[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Some clarity on potential Nate and Lee 1-year contracts
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
martin
Posts: 78528
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/27/2009  4:44 PM
Emailed Larry Coon and he was gracious enough to get back to us.
-----Original Message-----
lot of chatter and questions have been raised about Nate's contract and we were hoping you could help clear up some details. We tried referencing http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q85 but couldn't understand if we had the right interpretation.

Nate just got an offer from the Knicks for around $5M. Knicks had already put the 5th year rookie scale $2.7M QO on the table this past June. We all know that Nate would retain trade veto if he had accepted the QO (as well as Bird Rights for the Knicks), but now with this new offer, do the same rules apply if a trade scenario occurs? Specifically, if Nate accepts the $5M 1-year offer from Knicks, 1) can the Knicks trade Nate without him OK'ing the trade and 2) if the Knicks do trade Nate, would Nate keep his Bird Rights?

-----Reply Message-----
If he signs a one-year contract with the Knicks (including his Q-offer, which constitutes a one-year contract), then he can't be traded at all until December 15. After that, he can only be traded with his consent (this applies to all players on one-year deals who will be Bird or Early Bird).

If a player is traded, Bird rights are generally traded with him. This is one of the exceptions -- if he's traded, then he becomes a Non-Bird free agent with his new team. This is why the player's consent is required under these circumstances.

Larry Coon

I had been under the assumption that IF Nate and/or Lee did NOT sign the QO but did sign 1 year deals, they could be traded by the Knicks free of any veto coming from the players, but this is NOT the case (I think I have seen at least one of the NY papers write or imply that the Knicks would be free and clear to trade Nate/Lee if they signed $5 and $7M deals respectively... not gonna happen according to Coon-meister).

OK, then why would Walsh sign either Nate or Dave to anything above the QO? That's a good question, and here is the only possibility I can come up with:

I think Donnie/Knicks would want to have some sort of gentleman's/good faith agreement that both would waive their no-trade's if Donnie wanted to trade them during the next season. If Donnie did trade them, they lose their Bird rights with new team... BUT, per http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q19 they could sign with their new team to the tune of 120% of their previous year's salary. So, in effect, they wouldn't be losing out on (too much?) money with new team if they decided to stay with a team that is over the cap, and thus making a trade more palatable for all.

still confusing stuff.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
AUTOADVERT
TheGame
Posts: 26647
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
7/27/2009  4:48 PM
Thanks Martin. If Walsh could manage to get Lee and Nate to sign 1 yr deals, he should be up for GM of the year. We keep two of our best players and still don't lose the ability to sign potentially two max players next summer.
Trust the Process
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
7/27/2009  4:48 PM
...or walsh has struck out on all FA's and losing a fan favorite would not be a good PR move...d'antoni can't stand nate but he's coming back for one year and toney douglas was taken to basically replace him so what should be made of it?

it also means nate couldn't get a long term deal to his liking this summer OR required a S&T walsh didn't want to do so this lets him be an unrestricted guy this summer.

whatever the case, nate is gone for nothing next offseason.

martin = encyclopedia brown...

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07-27-2009 4:50 PM]
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
7/27/2009  4:51 PM
Sounds like a QO signed... or a 1 year signed player in lieu of the QO - LOSE their bird rights in respect to their new team. So, that new team, has no incentive to trade for a player who might decide to go elsewhere after that 1 year contract is up.

Yep, this is messy, thanks to Stern's DISASTER of a CBA nobody can understand how they can have ANY leverage with their own players when it comes to the QO - or - the well thought out but obviously failed attempt to sign them to a 1 year contract to circumvent the QO - which it appears the CBA has made sure you can't.

In that, I agree with the camp that we should have dumped these two while they were still "OURS" and had no say on their future. What are you going to do? You're going to try to retain them on small contracts and if they don't want that you try to S&T. If there's no S&T of value to be had you offer the QO or you know what? You cut them loose.

If you're NOT getting anything of value back for them - then - cut them. Same difference except you don't blow cap space on say a Hinrich just to say "Oh, well, we at least got SOMETHING back."

That does us no service.

