Clippers / Celtics / Doc / Paul Mega Thread: Please post in here, all others will be DELETED

[Admin]

We have an MLE right now . . room level, which is 2.5 mill. When we go over the cap with one of our own signings, we'll have non-taxpayer exception, starting at 5.15 mill.

NO WE WILL NOT. PLEASE STOP SPREADING THAT TALL TALE.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

NO WE WILL NOT. PLEASE STOP SPREADING THAT TALL TALE.

So say we're at 51 million dollars, with Jeff Teague and Ivan Johnson left to sign. We sign Teague to a deal, at 7 mill per year, taking us to 58 million, and sign Ivan to a 2 million a year deal, taking us to 60 million, and over the salary cap.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong . . . but please explain to me why we can't use the non-taxpayer MLE at that point. If you can, please cite a link to back up why you're right.

[Admin]

~Dolfanatic23

I'm starting to feel that way as I've corrected at least 5 of North's posts where he's said that. I was glad when Buzzard [and Hawksfanatic] corrected me when I was wrong about it and didn't continue to being misinformed and misinforming others and I feel the need to pay it forward!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

~Dolfanatic23

Or since you know the CBA better than most of us, you explain why we can't use the non-taxpayer MLE in that scenario that I gave.

[Admin]

So say we're at 51 million dollars, with Jeff Teague and Ivan Johnson left to sign. We sign Teague to a deal, at 7 mill per year, taking us to 58 million, and sign Ivan to a 2 million a year deal, taking us to 60 million, and over the salary cap.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong . . . but please explain to me why we can't use the non-taxpayer MLE at that point. If you can, please cite a link to back up why you're right.

The mid-level exception is calculated at the beginning of free agency, it's not something that you get as a reward for spending up to the cap with all of your cap room and you must renounce it in order to have all of your available cap room. Prior to this year we wouldn't have gotten any MLE so the room exception is a bonus for room teams.

If I must I will spend the time to track down where that is documented...

Or since you know the CBA better than most of us, you explain why we can't use the non-taxpayer MLE in that scenario that I gave.

Can you read?

I was glad when Buzzard [and Hawksfanatic] corrected me when I was wrong about it and didn't continue to being misinformed and misinforming others and I feel the need to pay it forward!

[NBASupes]

I'm starting to feel that way as I've corrected at least 5 of North's posts where he's said that. I was glad when Buzzard [and Hawksfanatic] corrected me when I was wrong about it and didn't continue to being misinformed and misinforming others and I feel the need to pay it forward!

I don't think North was around when we had that big thread on the MLE.

[Admin]

From a link that Buzzard provided earlier...

http://www.celticsblog.com/2012/1/27/2752081/how-much-money-do-we-have-for-free-agents-anyway

7. What about the MLE? The bi-annual exception?

Teams with cap room have to renounce the MLE / LLE just like they would a free agent. We wouldn't be able to use either of these exceptions next year.

I don't think North was around when we had that big thread on the MLE.

He may not have been in that thread but I've corrected him at least 5 times since then and he's ignored it each time until now.

[Admin]

And STRAIGHT FROM THE NEW CBA....

(2) In the event that when a Disabled Player Exception, Bi-annual Exception, Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception (or the Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception instead of the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception if the Team is no longer able to use the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception but remains able to use the Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception) and/or Traded Player Exception arises, the Team’s Team Salary is below the Salary Cap (or in the event that, prior to the expiration of any such Exceptions, the Team’s Team Salary falls below the Salary Cap) by less than the amount of such Exceptions, then (i) the Team’s Team Salary shall include, until the Exceptions are actually used or until the Team no longer is entitled to use the Exceptions, the amount of the Exceptions (or any unused portion of the Exceptions), and (ii) the amount by which the Team’s Team Salary is less than the Salary Cap shall thereby be extinguished. When the Disabled Player Exception is used to sign or acquire a player, the Replacement Player’s Salary for the Season covered by his Contract, instead of the amount of the Exception, shall be included in Team Salary. When a Bi-annual Exception, Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception or Taxpayer Mid-Level Salary Exception is used to sign a player, or when a Traded Player Exception is used to acquire a player, the Salary for the first Season of the signed or acquired Contract plus any then-unused portion of the Exception, instead of the full amount of the Exception, shall be included in Team Salary. A Team may at any time renounce its rights to use an Exception, in which case the Exception (or any unused portion of the Exception) will no longer be included in Team Salary.

