Rumor SPURS TO TRADE LAMARCUS ALDRIDGE TO PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS, DEMAR DEROZAN TO MIAMI HEAT

[hoopsjock]

I don't know what your idea of wing depth is, but I consider it players that will actually contribute. And we'd only be moving one of those players.

What SF's would we have left on our roster?

 

[BonesJones]

yeah i dont really wanna re-watch this movie, we know how it ends - people get upset and disappointed.

People get mad at Olshey for doing something that wasn't possible.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Wrong. You have still never given me an example of a team that traded their own free agent instead of another team wanting to sign him first.

What the hell, am I your research assistant?

Other poster correctly said it met the rules and I agree. Examples or lack of examples dont make something possible you seem to wish impossible.

But I'll give a fun example for your game, Keith Van Horn.

 

[B-Roy]

What SF's would we have left on our roster?

Trent and presumably Melo, which is what they ran with for the entirety of the seeding games and the playoffs.

And again, I'm not arguing for Aldridge, I've said that multiple times. I'm on the record for saying we need more switchy wings that aren't non-factors on offense (like Aminu/Harkless were). But I'm also not the front office. The one that seemed to think Zach would be our starting PF of the future. Who was okay going into the season with Kent Bazemore as our backup SF, or presumably think Melo is good for the team (I don't know if they'll bring him back, but I would 100% not be surprised if they do).

All I'm saying is you guys are acting like it's completely out of the realm of possibility, and I just don't agree with that based on what Neil has done in the past.

And again, depth is only good if they can actually play rotation minutes. I don't think we're really giving up much wing depth outside of Ariza (who I quite like).

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Wrong, Eric tells it how it is, and is the more knowledgeable about the CBA and roster-building than anyone on this forum. He wouldnt be saying it if it wasn't true.

He gave opinions of why it's unlikely, not a rule of why it can't happen.

 

[BonesJones]

What the hell, am I your research assistant?

Other poster correctly said it met the rules and I agree. Examples or lack of examples dont make something possible you seem to wish impossible.

But I'll give a fun example for your game, Keith Van Horn.

Sigh

 

[B-Roy]

I don't agree with your valuation of Hood at all. His game isnt athleticism-based. He'll be fine. And it seems like you want to build a team who's bottom 5 in defense again.

Are you even reading? I'm not advocating for Aldridge, just saying it's not as far fetched out of the realm of possibility as you guys are making it seem.

 

[BonesJones]

He gave opinions of why it's unlikely, not a rule of why it can't happen.

It's never happened, and the order of events that need to happen to execute a sign-and-trade arent structured in a way for what you're suggesting to be possible.

 

[e_blazer]

Yeah, you don't "trade" your own free agents in a sign-and-trade. Another team has to agree with Whiteside on the parameters of a contract before even knowing if Portland would want to trade.

So all of these things would have to happen in this exact order:

SA pursues Whiteside in free agency.

SA wants to pay him more than they have available with cap space or the MLE.

Whiteside would have to want to sign with SA for that amount.

SA on top of wanting to sign Whiteside would also want to give something up to get him.

Then Portland would have to want to give up whatever SA is asking for.

Oh and on top of that in a sign-and-trade the player has to get a 3 year contract. Now you can word it so there is some non-guaranteed money or something but Whiteside would have to agree to that too.

Of course you trade your own free agent in a S&T. Sure, all 3 parties have to agree to the parameters of the deal, but it is directly signing and immediately trading your own free agent. I don’t know where this idea that there’s a requirement of some precursor deal between the Spurs and Whiteside comes from.

 

[BonesJones]

Are you even reading? I'm not advocating for Aldridge, just saying it's not as far fetched out of the realm of possibility as you guys are making it seem.

I dont think theres any way Olshey does that. If he does, I'll be 200% on the Fire Olshey bandwagon.

 

[BonesJones]

Of course you trade your own free agent in a S&T. Sure, all 3 parties have to agree to the parameters of the deal, but it is directly signing and immediately trading your own free agent. I don’t know where this idea that there’s a requirement of some precursor deal between the Spurs and Whiteside comes from.

