Why did we trade Diogu? Trade Exception Question
by grigs on Jun 30, 2009 5:31 PM PDT
39 comments
I keep reading comments saying that we can't use the trade exceptions that we have because we need to renounce them to use our position under the cap for trading. That mostly makes sense to me.
The part that doesn't make sense is that if this is true, then why did we trade Diogu for Ruffin? We knew we were going to be under the cap come summer anyways. What was the point of that trade?
Or are people incorrect in their descriptions of how the trade exceptions work in relation to the salary cap?
Update: This is primarily a question about the value of the trade exception, not about whether or not Ike should have been traded. To get the trade exception, we had to insert ourselves into a deal between Sacramento and Chicago and give Sacramento $1 million dollars. So whether or not Ike or Ruffin would play is immaterial to the question. The real question is why go to the effort.
Was it simply to have the option of the exception for the short window between end of season and July 1 when we would likely renounce all the exceptions to be under the cap?
0 recs |
39 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Couple of things
A. Wasn’t the Darius fallout after the trade deadline? If Darius wasn’t on our books like planned, we would have somewhere around 18 million in cap room. Which means we could have kept the exception, I think. I’m no cap/salary expert though. The exception would only be used for getting another late first round pick or a second rounder anyways.
B. Diogu was supposed to be a banger of sorts, however he we found out he was just a lottery bust. So we found no harm in trading him. The TE was a nice asset if we needed it come draft day, more so than Diogu.
Garden Variety Internet Denizen
WORD UP.STAY.FRESCO
by Dheepan on Jun 30, 2009 5:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Also, Diogu had a cap hold on his salary, like Frye.
By trading him away, we got rid of that cap hold.
by zaruga on Jun 30, 2009 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right on the cap hold
But still doesn’t explain why Pritchard and Penn touted the trade exception.
by grigs on Jun 30, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So the exception was only valuable until July 1?
I’m assuming that’s what you mean by B.
WRT to A, that doesn’t make sense to me. If we can’t use the trade exception because we are under the cap, then Darius being off the books would only put us further under the cap and wouldn’t change that.
by grigs on Jun 30, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The $2,912,823 trade exception doesn't technically expire until 2/18/2010, but the team will have ...
to renounce it — along with the $874,000 trade exception created from the Sergio Rodriguez trade — in order to get under the salary cap next month.
by AK1984 on Jun 30, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I'm beginning to understand
I guess what I’m missing is that in the Blazers press release and in the Pritchard press conference after the exception was created, they emphasized the fact that the exception could be used for a year.
http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/Trail_Blazers_Acquire_Forward_-301319-1218.html
I can’t figure out what path we would have been on where that would have happened. It seems likely that no matter what we did, that we would lose the exceptions come summer. Maybe they just played up the 1 year to make us forget that nothing happened with the RLEC.
by grigs on Jun 30, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it can be used for a year
that was true at the time, and remains true. that doesn’t mean it will always remain true. I think perhaps you are trying to read too much into what they said.
they probably had planned/hoped on using it around draft day, but nothing ended up coming our way where it made sense. no biggie, it’s not like it cost us anything of value
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jun 30, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Flexibility was the buzz word for the trade exception.
And I think that’s exactly what it was. Flexibility in case certain things fell into place (which didn’t).
by zaruga on Jun 30, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they just played up the 1 year to make us forget that nothing happened with the RLEC.
More “mis-direction” from KP? Say it ain’t so!
by two4larue on Jun 30, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we aren't the first team
to have a TE in recent history. other teams over and under the cap have used them. for example, Seattle/OKC got one from their sign-and-trade with Orlando for Rashard Lewis – then used some of it to trade for kurt thomas if i remember correctly (i think it was him, but i’m not 100% but i do remember them using part of it). the were under the cap.
by KraigEriginal on Jun 30, 2009 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
shoot
KP used a trade exception to get James Jones, this isn’t his first rodeo
what grigs is complaining about is KP had RLEC and chose not to use it at the deadline. Then afterwards the reporters said KP and Penn were “giddy” about the 2.9 mil TE they got from trading Diogu for Ruffin.
As of today (7/1) that TE has now gone “poof!” just like the RLEC
At some point “someone” has to mention the emperor’s noticable lack of clothing…
by two4larue on Jun 30, 2009 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not exactly
That’s one interpretation of the events. I tend to subscribe a more favorable opinion of what KP does.
The main reason I asked the question was to ensure there wasn’t some grand loophole here that Penn had thought of that everyone else was missing. Just an attempt to understand why they thought so highly of something that was likely to become moot after July 1.
The flexibility at the draft explains it to me.
by grigs on Jun 30, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tried to "discover" that loophole the other day
in a trade proposal re: Devin Harris
but storyteller shot me out of the sky like a slow-moving duck
that trade exception might’ve come in handy for some deal that the Blazers could have made on draft day, but it’s evaporated, now
(now I’m bracing on the Hedo “sales” job, by KP and Nate)
by two4larue on Jun 30, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm thought this was much to do about nothing.
The blazer management was trying to make a big deal of nothing.
