Chandler wrote:Prefer Jackson or Lowry on shorter deal.

Reggie Jackson is intriguing.

smackeddog wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Philc1 wrote:1. 2 year deal max is the longest we should offer

The Knicks have about 70 million in potential open cap space

Any Chris Paul contract would need to be an IMMEDIATE total cap hit all at once ( deferred comp) because of the Over 38 Rule

Paul's street FA max amount is Year 1 - 38 million and Year 2 - 38 million plus 5 percent. That's way more than 70 million.

You consistently say things that are illegal to the CBA or can't be possible under the current rules in place. Quit randomly making **** up. This is an opportunity to empower yourself by learning how the league and contracts work. There is more information out there than in any other time in sports fandom if you just Google'ed it more often.

Does it really matter? It's just board talk, it's not like Rose reads this forum looking for ideas. He's just saying he'd rather only do at 2 year deal rather than a 4 year one, no need to be anal about it.

There are some that read up and “contribute”. There are some that impulsively talk out their ass as if they are in the know. If its a fact, thats cool. But if you making shyt up, at least say Its an opinion. You would not make up technical **** if we were a car forum, or a music recording forum, etc. Exchanging ideas, facts, etc is what some do.
To suggest what is not possible is not what we do here.

smackeddog wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Philc1 wrote:1. 2 year deal max is the longest we should offer

The Knicks have about 70 million in potential open cap space

Any Chris Paul contract would need to be an IMMEDIATE total cap hit all at once ( deferred comp) because of the Over 38 Rule

Paul's street FA max amount is Year 1 - 38 million and Year 2 - 38 million plus 5 percent. That's way more than 70 million.

You consistently say things that are illegal to the CBA or can't be possible under the current rules in place. Quit randomly making **** up. This is an opportunity to empower yourself by learning how the league and contracts work. There is more information out there than in any other time in sports fandom if you just Google'ed it more often.

Does it really matter? It's just board talk, it's not like Rose reads this forum looking for ideas. He's just saying he'd rather only do at 2 year deal rather than a 4 year one, no need to be anal about it.

Yes it does. When you talk out your ass and make little sense, it makes everything worse

TripleThreat wrote:

Philc1 wrote:1. 2 year deal max is the longest we should offer

2. No way he’s coming here

NBA CBA FAQ

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

OVER 38 RULE

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q56

*******

So, it's not enough to just **** down your throat here. Right now, I'm giving you some tools to empower yourself with more knowledge. Whether you choose to explore that is entirely up to you. Break you down, then build you back up. That's how it's supposed to work in any team, training or community environment.

From now on, if I see you post things that are illegal to the CBA, I won't correct you nor answer the issue, I'll just link through to more resources for which you can expand your knowledge base about this side of the game.

Good luck.

Actually prefer when people correct me. Disavow me of wild notions. I had this wild idea of signing Chris Webber in like 1999 or 2000. Thinking the Knicks could be like the Yankees. A friend told me about the salary cap. Been following the cap as an amateur capologist ever since.

Philc1 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Philc1 wrote:1. 2 year deal max is the longest we should offer

2. No way he’s coming here

NBA CBA FAQ

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

OVER 38 RULE

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q56

*******

So, it's not enough to just **** down your throat here. Right now, I'm giving you some tools to empower yourself with more knowledge. Whether you choose to explore that is entirely up to you. Break you down, then build you back up. That's how it's supposed to work in any team, training or community environment.

From now on, if I see you post things that are illegal to the CBA, I won't correct you nor answer the issue, I'll just link through to more resources for which you can expand your knowledge base about this side of the game.

Good luck.

What on earth are you talking about? What did I post that was in violation of the CBA I simply stated that the Knicks should not offer Paul longer than a 2 year deal. Improve your reading comprehension skills

I didn't understand the hostility of the initial response to your post either- wondered if I missed something?

TripleThreat wrote:

Philc1 wrote:
What on earth are you talking about? What did I post that was in violation of the CBA I simply stated that the Knicks should not offer Paul longer than a 2 year deal. Improve your reading comprehension skills

RealGM Trade Checker

https://basketball.realgm.com/tradechecker

The Predicament Of Buyouts In An Era Where They've Become Expected

by Christopher Reina and Keith P Smith Feb 21, 2020 11:20 AM

https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/257282/The-Predicament-Of-Buyouts-In-An-Era-Where-Theyve-Become-Expected

I’d like you to try to make sense. I never stated anything in this thread that violated the CBA only that I don’t think the Knicks should offer more than a 2 year deal for their own reasons. Now go post links and lecture us on Obi being the worst player in the nba

Obscure rule makes Chris Paul leaving Suns for Knicks unlikely

If the Knicks attempt to outbid the Suns for point guard Chris Paul this August, they are at a distinct disadvantage.

According to former Nets executive and ESPN cap guru Bobby Marks, the Suns can offer Paul a four-year deal while the Knicks can’t go past three years because of an obscure “over-38’’ bylaw in the collective bargaining agreement.

Marks predicts the Suns will net Paul with a three-year, $100 million contract if the veteran decides to opt out of the $44 million final season of his current deal.

If Leon Rose’s Knicks attempt to match the offer, the Suns can add a fourth year.

“I don’t think they will let him go,’’ Marks said of Phoenix.

It was unthinkable Paul would consider opting out of the final season when the 2020-21 campaign began. But after leading the Suns to their first NBA Finals berth since 1993, Paul is reportedly leaning that way.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/03/cba-bylaw-makes-chris-paul-leaving-suns-for-knicks-unlikely/

Still have no idea why Philc1 copped a load of flack for saying he'd rather offer a 2 year deal, and was talked to like some sort of demonic moron by TripleThreat and his delusions of grandeur, when it was BRIGGS who suggested a 4 year max deal (and even so wouldn't have warranted being lambasted just because he didn't know the 38yr old player rule). Bizzare thread

TripleThreat wrote:

smackeddog wrote:
Still have no idea why Philc1 copped a load of flack for saying he'd rather offer a 2 year deal, and was talked to like some sort of demonic moron by TripleThreat and his delusions of grandeur, when it was BRIGGS who suggested a 4 year max deal (and even so wouldn't have warranted being lambasted just because he didn't know the 38yr old player rule). Bizzare thread

Philc1 said a two year street free agent max.

The Suns own Chris Paul's full Bird Rights, the Knicks do not. The Suns have to work around Paul's cap hold, but they were already prepared to do that. A reworked deal works out to a 2/56 extension, or a 28 million AAV. They can choose to eat the cap acceleration because they can go over the soft cap to resign Paul, even if it drives them into the tax zone. The biggest issue for them is working around his cap hold.

The Knicks don't have Paul's full Bird Rights. That means they are limited by their actual open cap space.

The design of the Over 38 and previously Over 36 Rule were not meant for situations like Chris Paul with a massive level of cap acceleration. They were actually designed for situations like Udonis Haslem of the Heat and Nick Collision formerly of the Thunder. Guys, heavy tenured with the same team, where you didn't want them to get five year deals where it was generally understood they were only going to reasonably play 2 years of that contract.

I've been posting here for a long time, if I come down on someone, there's a reason for it and it's more than just this single thread.

No he said he'd offer a contract of 2 years max (as in a maximum length of 2 years not 4 years):

Philc1 wrote:1. 2 year deal max is the longest we should offer

2. No way he’s coming here

So you have some sort of building historical beef with him, now I get why you went into a frenzy, but for everyone else it was just confusing as the post that you reacted to seemed pretty innocuous.