sebstar wrote:

djsunyc wrote:if they don't do this deal, they can still sign 1 max guy and then another one in 2011 but doesn't look like they are even considering that.

Yep...but it seems the Knicks are eager to dump Hill if the rumors are correct.

just my opinion, but i'm not so sure this means the knicks are "eager" to move hill as much as open to it, and being a player some teams might have some interest in accepting in a deal.

sidsanders wrote:

sebstar wrote:I thought Jordan Hill was a scrub around these parts? To hear ya'll tell it, he's now this untouchable, future superstar.

Face it, he's a horrible prospect and he wasnt worth much. The Knicks had no faith he would develop into anything special, or else they wouldnt have made this deal.

All the chips are in on the 2010 offseason. Lets hope for the best. If we can get two max guys, then we're on our way and if this trade goes down, thats what we are, in essence, being promised.

for me, this possible trade is all-in with no hope for a few years if it doesnt play out well. thats why i dont like it. current team stinks, yet still owns its own picks and will have space going fwd. they do this trade with whats rumored to be in it and dont get the real targets (and sign other max guys), they yield draft flexibility, cap space and this team is exactly where its been for the past 10 years: no draft picks, no cap room, no chance to survive -- make your time (zero wing ref, sorry).

The trade goes down and its a bet everything I have on Black situation, no doubt.

JayNYC wrote:

djsunyc wrote:if they don't do this deal, they can still sign 1 max guy and then another one in 2011 but doesn't look like they are even considering that.

True.. But maybe they are. Maybe the hope is "catch lightning in a bottle" Shoot for Lebron or Wade and a big man like Chris Bosh. If not those guys are not interested, you've got a nice fall back option in Joe Johnson at the wing position, sign a 2nd tier big man like Boozer.. than hope for the homerun in 2011 for Kevin Durant??? who knows.. but we gotta try something

There is no way Walsh can come back talking about 2011 after this type of deal as described. This would be worse than the Curry trade. Jeffries is scheduled to come off the cap in 2011. So basically, you would throw away Hill, 2012 and possible lottery pick in 2011. This is Lebron/Wade or Bosh in 2010 or bust and I'm outta here type of deal. I pretty sure Donnie is aware of that. There is no middle ground for talk of next years after these type of deals.

I can't imagine we have to give up Hill and a future pick.

gotta do it.

DLee gets moved for Bosh in sign and trade. I hate to lose Dlee either but you gotta do this.

djsunyc wrote:if they don't do this deal, they can still sign 1 max guy and then another one in 2011 but doesn't look like they are even considering that.

I'm guessing the reasoning might be that without the cap space to sign 2 max guys at the same time, you may not present an attractive enough situation to get that first max free agent in 2010.

If you open up enough cap space to get 2 max FAs though, you can slide both contracts across the table to LeBron and Wade/Bosh and say "Let's see how serious you guys are about playing together. This is your opportunity."

Markji wrote:You guys still don't get it. It is not whether to make the trade or not.

YES, we need to make the trade. However:

Houston also needs desperately to make this trade!!! or they lose TMac and get Absolutely Nothing in return!!!

Botom Line: We don't need to give up so much in order for this trade to happen!!!!

Wrong. T-Mac expiring gets rid of 23 millions dollars of dead weight.

We lost Marbury for nothing too.

AnubisADL wrote:

Markji wrote:You guys still don't get it. It is not whether to make the trade or not.

YES, we need to make the trade. However:

Houston also needs desperately to make this trade!!! or they lose TMac and get Absolutely Nothing in return!!!

Botom Line: We don't need to give up so much in order for this trade to happen!!!!

Wrong. T-Mac expiring gets rid of 23 millions dollars of dead weight.

We lost Marbury for nothing too.

AnubisADL wrote:

Markji wrote:You guys still don't get it. It is not whether to make the trade or not.

YES, we need to make the trade. However:

Houston also needs desperately to make this trade!!! or they lose TMac and get Absolutely Nothing in return!!!

Botom Line: We don't need to give up so much in order for this trade to happen!!!!

Wrong. T-Mac expiring gets rid of 23 millions dollars of dead weight.

We lost Marbury for nothing too.

From what I understand/have read that still doesn't put them in position to sign a max FA

s3231 wrote:Very good article about the cap implications behind this trade and what impact it would have on our cap space...

http://www.hoopdata.com/recent.aspx?aid=155

Nice article that breaks this down real simply that everyone should read. Not necessarily new info, but makes things really easy to understand.

JayNYC wrote:AGREED.... This trade is far more valuable to NYK, than it would be for the Rockets. We are dealing from a potential of need. The Rockets could simply let him walk. If a trade doesnt happen.. then we'd likely stand pat, but would be resigned to hold hope for a McGrady buy out.

If the rockets buy him out, McGrady want to sign with the Knicks. So who really has the leverage? All the Knicks have to do is make sure Tracy goes nowhere between now and Thursday at 3 pm. Maybe that's the reason for these flurries of rumors.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-thomasbulls021010&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

If McGrady ends up getting his contract bought out, one source close to him said, the Knicks are No. 1 on his list to sign with for the rest of the season.

VDesai wrote:

s3231 wrote:Very good article about the cap implications behind this trade and what impact it would have on our cap space...

http://www.hoopdata.com/recent.aspx?aid=155

Nice article that breaks this down real simply that everyone should read. Not necessarily new info, but makes things really easy to understand.

A free agent's maximum salary in the first year of a new contract is never less than 105% of his salary in the last year of his previous contract. For example, a ten-year veteran free agent who most recently earned $20 million has a maximum salary of $21 million, even if that is above the league-wide maximum. A free agent does not need to remain with the same team in order to receive 105% of his previous salary, although the team that signs him is subject to the same salary cap restrictions as with any other free agent.

Informative but Lebron and other Max players are entitled to 105% of previous yrs salary or % of Cap figure(e.g. 25% 30%, 35%) and it's whichever is greater. So if the cap drops lower than expected or let's say lower than they expect, they are going to want the greater Max Salary.

Here's what these players make and what they are entitled to no matter what happens to the Cap

(URFA) Lebron = $15,779,912 * 105% or 30% of Cap(whichever is greater)
(URFA) Johnson = $14,976,754 * 105% or 30% of Cap(whichever is greater)
(URFA) Wade = $15,779,912 * 105% or 30% of Cap(whichever is greater)
(URFA) Amar'e = $16,378,325 * 105% or 30% of Cap(whichever is greater)
(URFA) Boozer = $12,323,900 * 105% or 30% of Cap(whichever is greater)
(URFA) Bosh = $15,779,912 * 105% or 30% of Cap(whichever is greater)
(RFA) Gay = $3,280,997 going into 5yrs of service = $9,000,0000 or 25% of Cap(whichever is greater)
(URFA) Lee = $7,000,000 going into 6yrs of service * 105% or 25% of Cap(whichever is greater)