It sucks, but, it is what it is, and let us PLEASE face facts with these two? Their flaws are quite glaring. It's not like we're losing a bonafide NBA starter let alone a STAR player! We're not.

Go down the list of options and if you end up at the "cut your losses and move on" option? So be it.
http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
TheGame
Posts: 26647
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
7/27/2009  4:54 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

...or walsh has struck out on all FA's and losing a fan favorite would not be a good PR move...d'antoni can't stand nate but he's coming back for one year and toney douglas was taken to basically replace him so what should be made of it?

it also means nate couldn't get a long term deal to his liking this summer OR required a S&T walsh didn't want to do so this lets him be an unrestricted guy this summer.

whatever the case, nate is gone for nothing next offseason.

martin = encyclopedia brown...

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07-27-2009 4:50 PM]

Like him or not, Nate was our best PG by the end of the year. Walsh, and I am sure even MDA, realized that fact. Douglas has potential but needs alot of work before he is ready to run the offense full time. And, after watching Duhon break down last year, I am sure Walsh and MDA were reluctant to rely solely on him. Thus, that leaves you with either signing Sessions (the move I would prefer) or signing Nate to a one-year deal (conceivably you could do both, but I don't think that is what Walsh is thinking) or going with a Tinsley of someone else (a waste of time IMO).

We can still trade Nate as long as his new team believes he will resign. If nate gets 120% of 5 mill, that is still a starting salary of $6 mill, which is about his worth, so his new team would have a fair chance of resigning him. Thus, Walsh can still deal him. If Sac town is still willing, I would be on the phone on Dec. 16 offering Nate and Jeffries for an expiring contract.

[Edited by - thegame on 27-07-2009 16:55]
Trust the Process
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
7/27/2009  4:56 PM
i don't think any player will agree to be traded if it means his bird's right are gone...any agent that let's his player do that would be doing a bad job...
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
7/27/2009  4:58 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

i don't think any player will agree to be traded if it means his bird's right are gone...any agent that let's his player do that would be doing a bad job...

So then cut them. Then the Raptors can split their MLE on Lee and Nate.

Just messin' with ya DJ. This situation is very complicated and downright frustrating. I just can't stop thinking about that Kings-Knicks granted a trade deadline exception to try to finish a trade that involves Nate/Jeffries for Kenny Thomas!

SOB!

Then we'd only be dealing with ONE greedy flucker, already have that much more cap space.
http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  5:06 PM
Walsh to Nate/Lee: heres a raise over the QO, please don't veto any potential trades.

And while its true they can get a raise with their next team, it will be at the expense of that teams cap space. Bird rights are very valuable not just to the player.

whose job is it in the FO to know the CBA rules regarding FA's?
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
7/27/2009  5:26 PM
Why not just sign them to a QO if there is no difference?
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
7/27/2009  5:32 PM
Posted by McK1:

Walsh to Nate/Lee: heres a raise over the QO, please don't veto any potential trades.

And while its true they can get a raise with their next team, it will be at the expense of that teams cap space. Bird rights are very valuable not just to the player.

whose job is it in the FO to know the CBA rules regarding FA's?

offering Nate more money is a show of good faith on donnie's part. and nate should know by now that he can't get more than an MLE offer sheet anyway.
¿ △ ?
TheGame
Posts: 26647
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
7/27/2009  5:36 PM
Posted by kam77:

Why not just sign them to a QO if there is no difference?

Because they are not going to accept it. If I am playing on a 1 year deal, I would rather do one year at $5 mill rather than 1 year at $2.9 mil (in Nate's case). I see this as a great deal for us. Basically, we get one more year to figure out what to do with Nate and Lee. It improves our chances of making the playoffs this year because both Nate and Lee are in our top 6.
Trust the Process
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
7/27/2009  5:37 PM
Posted by crzymdups:
Posted by McK1:

Walsh to Nate/Lee: heres a raise over the QO, please don't veto any potential trades.

And while its true they can get a raise with their next team, it will be at the expense of that teams cap space. Bird rights are very valuable not just to the player.

whose job is it in the FO to know the CBA rules regarding FA's?

offering Nate more money is a show of good faith on donnie's part. and nate should know by now that he can't get more than an MLE offer sheet anyway.