[Admin]

Or since you know the CBA better than most of us, you explain why we can't use the non-taxpayer MLE in that scenario that I gave.

I was big enough to admit that I was wrong when Buzzard and Hawksfanatic corrected me about this so I would hope that you'll be able to do the same.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

And STRAIGHT FROM THE NEW CBA....

That still doesn't explain why we couldn't do it. Your answer explains how teams can create more room under the cap, by renouncing the exceptions.

But I am wrong, because of this in the CBA ( not what you cited )

26. How do exceptions count against the cap? Does being under the cap always mean that a team has room to sign free agents? Do teams ever lose their exceptions?

If a team is below the cap, then its Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level (either the Taxpayer or Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level, whichever applies to the team) and/or trade exceptions are added to their team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap¹. This is to prevent a loophole, in a manner similar to free agent amounts (see question number 38). A team can't act like it's under the cap and sign free agents using cap room, and then use their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or trade exceptions.

Consequently, the exceptions are added to their team salary (putting the team over the cap) if the team is under the cap and adding the exceptions puts them over the cap. If a team is already over the cap, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. There would be no point in doing so, since there is no cap room for signing free agents.

So being under the cap does not necessarily mean a team has room to sign free agents. For example, assume the cap is $58 million, and a team has $51.5 million committed to salaries. They also have a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $5 million and a trade exception for $5.5 million. Even though their salaries put them $6.5 million under the cap, their exceptions also count toward their team salary, increasing their total to $62 million, or $4 million over the cap. So the team actually has no cap room to sign free agents, and instead must use its exceptions to sign players.

Basically what the league does, is add 10.5 million to everybody under the salary cap. So if they want the maximium cap space, they'll have to renounce the non-taxpayer MLE and the trade exception, in order to get that space.

In the case of the Hawks, even if we renounce everybody right now, instead of 31 million ( if we kept the Bird Rights to Teague and Ivan ), we'd actually be at 42 million, with only 16 million to sign free agents. That's why we'd have to renounce the non-taxpayer MLE and the trade exemption. We don't HAVE to do it. But to get that maximum cap space, we would.

I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong. But you just saying I'm wrong, without any evidence, wasn't going to fly.

Edited June 24, 2013 by northcyde

[Admin]

That still doesn't explain why we couldn't do it. Your answer explains how teams can create more room under the cap, by renouncing the exceptions.

But I am wrong, because of this in the CBA ( not what you cited )

26. How do exceptions count against the cap? Does being under the cap always mean that a team has room to sign free agents? Do teams ever lose their exceptions?

If a team is below the cap, then its Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level (either the Taxpayer or Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level, whichever applies to the team) and/or trade exceptions are added to their team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap¹. This is to prevent a loophole, in a manner similar to free agent amounts (see question number 38). A team can't act like it's under the cap and sign free agents using cap room, and then use their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or trade exceptions.

Consequently, the exceptions are added to their team salary (putting the team over the cap) if the team is under the cap and adding the exceptions puts them over the cap. If a team is already over the cap, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. There would be no point in doing so, since there is no cap room for signing free agents.

So being under the cap does not necessarily mean a team has room to sign free agents. For example, assume the cap is $58 million, and a team has $51.5 million committed to salaries. They also have a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $5 million and a trade exception for $5.5 million. Even though their salaries put them $6.5 million under the cap, their exceptions also count toward their team salary, increasing their total to $62 million, or $4 million over the cap. So the team actually has no cap room to sign free agents, and instead must use its exceptions to sign players.

Basically what the league does, is add 10.5 million to everybody under the salary cap. So if they want the maximium cap space, they'll have to renounce the non-taxpayer MLE and the trade exception, in order to get that space.

In the case of the Hawks, even if we renounce everybody right now, instead of 31 million ( if we kept the Bird Rights to Teague and Ivan ), we'd actually be at 42 million, with only 16 million to sign free agents. That's why we'd have to renounce the non-taxpayer MLE and the trade exemption. We don't HAVE to do it. But to get that maximum cap space, we would.

I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong. But you just saying I'm wrong, without any evidence, wasn't going to fly.