You're not understanding the difference between another team pursuing your free agent for a sign-and-trade and you just deciding to sign-and-trade your free agent wherever. The 2nd isnt possible and has never happened. The 1st is. People are suggesting the 2nd.

 

[hoopsjock]

What the hell, am I your research assistant?

Other poster correctly said it met the rules and I agree. Examples or lack of examples dont make something possible you seem to wish impossible.

But I'll give a fun example for your game, Keith Van Horn.

Wrong, that was a loophole exploited through a mid season trade. That rule has been changed.

I'm asking you because it has NEVER happened. It IS in fact AGAINST the RULES to TRY and TRADE your OWN free agent.

No matter what you say it doesn't change that fact.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Trent and presumably Melo, which is what they ran with for the entirety of the seeding games and the playoffs.

And again, I'm not arguing for Aldridge, I've said that multiple times. I'm on the record for saying we need more switchy wings that aren't non-factors on offense (like Aminu/Harkless were). But I'm also not the front office. The one that seemed to think Zach would be our starting PF of the future. Who was okay going into the season with Kent Bazemore as our backup SF, or presumably think Melo is good for the team (I don't know if they'll bring him back, but I would 100% not be surprised if they do).

All I'm saying is you guys are acting like it's completely out of the realm of possibility, and I just don't agree with that based on what Neil has done in the past.

And again, depth is only good if they can actually play rotation minutes. I don't think we're really giving up much wing depth outside of Ariza (who I quite like).

Yeah I'm not sure I would prefer Aldridge over Ariza.

But we have no insider knowledge of Ariza commitment or the teams interest in him next year. Maybe his legal trouble worsens. Or we have other SF additions. Maybe a bigger trade elsewhere on the roster happens first. Trading Ariza for Aldridge is far from 100% impossible. It's not as though we are trading scrubs for Giannis or such.

 

[B-Roy]

Yeah I'm not sure I would prefer Aldridge over Ariza.

But we have no insider knowledge of Ariza commitment or the teams interest in him next year. Maybe his legal trouble worsens. Or we have other SF additions. Maybe a bigger trade elsewhere on the roster happens first. Trading Ariza for Aldridge is far from 100% impossible. It's not as though we are trading scrubs for Giannis or such.

Exactly.

If the Spurs were open to the idea of Ariza + Hood + Mario + probably a first or future first for Aldridge, I could EASILY see Olshey rationalizing it as us losing essentially no one from the bubble team and getting back a legit starter that would push Zach back into the better role of backing up the 4/5. I don't agree with it, but it's something I could see him doing for sure, especially if he consulted with Dame and CJ.

 

[hoopsjock]

Of course you trade your own free agent in a S&T. Sure, all 3 parties have to agree to the parameters of the deal, but it is directly signing and immediately trading your own free agent. I don’t know where this idea that there’s a requirement of some precursor deal between the Spurs and Whiteside comes from.

I'm telling you that's not how sign-and-trades work. There was also new tampering rules put in place last off season to crack down on teams that don't follow the rule.

Like with Jimmy Butler last year. Miami couldn't even talk to the 76ers before agreeing to sign. The deal almost fell apart because they couldn't work out a deal and had to include 4 teams to make it happen.

 

[e_blazer]

You're not understanding the difference between another team pursuing your free agent for a sign-and-trade and you just deciding to sign-and-trade your free agent wherever. The 2nd isnt possible and has never happened. The 1st is. People are suggesting the 2nd.

No, I think you guys are confusing the way they often occur as being a requirement. You’re correct that teams often make a move on a free agent, come to a deal, and then go back to the original team and convince them to do a S&T as a way to get something vs losing a player for nothing. Usually the player ends up getting a better deal than he could have otherwise and the new team ties the player up for longer. Yes, that happens but it’s not a requirement.

 

[hoopsjock]

No, I think you guys are confusing the way they often occur as being a requirement. You’re correct that teams often make a move on a free agent, come to a deal, and then go back to the original team and convince them to do a S&T as a way to get something vs losing a player for nothing. Usually the player ends up getting a better deal than he could have otherwise and the new team ties the player up for longer. Yes, that happens but it’s not a requirement.

This is wrong.

And the team trading the free agent can no longer offer more. Another loophole that was closed several years ago.