The likely hood of being under the cap was very remote.
by MotoMan045 on Jul 1, 2009 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The TE was a nice asset if we needed it come draft day
I remember reading that KP and Penn had big grins on their faces after the trading deadline, because they had gotten the 1.9 mil TE from the Diogu deal (not me, I had a grrr! face…RLEC goes poof)
Like grigs, I’m wondering what all the fuss was about? That TE ain’t worth the paper it’s not printed on
by two4larue on Jun 30, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the time
It seemed KP was doing Diogu a favor since he was log jammed on the bench. Good character starts at the top. This management group seems to trade players to beneficial situations. Fred Jones got a raw deal but most other transactions have been good for the players involved. Zach landed in a good spot as did Sergio and T. Green. I’m sure there are more examples of management trying to make win-wins.
by Jacksonville on Jun 30, 2009 5:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fred Jones
that one hurt
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
I will talk about DeJuan Blair no more forever
by jonestr on Jun 30, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The main reason for trading Ike Diogu was to cut down on the luxury tax payment that ...
Paul Allen will have to fork over due to having a payroll in excess of $71.15 million last season.
by AK1984 on Jun 30, 2009 6:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yep, saved PA like 3 million bucks I think
also, it gave us a TE which may or may not have come in useful around draft time. it was a nice card to have, even if we never end up using it – it’s not like Ike was getting any PT
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jun 30, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Saved $3 million?
They also sent $1 million to Sacramento to get them to take Diogu.
by grigs on Jun 30, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and then paid the Kings $ to take Sergio
“S’ good to be the King(s)”
by two4larue on Jun 30, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
LOL. Rec'd for History of the World Part I Reference
Love that movie.
by grigs on Jun 30, 2009 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
remember the Harvey Korman character?
that’s (the Griz’ GM) Chris Wallace, kissing up to “royalty” (the L*kers)
by two4larue on Jun 30, 2009 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense
Garden Variety Internet Denizen
WORD UP.STAY.FRESCO
by Dheepan on Jun 30, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was worth more at the draft than an untradable Ike Diogu.
It was there if they needed it. Kinda like insurance. Paying premiums is a bugger until you total your car, then it was worth it. Nothing happened with it, but it gave the Blazers more option had something come available. A pretty safe bet to make, as they really didn’t lose anything, and it had the possibility to make a difference in the right situation. Better over prepared than under.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Jun 30, 2009 7:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There was never a single plan.
The trade exception could have been useful in certain situations. It doesn’t look like they are going to go that way, but they didn’t know that at the time.
by pualo on Jun 30, 2009 7:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yeahm it might've come in handy
in the deals that KP was reportedly trying to cobble together to move up and get Tyler H?
RIP, trade exception. We barely knew ye…
by two4larue on Jun 30, 2009 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I got it now.
Basically, the trade exception’s window of utility was until July 1st. After that, it isn’t as valuable as the cap space. Ergo, it will be renounced along with all of the other exceptions. Finally got it sorted. Thanks.
by grigs on Jun 30, 2009 7:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
not at all how i understand it
i haven’t seen anything that says the TE comes out of the cap. in fact, i read that we still have it even if we sign/trade up to the cap. i wish i knew where i read that… someone help with a link either way, please!
by KraigEriginal on Jun 30, 2009 7:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
this website is inaccurate
who is behind it? i dont’ trust it – because the traded players exception is not at all the same as the bi-annual, mid-level or disabled player exceptions. it is used to add salary. those others are CAP exceptions whereas the TE is a player exception. the CAP exceptions are just that, exceptions when a team is over the cap. those figures DO NOT come into account against the CAP. teams under the cap are not eligible for them, but are not penalized those amounts – if so, those totals would always negate teams who are under the cap.
by KraigEriginal on Jun 30, 2009 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't trust Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ?
This should explain it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/sports/basketball/13cap.html
by grigs on Jun 30, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
teams under the cap
automatically have cap holds put on them for the MLE and the biannual and any other exceptions they are eligible for. If after adding all these holds, they are STILL under the cap, then the exceptions go away, along with their associated holds, and the team just has the capspace. if after adding the holds on, the team is at or over the cap, they still can choose to renounce the exceptions, with their associated holds, and get themselves under the cap instead.
The PTB will find themselves in this latter situation.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jun 30, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
it doesn't come out of the cap
it’s an exception that can be used when you are over the cap. By definition, you cannot both be under the cap AND have any exceptions. They are mutually exclusive states. Since we are currently WAY over the salary cap for now once cap holds are figured in, we will continue to have the TE until such time as we actually renounce our FA rights on several players AND renounce all our available exceptions (2 trade exceptions, the MLE, and the biannual). We won’t do this until at least July 8, since we have no need to go under the cap unless and until we plan to use capspace to sign a FA and/or make an unbalanced (salary wise) trade.
Keep in mind, it’s possible that we may never go under the cap this summer. We may use the full MLE to sign a Free agent, the biannual to sign another, then make a trade or two to bring in other players. If we do that, we will never go under the cap, and thus we could in theory retain the Diogu trade exception.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jun 30, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah ha! That's what I was looking for.
It’s not the likeliest scenario, but we could in theory keep the exceptions if the cards were to land correctly. If we could accomplish what we wanted, stay out of luxury tax area, but above the cap, the exceptions might prove handy.
It may very well just be simpler to drop the exceptions and use the cap space. But it is nice to know there might be something there.
by grigs on Jun 30, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PLAYOFF EXPERIENCE!!!
duh. :)
or not!!!
by ireallylikejerrydbayless on Jun 30, 2009 9:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
