception to be created for the difference between their salaries)?

[BleedGreen1989]

Anybody want to take a stab at how this deal was structured, to allow Bogans to be traded for Pierce?

haha I tried, then gave up when my head started to hurt.

[blackberry33]

DA is a freaking genius!

[Lucky17]

Anybody want to take a stab at how this deal was structured, to allow Bogans to be traded for Pierce?

Yeah, that's why I am guardedly optimistic about this. I can't think of a way whereby a $5 mil player could be traded for a $15 mil one.

[LooseCannon]

Anybody want to take a stab at how this deal was structured, to allow Bogans to be traded for Pierce (or at least, to allow a trade exception to be created for the difference between their salaries)?

Garnett, Terry, and White combine for $18,696,159.  The Celtics can take back $5,000,000 more than that if they stay under the tax, or $23,696,159.  Brooks, Wallace, and Humphries make $23,315,935.

As a minimum salary player, Kris Joseph is ignored as incoming salary.

That leaves Pierce for Bogans and a trade exception as the difference in their salary.

So, the inclusion of White gave the Celtics a trade exception that was $3m more than it could have been.

EDIT: From the Nets perspective, it is one big aggregated trade.

[Roy H.]

Anybody want to take a stab at how this deal was structured, to allow Bogans to be traded for Pierce (or at least, to allow a trade exception to be created for the difference between their salaries)?

Garnett, Terry, and White combine for $18,696,159.  The Celtics can take back $5,000,000 more than that if they stay under the tax, or $23,696,159.  Brooks, Wallace, and Humphries make $23,315,935.

As a minimum salary player, Kris Joseph is ignored as incoming salary.

That leaves Pierce for Bogans and a trade exception as the difference in their salary.

So, the inclusion of White gave the Celtics a trade exception that was $3m more than it could have been.

EDIT: From the Nets perspective, it is one big aggregated trade.

I understand why you can trade KG + White + Terry for Brooks + Wallace + Humphries.

How are you making the bolded part work, though?  How can Pierce be traded for Bogans and a trade exception?  Trade exceptions can't be traded from one team to another, and they can't be aggregated with player salary to make a trade work.

[guava_wrench]

Anybody want to take a stab at how this deal was structured, to allow Bogans to be traded for Pierce (or at least, to allow a trade exception to be created for the difference between their salaries)?

Garnett, Terry, and White combine for $18,696,159.  The Celtics can take back $5,000,000 more than that if they stay under the tax, or $23,696,159.  Brooks, Wallace, and Humphries make $23,315,935.

As a minimum salary player, Kris Joseph is ignored as incoming salary.

That leaves Pierce for Bogans and a trade exception as the difference in their salary.

So, the inclusion of White gave the Celtics a trade exception that was $3m more than it could have been.

EDIT: From the Nets perspective, it is one big aggregated trade.

I understand why you can trade KG + White + Terry for Brooks + Wallace + Humphries.

How are you making the bolded part work, though?  How can Pierce be traded for Bogans and a trade exception?  Trade exceptions can't be traded from one team to another, and they can't be aggregated with player salary to make a trade work.

Did the Nets get under the cap?

[Roy H.]

Anybody want to take a stab at how this deal was structured, to allow Bogans to be traded for Pierce (or at least, to allow a trade exception to be created for the difference between their salaries)?

Garnett, Terry, and White combine for $18,696,159.  The Celtics can take back $5,000,000 more than that if they stay under the tax, or $23,696,159.  Brooks, Wallace, and Humphries make $23,315,935.

As a minimum salary player, Kris Joseph is ignored as incoming salary.

That leaves Pierce for Bogans and a trade exception as the difference in their salary.

So, the inclusion of White gave the Celtics a trade exception that was $3m more than it could have been.

EDIT: From the Nets perspective, it is one big aggregated trade.

I understand why you can trade KG + White + Terry for Brooks + Wallace + Humphries.

How are you making the bolded part work, though?  How can Pierce be traded for Bogans and a trade exception?  Trade exceptions can't be traded from one team to another, and they can't be aggregated with player salary to make a trade work.

Did the Nets get under the cap?

No, they're way above it, both before and after the trade.

[LooseCannon]

Anybody want to take a stab at how this deal was structured, to allow Bogans to be traded for Pierce (or at least, to allow a trade exception to be created for the difference between their salaries)?

Garnett, Terry, and White combine for $18,696,159.  The Celtics can take back $5,000,000 more than that if they stay under the tax, or $23,696,159.  Brooks, Wallace, and Humphries make $23,315,935.

As a minimum salary player, Kris Joseph is ignored as incoming salary.

That leaves Pierce for Bogans and a trade exception as the difference in their salary.

So, the inclusion of White gave the Celtics a trade exception that was $3m more than it could have been.

EDIT: From the Nets perspective, it is one big aggregated trade.

I understand why you can trade KG + White + Terry for Brooks + Wallace + Humphries.

How are you making the bolded part work, though?  How can Pierce be traded for Bogans and a trade exception?  Trade exceptions can't be traded from one team to another, and they can't be aggregated with player salary to make a trade work.

The trade exception is automatically generated by trading Pierce for Bogans as a non-aggregated trade.  The Nets aren't trading Bogans and a trade exception.  The Nets can't decide whether or not to give the Celtics a trade exception.  (They did, however, agree to take back DJ White so the Celtics could structure the deal with a bigger exception.)  The exception is created by virtue of trading exactly one player for exactly one other player when there is a difference in salaries.

The Celtics are allowed to trade Pierce for Bogans because you are always allowed to take back less salary and they are allowed to do it in a S&T because they will end up under the apron after the trade.  The Nets aren't allowed to trade Bogans for Pierce, but that's not what they are doing from their perspective.

[Lucky17]

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.