I provided you the evidence, straight from the CBA, and if you choose to ignore it then that's your business but I'm quite confident after being corrected by Buzzard and Hawksfanatic and then reading up on it myself. In order to be able to spend up to the $60 million (or whatever the cap will be) mark, you will HAVE TO renounce the FULL MLE. If you do not renounce it then you'll only be able to spend up to the salary cap minus the full MLE amount.

And you were wrong for what I originally stated, as you made it seem like we would get "rewarded" with the full MLE once we spent up to the cap. You are completely wrong there, JUST AS I WAS a couple of weeks ago. There's no shame in being wrong about that as it's confusing but that doesn't mean that you weren't wrong because of that reason as well.

[Sothron]

Because the NBA is fixed. At least that's what people believe.

So if it's fixed, how are we going to get a top lottery pick in a year in which there might be 2 Hall of Fame players in that draft?

@ Leadership . . . You don't need a rim protector to be good defensively in this league ( even though I got you one in Dalembert . . 2.5 BLKS per 36 minutes . . tied 10th in the NBA . . and better than Josh Smith last year ).

@ Sothron . . . so who is running the point then? Ellis? Mack? Jennings? Larkin? Who is your point guard?

The best one year PG vet deal we can give to meet the minimum salary cap floor. Overpaying an average point guard in Teague is sheer insanity.

[NBASupes]

The best one year PG vet deal we can give to meet the minimum salary cap floor. Overpaying an average point guard in Teague is sheer insanity.

If you plan to contend, Teague has to go. If you plan on tanking, Teague has to go. We have a 6th man and he's too good for us to tank. We need a lot of money to even make the cap floor if we can't get CP3/D12. We need to trade for bad contracts and get their 2014 and 2016 1st round picks. It could be lotto protected if they want. But we need to get more assets.

[Sothron]

If you plan to contend, Teague has to go. If you plan on tanking, Teague has to go. We have a 6th man and he's too good for us to tank. We need a lot of money to even make the cap floor if we can't get CP3/D12. We need to trade for bad contracts and get their 2014 and 2016 1st round picks. It could be lotto protected if they want. But we need to get more assets.

If we can't sign a superstar which with Boston screwing us I now think is impossible I agree. I don't want to resign Teague under any circumstance. He's an average starter that will demand way more money than he's worth. Getting some first round picks to soak up one year bad deals is fine with me if it gets us a superstar in next year's draft.

[bird_dirt]

Is anyone able to explain to me how when word first came out that the clips would trade players and picks to the celtics for doc and garnett, stern stepped in and said they can't do that because coaches can't be traded. Now they just came back and said the clips are giving the celts a pick(s?) for doc, and the league is ok with that?! But, they warned, don't try trading garnett to the clips, because that wouldn't be cool now. Wait, what?! Coaches can't be traded, and players can, but the clips are able to trade assets for a coach, but not allowed to trade for a player. In what line of logic is that right? I don't blame the celts for screwing us so much, I blame the league (aka Stern). I can't stand that guy at all. I can't wait for him to go, though I don't have much faith in Stern's puppet Silver either.

[bird_dirt]

Oh, and I really hope this episode goes on to blow up in Paul's, Doc's and the Clip's faces. Paul firing and hiring whomever he wants, and the clips enabling it, and doc jumping bandwagons, smh.Come on Karma, don't fail me now.

[Guest]

Stern is saying that the Doc trade and KG cannot be contingent on each other: example KG only waiving no trade clause because Doc is going. The Celtics are being compensated for letting Doc out of his contract to coach LAC.Miami received a draft pick and cash for SVG when he wanted to coach Orlando. Riley had taken over but SVG still was under contract with Miami.

[Buzzard]

Stern is saying that the Doc trade and KG cannot be contingent on each other: example KG only waiving no trade clause because Doc is going.The Celtics are being compensated for letting Doc out of his contract to coach LAC.Miami received a draft pick and cash for SVG when he wanted to coach Orlando. Riley had taken over but SVG still was under contract with Miami.

Exactly. The SVG deal is in the same spirit of the Doc deal.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Buzzard

[GameTime]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR3oAVxPCJQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4PwiTOVL2U

Edited June 24, 2013 by GameTime

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

Just keeping his options open. If he says that he loves the hire, then he is almost inclined to stay. If he says that he intends to still test free agency, then he looks insatiable. He said really the only thing he could have said which is nothing. It does make you wonder how interested he is in playing with D12 and playing in a city that he can raise a family if he has his family living 2 1/2 hours away from LA in San Diego...