Why "good faith" players you might not keep or who might not allow you to trade them? The QO is there.

Options are limited for all parties concerned.

Take the QO
Take our contract offer.
Take an S&T contract offer.
Sit out the season.
Go to Europe.
And for the Knicks: Cut them.

Now I know why in that Donnie Walsh interview, from I believe it was the 2nd SL game (I posted the interview), that he seemed so frustrated and even said "they could go to europe" when talking about both.

I like that Donnie isn't going to screw us up just to pay two role players double or triple what they are worth. I like that if it comes down to losing them both for nothing Donnie is prepared to do that over taking back garbage for them or overpaying for them.

The guy we blame for all of this is David Stern and his CBA of trash.
http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  5:38 PM
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by kam77:

Why not just sign them to a QO if there is no difference?

Because they are not going to accept it. If I am playing on a 1 year deal, I would rather do one year at $5 mill rather than 1 year at $2.9 mil (in Nate's case). I see this as a great deal for us. Basically, we get one more year to figure out what to do with Nate and Lee. It improves our chances of making the playoffs this year because both Nate and Lee are in our top 6.

if they don't get an extension they have no choice about accepting the QO. see Ben Gordon last season.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
7/27/2009  5:45 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by kam77:

Why not just sign them to a QO if there is no difference?

Because they are not going to accept it. If I am playing on a 1 year deal, I would rather do one year at $5 mill rather than 1 year at $2.9 mil (in Nate's case). I see this as a great deal for us. Basically, we get one more year to figure out what to do with Nate and Lee. It improves our chances of making the playoffs this year because both Nate and Lee are in our top 6.

if they don't get an extension they have no choice about accepting the QO. see Ben Gordon last season.

This is one thing I don't get. It is said teams have to EXTEND the QO to players. Does this mean players can refuse the QO? What in holy hell is the point of this thing anyway!? Jeez....Stern must have been high as a kite and bored as can be when he proposed the QO for the CBA.

What gives with this damn thing? I remember hearing that Eddy Curry was prepared to sit out a year instead of taking the QO before he was traded to us.

So, a team can extend the QO, but the player can say, screw you, I'll just sit out a year, and then be a FA?

Whatever IDIOT thought up the QO needs to be beaten severely. Those that voted yes to it need to be placed on a rudderless boat in the middle of the ocean for our enjoyment.

Jeez....there is ZERO benefit to the whole "QO" thing to any party involved. The player, the team, the league, other prospective teams... nobody. NOBODY gains from this ridiculous thing. NOBODY.

What...in...the...HELL.

http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
TheGame
Posts: 26647
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
7/27/2009  5:53 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by kam77:

Why not just sign them to a QO if there is no difference?

Because they are not going to accept it. If I am playing on a 1 year deal, I would rather do one year at $5 mill rather than 1 year at $2.9 mil (in Nate's case). I see this as a great deal for us. Basically, we get one more year to figure out what to do with Nate and Lee. It improves our chances of making the playoffs this year because both Nate and Lee are in our top 6.

if they don't get an extension they have no choice about accepting the QO. see Ben Gordon last season.

THey never have to accept it. It just means that is the offer out there that they can decide to accept. It is my understanding they could sit out if they wanted to (although there would be no point because they would be in the same situation next year). If you pay $5 mill, Nate is not happy but he is happier than if he was playing for only $2.9 mil. You gave him almost an 100% raise. Same thing with Lee. They at least feel like they are playing on a contract that matches their worth, rather than playing another year several million below market value. Plus, if you do trade them, their new team may not have their Bird rights but can sign them to 120% of their current deal. If that is only $2.9 mill, then Nate is going to walk. But if that $6 mill, then the new team knows it has a decent chance to resign Nate. Thus, giving them more money increases our chances of trading them.

[Edited by - thegame on 27-07-2009 17:55]
Trust the Process
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  6:03 PM
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by McK1:
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by kam77:

Why not just sign them to a QO if there is no difference?

