Posted by martin:

Posted by TMS:

of course we can sign them to 1 year deals, but then we lose their Bird Rights... that means they won't be able to sign for anything over the MLE this season & next season we won't be able to go over the cap to sign them to extensions either.

this is interesting TMS, in light of what we were talking about in terms of signing the QO and players being able to veto trades.

CAUSE.... if it isn't the QO, Nate would NOT have the right to nix a trade, right?

THAT'S HUGE in terms of trade flexibility for Walsh.

We be generally doing something underhanded by signing them to 1 year deals and then trading them away as soon as possible. I'd be fine with it, but they wouldn't, and honestly we don't need bad press when looking to build a team from the ashes do we?

Meanwhile, these players are looking for long term security as usual. What if I get hurt. What if I feel like slacking. What if the next CBA ends in a lockout.

And, lastly, even though teams have more money in 2010 to grab FAs off the market - that FA market crop is so talented that if Lee and Nate think they are frustrated NOW being left to twist in the wind - imagine next offseason? They'll still be on the shelf in August and beyond!

Cosmic, the team that gets them in this situation would have their bird rights

Posted by Cosmic:

Posted by Andrew:

Cosmic, the team that gets them in this situation would have their bird rights

Wait, how? If they forego the QO, become UFA, and sign a 1 year deal.... where do the bird rights come from? Don't you need to sign a 3 year deal minimum to retain them?

Also, if we do this, another thought...are we in potentially Joe Smith territory here?

I just don't see how this works perfectly. It's basically circumventing a slew of rules is it not?

Stein said in his post that they would agree to the one year deal to retain the Bird rights. I agree it seems too easy, but apparently it's not against the rules. The Knicks are giving their guy a raise, it's just mutually beneficial that the contract be short for both sides.

If we can then I suppose it's an option. It'd be like a delayed S&T. The last problem that there might be with it is what happens if no one trades for them and they're free agents in 2010 all over again? Are they URFA or RFA and ours to retain or S&T?

Confusing I'll tell you that. Too many rules. Too many.