Posted it in another thread but Blake/Outlaw for Haslem/Quinn would be a good deal for both sides. Perhaps a pick coming our way due to the talent disparity but it fills our greatest need and clears out the sf logjam with no long term financial ramifications.

Haslem is a player who gives it 100%,rebounds and defends well (far better than outlaw and not too far from millsap/lee level proof ) and can pop out and hit a 15 footer consistently. Couldn’t think of a better option to fill the backup pf spot.

Yes, his production has dropped off a little over the years, but Udonis Haslem was the starting power forward on a championship team. And at one point he was the best player on team. Haslem would be a great player for us, which is why we wont be able to get him.

but i’m just saying…as a player it’d be hard to believe there is any true culture. however if the player is happy with where he is going i guess that wouldn’t be a problem tho.

worried about Bayless being the starting pt if Miller goes down for an extended period of time. But I want Bayless to get a legitimate chance to play this year also. With Blake on board there is like 0 minutes for JayBay. Jared has got to be a bit frustrated going into this season. While Jared may be in his “junior” year in college so to speak he didn’t leave early just to be a bench warmer.

and I’ve been inspired to do so by some of your great explanations here since I’ve been reading BE. So please allow me to disagree as a learning exercise for me (i.e. no disrespect implied or intended).

I think the relevant section of the CBA is Article VII, Section 6 (h) Traded Player Exception (1) (ii) :

(1) Subject to the rules set forth in Section 6(k) below, a Team may, for a period of one year following the date of the trade of a Player Contract to another Team, replace the Traded Player with one (1) or more players acquired by assignment as follows:

(i) A Team may replace a Traded Player with one (1) or more Replacement Players whose Player Contracts are acquired simultaneously ….

(ii) If a Team’s trade of a player and acquisition of one (1) or more Replacement Players do not occur simultaneously, then the post-assignment Salary or aggregate Salaries of the Replacement Player(s) for the Salary Cap Year in which the Replacement Player(s) are acquired may not exceed 100% of the pre-trade Salary (or Base Year Compensation, if applicable) of the Traded Player at the time the Traded Player’s Contract was traded, plus $100,000.

(iii) A Team may aggregate the pre-trade Salaries in two (2) or more Player Contracts for the purpose of acquiring in a simultaneous trade …

The (i) and (iii) clauses refer to simultaneous trades and don’t apply here. The (ii) clause is the relevant one here since it applies to non-simultaneous trades. Note that there is no restrictions on whether the team is over or under the cap. This is the clause that creates a “trade exception”, and that exception is always generated simply because the team always has a “right” to complete a non-simultaneous trade within a year.

Section 6(k) referred to at the beginning of (1) in the quote, is what makes trade exceptions disappear automatically if the team becomes too far below the cap (as defined below) at any time before the exception is used or expires.

(k) Other Rules.

(1) A Team shall be entitled to use the Disabled Player, Bi-annual, Mid-Level Salary, and Assigned Player Exceptions …, only if, at the time any such Exception would arise and at all times until it is used, the Team’s Team Salary, excluding the amount(s) of such Exception and any other Exception that would be included in Team Salary …, is (i) at or above the Salary Cap, or (ii) below the Salary Cap by less than the amount(s) of the Team’s Exception(s).

The Assigned Player Exceptions are the Traded Player Exceptions set forth in (h).

In other words, as long as the team salary is NOT below the cap by more than the value of the team’s exceptions, you keep the exceptions. Otherwise you lose the exceptions.

This makes intuitive sense. Imagine the team was $4M over the cap and traded a $4.5M player for a draft pick. If the $4.5M Traded Player Exception wasn’t generated, then the team would only be $0.5M under the cap, and couldn’t hope to replace the player with equal $ value by completing a non-simultaneous trade. But if the team salary is then more than $4.5M under the cap the Team loses the exception because the player can be replaced with equal $ value without exceeding the cap.

Note that in the same way clause (k) allows a team that is under the salary cap to use the MLE as long as they are NOT farther under the cap than the value of the MLE. There is no loss of MLE penalty for being just a little under the cap.

There is another clause (j) Non-Aggregation that prevents aggregating exceptions.

The line from Larry Coon’s Salary Cap FAQ:

"Any trade which results in the team ending up over the salary cap requires an exception."

doesn’t speak to what generates a Trade Exception, only when one is need to make a trade. Two very different things.

Miller is really only a solution for a couple years. Blake isn’t a solution at all. Bayless is a big question mark.

The eternal unsettled PG debate.

that was mean to be a reply to Gpop171. ive messed up on the last 4 comments i have made…oh well, only 5 more hours and i am off work… not that i am really working to hard since i have been on BE all night ha.