I don't think it can happen. However, Dolan was able to get back some of his money from Larry Brown and I still do not understand that. It is to bad that there isn't a policy in place for executives who exhibit conduct detrimental to the team (i.e. sexual harrassment convictions, videotaped racist statements, extreme incompetence and failure etc).

There is a rumor that Detroit might be interested in Zach. There is interest in Zach for all his faults the guy definitely can ball.

Posted by Bonn1997:

There's a rumor that the earth is flat too

How come the Zach rumors keep getting shut down by other teams GM's and Owners?

This whole firing Randolph stuff is asinine. I've yet to hear what cause the Knicks would have to take this course of action.

Artest and Sprewell were suspended by the NBA for actions far more egregious than anything that Randolph has been been found guilty of. Randolph just has a long history of relatively minor incidents, on and off the court, that for the most part haven't been solely attributed to him to go along with his cancerous attitude.

This is also an organization that just had their dirty laundry aired out in court, and found liable to the tune of millions of dollars, exposing the extent of the deviant behavior that was accepted and allowed to fester under Dolan and Mills.

It'll be fun watching the Players Association ask Dolan why Isiah's behavior was not only tolerated but rewarded with a $24M multiyear extension and why Isiah was never fired for his behavior that cost the franchise millions of dollars in damages and untold bad publicity.

plant some crack in his SUV on his way out of MSG.

Posted by BRIGGS:

The Knicks can do whatever they want. They can choose to be quiet about it and hope there is a buyer but I doubt that any team will bite after last weeks incident. The best scenario is a buyout. There will be teams who would take him for 5mm+ MLE---that saves the Knicks 25mm in salary and l tax. If he is such a canbcer and that detrimental to the team--a buyout at 35/50 takes care of it. We owe him no matter what.

NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement with the NBAPA

Article 16.1

The Knicks can do whatever they want.


Tell us again why Randolph is taking a 35/50 buyout?

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BRIGGS:

The Knicks can do whatever they want. They can choose to be quiet about it and hope there is a buyer but I doubt that any team will bite after last weeks incident. The best scenario is a buyout. There will be teams who would take him for 5mm+ MLE---that saves the Knicks 25mm in salary and l tax. If he is such a canbcer and that detrimental to the team--a buyout at 35/50 takes care of it. We owe him no matter what.

NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement with the NBAPA

Article 16.1

The Knicks can do whatever they want.


Tell us again why Randolph is taking a 35/50 buyout?

It's quite simple. While Zach's current contract is an albatross--I feel confident that 5-10 clubs would easily give him a 3 year MLE. You simply sit down with Zach and say this is the list--we'd like to move you to a team where youll be a better fit--you'll be earning the same exact $$$ and everyone will have a fresh start

Lets say Dallas 3 years 15MM
We buyout Zach 35 of 50 and he earns his 15 additional from Dallas

On our cap we take off 11.66mm a year for 3 years


We have to pay him anyway and now that any limited trade market is likely gone--this is a comfortable alternative.

Positives
we move the player
we do gain toughly 6+mm in 2010 in cap room
fresh start for team without distarctions
We save a total of 20-25mm because of lux taxes
we use no asset to remove him

That's so messed up I don't even know where to begin.

So you're picking these 5-10 clubs, that will definitely want to sign Randolph to a 3 year MLE, out of a hat or is there some kind of assurance that they plan on doing that?

Not sure why a team would guarantee the Knicks that they would spend that money on Randolph but for arguments sake, let's say that they do. You go to Randolph with that proposal and he and his Posse will laugh in your face and tell you that if you want to get rid of him, he wants it all and then he'll shop himself to those teams with the knowledge that there is definitely a market for him. If not, he already knows that the Knicks are willing to buy him out for 70 cents on the dollar so he can continue to be Zach and eventually the Knicks would cave and give him the whole 50, at which point he can go sell his services to the highest bidder for even more money. If 5-10 clubs are willing to give him 3 years, why not pit them against each other and get an even bigger deal?

As for the effect on the Knicks salary cap. Regardless of whether they keep him or magically buy him out for 70 cents on the dollar, the entire $17M+ stays on the cap. You don't get to use the buyout figure on your cap, you use the original contractual figure. So you're not getting any cap relief and you lose all hope of getting any portion of his contract off your cap before it simply expires after 2011.

This is a ridiculous nonsensical alternative.

Negatives:

We gain nothing in cap room for 2010.
Randolph has us by the balls knowing that we're willing to buy him out for 70 cents on the dollar and will use that to get the whole $50M.
I could give 2 ****s about luxury taxes since it doesn't effect the salary cap.
Our bargaining position, in terms of trading him to another team, is pretty much shot.
If we're stuck with him, he has zero incentive to play nice or listen to anybody.
The longer he's here, the longer he has to poison the environment.

It's a good thing for us that none of this made sense to begin with and there's no chance of it happening.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BRIGGS:

The Knicks can do whatever they want. They can choose to be quiet about it and hope there is a buyer but I doubt that any team will bite after last weeks incident. The best scenario is a buyout. There will be teams who would take him for 5mm+ MLE---that saves the Knicks 25mm in salary and l tax. If he is such a canbcer and that detrimental to the team--a buyout at 35/50 takes care of it. We owe him no matter what.

NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement with the NBAPA

Article 16.1

The Knicks can do whatever they want.


Tell us again why Randolph is taking a 35/50 buyout?

It's quite simple. While Zach's current contract is an albatross--I feel confident that 5-10 clubs would easily give him a 3 year MLE. You simply sit down with Zach and say this is the list--we'd like to move you to a team where youll be a better fit--you'll be earning the same exact $$$ and everyone will have a fresh start

Lets say Dallas 3 years 15MM
We buyout Zach 35 of 50 and he earns his 15 additional from Dallas

On our cap we take off 11.66mm a year for 3 years


We have to pay him anyway and now that any limited trade market is likely gone--this is a comfortable alternative.

Positives
we move the player
we do gain toughly 6+mm in 2010 in cap room
fresh start for team without distarctions
We save a total of 20-25mm because of lux taxes
we use no asset to remove him

i think if the knicks just waive zach and another team picks him up, then the salary from team B would be deducted from the knicks salary cap. the only thing that has to be negotiated is hoping zach's agent gets another team to pony up more than the vet minimum of $1 mil. so it technically wouldn't be a buyout...but it kind of is.

(i.e. finley was owed $16 mil from dallas. he was waived per the h20 rule. spurs signed him for $2 mil. finley's cap total for dallas was then only $14 mil.)

the problem with doing this is that it's a dead contract on the books that you can not trade. so buying him out/waiving will only save a max of $5 mil during the hypothetical 2010 under the cap scenario.

What if the Knicks buy him out for the entire contract?