 

[e_blazer]

I'm telling you that's not how sign-and-trades work. There was also new tampering rules put in place last off season to crack down on teams that don't follow the rule.

Like with Jimmy Butler last year. Miami couldn't even talk to the 76ers before agreeing to sign. The deal almost fell apart because they couldn't work out a deal and had to include 4 teams to make it happen.

Here are the rules:

92. Can a free agent be signed and immediately traded?
The sign-and-trade rule allows teams to re-sign their own free agents for trading purposes. Under this rule the player is re-signed and immediately traded to another team. This is done by adding a clause to the contract stipulating that the contract is null and void if the trade to the specific team is not completed within 48 hours. A sign-and-trade is treated like a single, atomic transaction, and not two separate transactions between which one party can change its mind -- if the trade is not completed, then the signing is invalidated.

To qualify for a sign-and-trade, all of the following must be true:

• The player must re-sign with his prior team -- a team cannot include another team's free agent in a sign-and-trade.
• The player must finish the preceding season with that team (deals are no longer allowed that sign-and-trade players who are out of the league, such as the sign-and-trade that sent Keith Van Horn from Dallas to New Jersey as part of the Jason Kidd trade in 2008).
• The player cannot be a restricted free agent who has signed an offer sheet with another team (see question number 42).
• The team receiving the player cannot be above the "Apron" (see question number 20) at the conclusion of the trade1, 2. A team above the Apron can receive a player in a sign-and-trade if the trade reduces the team's payroll and the team finishes the trade below the Apron.
• The team cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade if they have used the Taxpayer Mid-Level exception (see question number 25) that season.1
• The trade must be completed prior to the first game of the regular season (sign-and-trades are not allowed once the season begins).
• The player cannot be signed using the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, the Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, or any exception that cannot be used to offer a three-year contract (see question number 25).

Nothing requires the process that you’re stating.

 

[B-Roy]

There is one thing that could put a hindrance on the Ariza/Hood/Mario for Aldridge trade which is that Aldridge has a 15% trade kicker that would be applied to his salary. The trade would then not meet the 125% rule for incoming salary.

But he could choose to waive that trade kicker, and all this discussion is based on the assumption that Aldridge wants to return here anyways.

 

[hoopsjock]

Here are the rules:

92. Can a free agent be signed and immediately traded?
The sign-and-trade rule allows teams to re-sign their own free agents for trading purposes. Under this rule the player is re-signed and immediately traded to another team. This is done by adding a clause to the contract stipulating that the contract is null and void if the trade to the specific team is not completed within 48 hours. A sign-and-trade is treated like a single, atomic transaction, and not two separate transactions between which one party can change its mind -- if the trade is not completed, then the signing is invalidated.

To qualify for a sign-and-trade, all of the following must be true:

• The player must re-sign with his prior team -- a team cannot include another team's free agent in a sign-and-trade.
• The player must finish the preceding season with that team (deals are no longer allowed that sign-and-trade players who are out of the league, such as the sign-and-trade that sent Keith Van Horn from Dallas to New Jersey as part of the Jason Kidd trade in 2008).
• The player cannot be a restricted free agent who has signed an offer sheet with another team (see question number 42).
• The team receiving the player cannot be above the "Apron" (see question number 20) at the conclusion of the trade1, 2. A team above the Apron can receive a player in a sign-and-trade if the trade reduces the team's payroll and the team finishes the trade below the Apron.
• The team cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade if they have used the Taxpayer Mid-Level exception (see question number 25) that season.1
• The trade must be completed prior to the first game of the regular season (sign-and-trades are not allowed once the season begins).
• The player cannot be signed using the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, the Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, or any exception that cannot be used to offer a three-year contract (see question number 25).

Nothing requires the process that you’re stating.

These are the rules for the trade to be legal, not for agreeing to terms with the free agent first.

 

[e_blazer]

Here are the rest of the requirements that got lost in my copy and paste:

A sign-and-trade deal can be made with a free agent who has been renounced (see question number 39), as long as all the above criteria are met. Sign-and-trade contracts must be for at least three seasons (not including any option year) and no longer than four seasons3. The first year of the contract must be fully guaranteed, but the remaining seasons can be non-guaranteed. The combination of a three-year minimum with a one-year guarantee ensures that the player's new team cannot acquire the player's Bird rights any sooner than if they had signed him directly (if they wanted to re-sign him in less than three years they would first have to waive him, and lose any Bird rights -- see question number 32).