Because they are not going to accept it. If I am playing on a 1 year deal, I would rather do one year at $5 mill rather than 1 year at $2.9 mil (in Nate's case). I see this as a great deal for us. Basically, we get one more year to figure out what to do with Nate and Lee. It improves our chances of making the playoffs this year because both Nate and Lee are in our top 6.

if they don't get an extension they have no choice about accepting the QO. see Ben Gordon last season.

THey never have to accept it. It just means that is the offer out there that they can decide to accept. It is my understanding they could sit out if they wanted to (although there would be no point because they would be in the same situation next year). If you pay $5 mill, Nate is not happy but he is happier than if he was playing for only $2.9 mil. You gave him almost an 100% raise. Same thing with Lee. They at least feel like they are playing on a contract that matches their worth, rather than playing another year several million below market value. Plus, if you do trade them, their new team may not have their Bird rights but can sign them to 120% of their current deal. If that is only $2.9 mill, then Nate is going to walk. But if that $6 mill, then the new team knows it has a decent chance to resign Nate. Thus, giving them more money increases our chances of trading them.

[Edited by - thegame on 27-07-2009 17:55]

the new team would have to have the cap room to give them a raise.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
martin
Posts: 78528
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/27/2009  6:30 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by McK1:
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by kam77:

Why not just sign them to a QO if there is no difference?

Because they are not going to accept it. If I am playing on a 1 year deal, I would rather do one year at $5 mill rather than 1 year at $2.9 mil (in Nate's case). I see this as a great deal for us. Basically, we get one more year to figure out what to do with Nate and Lee. It improves our chances of making the playoffs this year because both Nate and Lee are in our top 6.

if they don't get an extension they have no choice about accepting the QO. see Ben Gordon last season.

THey never have to accept it. It just means that is the offer out there that they can decide to accept. It is my understanding they could sit out if they wanted to (although there would be no point because they would be in the same situation next year). If you pay $5 mill, Nate is not happy but he is happier than if he was playing for only $2.9 mil. You gave him almost an 100% raise. Same thing with Lee. They at least feel like they are playing on a contract that matches their worth, rather than playing another year several million below market value. Plus, if you do trade them, their new team may not have their Bird rights but can sign them to 120% of their current deal. If that is only $2.9 mill, then Nate is going to walk. But if that $6 mill, then the new team knows it has a decent chance to resign Nate. Thus, giving them more money increases our chances of trading them.

[Edited by - thegame on 27-07-2009 17:55]

the new team would have to have the cap room to give them a raise.

Don't think that's correct.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q19
NON-BIRD EXCEPTION -- This is also a component of the Veteran Free Agent exception. Players who qualify for this exception are called "Non-Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA. They are veteran free agents who are neither Qualifying Veteran Free Agents nor Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agents, either because they haven't met the criteria, or because they are Early Bird free agents following the second season of their rookie scale contract and whose team renounced the Early-Bird exception. This exception allows a team to re-sign its own free agent to a salary starting at 120% of the player's salary in the previous season, 120% of the minimum salary, or the amount needed to tender a qualifying offer (if the player is a restricted free agent -- see question number 36), whichever is greater. Raises are limited to 8% of the salary in the first year of the contract, and contracts are limited to five seasons when this exception is used.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  6:52 PM
losing Bird rights means a team can't go over the cap to re-sign its free agent.

Nate may be eligible for a raise but with no Bird rights its cap room or the MLE.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
martin
Posts: 78528
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/27/2009  7:03 PM
Posted by McK1:

losing Bird rights means a team can't go over the cap to re-sign its free agent.

Nate may be eligible for a raise but with no Bird rights its cap room or the MLE.

Re-read the very first post of this thread. Larry Coon says that Nate would go from having his Larry Bird rights to Non-Bird exception status if traded.

Then he falls into the realm of 120% raises per my post just above that I posted. (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q19)
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  9:47 PM
Nate getting a 1 yr deal at 5-6 mil then getting the non-bird extension is likely not too much out of the way of the contract offer he would get as an UFA

only obstacle then is will Nate veto. Only place Nate has openly expressed a desire to play outside of NY is Portland.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Some clarity on potential Nate and Lee 1-year contracts
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy