Re: 交易規則的運用：交易大限前的數筆交易

看板NBAGM作者nownow (Ｑ我有Gmail教學)時間20年前 (2005/02/26 10:37)推噓3(3推 0噓 0→)

留言3則, 3人參與討論串4/4 (看更多)

: 推 RCBuford:國王部份:"可以如此看待但實際還是三換三?" 我 140.131.30.193 02/26 : → RCBuford:不太懂這部份既然可以分成三個來看似乎意謂這 140.131.30.193 02/26 : → RCBuford:三個都各自具有獨立交易的條件但實際卻不行? 140.131.30.193 02/26 : → RCBuford:若"實際還是三換三" 那Bradley應該就不能被交易 140.131.30.193 02/26 : → RCBuford:公鹿部分我還是看不太懂對不起 @_@ 我會再多看 140.131.30.193 02/26 : → RCBuford:幾遍查查資料的交易規則牽扯太多邏輯問題了昏 140.131.30.193 02/26 其實可以回文討論呀。我應該這麼說：現實生活沒見過一換○（連現金、選秀權也沒有）的交易，但是在一筆多人交易中，可以為了要符合規則而出現一換○的情形。請看：http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#68 Coon舉了一個例子，我把那段拿下來： A good example of this occurred in 2004 when Houston traded Steve Francis, Cuttino Mobley and Kelvin Cato to Orlando for Tracy McGrady, Juwan Howard, Tyronn Lue and Reece Gaines. As a single trade, this would not have netted a trade exception since multiple players were moving each way. However, Houston was able to reorganize the trade into three separate, simultaneous trades. In one trade, they acquired McGrady and Gaines for Mobley and Cato. In another trade, they acquired Howard and Lue with an existing trade exception from their earlier Glen Rice trade. That left them trading Francis essentially by himself for nothing, which generated a trade exception in the amount of Francis' base year value. From Orlando's perspective, it was a single three-for-four trade. 這是拿04年火箭魔術的交易來當例子。在這筆交易中，火箭用Francis, Mobley, Cato 換回T-Mac, Howard, Lue和Gaines。若將其視為一筆交易，是不會有TE產生的，不過對火箭隊來說，可以將這筆交易看成三筆： Mobley & Cato for T-Mac & Gaines TE for Howard & Lue Francis for nothing (在此火箭得到一個TE）但對魔術隊來說，這是一筆三換四的交易。所以我們可以這麼說：規則允許在多人交易中，為了符合規定或是取得TE等理由，球隊可以以對他們最有利的方式來看待交易。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.216.207.24