A Designated Veteran contract cannot be used in a sign-and-trade.

The starting salary in a contract signed for a sign-and-trade may be any amount up to the player's maximum, however if the player meets the 5th Year 30% Max criteria (see question number 24) he cannot receive a salary greater than 25% of the cap. Raises are limited to 5%. The player also may be considered to have a lower outgoing salary for trade purposes, which can complicate the trade (see question number 93).

If a sign-and-trade contract contains a signing bonus, then either team can pay it. By default the team that signs the player pays the signing bonus (as with any other contract), but since a sign-and-trade is in essence a contract with the receiving team, the teams can agree that the receiving team will pay it. Any portion that is paid by the signing team counts toward the team's annual limit for cash included in a trade (see question number 98), which in effect limits the portion of the signing bonus that can be paid by the signing team.

If a sign-and-trade contract contains a trade bonus, then the bonus is not earned upon the trade that accompanies the signing, but rather on the first subsequent trade. See question number 96 for more information on how long a team must wait before they can trade a player.

If a team acquires a player in a sign-and-trade, then the Apron effectively becomes a hard cap for the remainder of that season. See question number 20 for details.

1 These teams are free to send players to other teams in sign-and-trade transactions, or to receive players in sign-and-trade transactions who weren't signed-and-traded themselves. Also, the restriction applies only to the sign-and-trade transaction itself -- teams are free to acquire players who had been signed-and-traded in earlier transactions.
2 A different team salary definition is used for determining whether a team is above or below the apron -- see question number 13 for details.
3 Since the contract must be for at least three seasons, the receiving team cannot use the Disabled Player exception to acquire the player. The Disabled Player exception can only be used to acquire players with one season on their contracts (see question number 25).

 

[hoopsjock]

Not anything to do with facts, but are we sure Olshey would want Aldridge back?

 

[e_blazer]

These are the rules for the trade to be legal, not for agreeing to terms with the free agent first.

Not looking for an argument and I am more than willing to look at whatever CBA rules you think cause a problem. Just telling me “that’s not the way it works” doesn’t cut it.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

These are the rules for the trade to be legal, not for agreeing to terms with the free agent first.

"Hey Mr Whiteside would you like a 3yr contract with far more guaranteed money in year 1 then you will get anywhere else?"

I'd hardly classify that type of terms agreement as 100% impossible.

 

[e_blazer]

Not anything to do with facts, but are we sure Olshey would want Aldridge back?

Nobody in the entire league is sure of anything right now about the free agent market or salary cap terms or whether the entire CBA is going to get shredded.

 

[B-Roy]

That trade does not work... you are off by more than 4 million... not in matching salaries but in making the 125% rule for teams over the cap, we would be taking almost 8 million more back in this trade, the CBA allows for trades to be a little uneven when you're over the cap but not this uneven, sorry. If you have some link to a site that says that trade works I would love to see it because that site is broken.

You don’t need a calculator just do it yourself. Ariza is 12.8, hood is 6 and Mario is 1.8 for 20.6. 20.6 *1.25 is 25.75. Aldridge makes 24 next year.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Not anything to do with facts, but are we sure Olshey would want Aldridge back?

Who knows, I'd put the odds above 0%

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Nobody in the entire league is sure of anything right now about the free agent market or salary cap terms or whether the entire CBA is going to get shredded.

Another great point, who knows, there may not be any salary matching requirements on trades.

Or maybe it's within 150% instead of 125%

 

[hoopsjock]

Not looking for an argument and I am more than willing to look at whatever CBA rules you think cause a problem. Just telling me “that’s not the way it works” doesn’t cut it.

It's fine, believe what you want. I don't care if you insist on being wrong.

 

[hoopsjock]

Another great point, who knows, there may not be any salary matching requirements on trades.

Or maybe it's within 150% instead of 125%

If the rules change I'll be the first to acknowledge that. Until they do though I can only go on the actual CBA, which I've read front to back numerous times.