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

Nate: 1 year, 5M - expected to be done next week.
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 6 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4  5 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Knicksfan
Posts: 33482
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 7/5/2004
Member: #691
USA
7/26/2009  1:12 PM
This isn't the QO
Knicks_Fan
AUTOADVERT
fishmike
Posts: 53848
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/26/2009  1:16 PM
Posted by crzymdups:

Good move. I'll be glad to have Nate around.
totally agree. I think people have been quick to write him off. He's a good player
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
VDesai
Posts: 42765
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/26/2009  1:22 PM
Good move to get Nate back on their tearms. If he has another big year, now they can re-sign him with Bird rights.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
7/26/2009  1:24 PM
unrestricted FA in 2010 + BYC player at feb deadline = nate plays the 09/10 season with the knicks and then leaves for nothing

negatives outweigh the positives. he is going to try to put up #'s to pump up his value and no s&t is feasible as they will have to renounce him to remove his cap hold (and lose his bird's rights in the process).

it's more advantageous for the knicks to sign the QO for the knicks long term but since he's not in the plans, he's only re-signed for a 1 year deal. knicks have no intentions of bringing him back but were forced to give him a deal since they struck out on many other FA's.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07-26-2009 1:28 PM]
VDesai
Posts: 42765
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/26/2009  1:28 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

unrestricted FA in 2010 + BYC player at feb deadline = nate plays the 09/10 season with the knicks and then leaves for nothing

negatives outweigh the positives. he is going to try to put up #'s to pump up his value and no s&t is feasible as they will have to renounce him to remove his cap hold (and lose his bird's rights in the process).


[Edited by - djsunyc on 07-26-2009 1:25 PM]

I'm fairly certain the Knicks would still have the money for one max FA without renouncing his rights, which would mean they could work out a sign and trade for him if they wanted to do.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
7/26/2009  1:33 PM
his cap hold would be for a significantly higher amount.

i don't think they wanted nate back at all but he was the best FA out there that they could sign.
VDesai
Posts: 42765
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/26/2009  1:36 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

his cap hold would be for a significantly higher amount.

i don't think they wanted nate back at all but he was the best FA out there that they could sign.

2.5 mil more- should not hurt their ability to get a max FA at all. It may be a different story if you add Lee+Sessions, but we'll see what happens on that front.
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
7/26/2009  1:36 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

his cap hold would be for a significantly higher amount.

i don't think they wanted nate back at all but he was the best FA out there that they could sign.

if he signed the QO, his cap hold would be 3 times the QO or around $8M.

if he signs for $5M his cap hold is 150% the $5M or 7.5M. this actually saves a little cap space and if they are able to move jefferies or curry, they may not have to renounce him next summer. it gives donnie more options. we'll see what happens, but it's a smart move for now.
¿ △ ?
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
7/26/2009  1:39 PM
Nate's game is based on his athleticism. Do you really want to sign him longterm when his athleticism will not be getting any better? I think we're seeing Nate's prime right now.
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.
VDesai
Posts: 42765
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/26/2009  1:40 PM
This was really the best case scenario for the Knicks. They get to defer their decision on him one more year when they will have a better grasp of what they can obtain on the market.
s3231
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #544
USA
7/26/2009  1:49 PM
It depends on the contract Nate signs. My assumption has been that he signs for an average salary ($5.8 million) which means a 150% cap hold or $7.5 million.

However, if the Yahoo report is correct and it really is just $5 million (less than the average salary) then the cap hold will be 200%, which means $10 million. It makes more sense to sign Nate to an average contract to get that smaller cap hold.

But there is still basically no chance that we resign Nate long-term. I think this was the best option for both sides right now.



[Edited by - s3231 on 07-26-2009 1:54 PM]
"This is a very cautious situation that we're in. You have to be conservative in terms of using your assets and using them wisely. We're building for the future." - Zeke (I guess not protecting a first round pick is being conservative)
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/26/2009  1:57 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

unrestricted FA in 2010 + BYC player at feb deadline = nate plays the 09/10 season with the knicks and then leaves for nothing

negatives outweigh the positives. he is going to try to put up #'s to pump up his value and no s&t is feasible as they will have to renounce him to remove his cap hold (and lose his bird's rights in the process).

it's more advantageous for the knicks to sign the QO for the knicks long term but since he's not in the plans, he's only re-signed for a 1 year deal. knicks have no intentions of bringing him back but were forced to give him a deal since they struck out on many other FA's.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07-26-2009 1:28 PM]

It just means that his trade value is half his salary ($2.5) mil. That should be irrelevant to trading him. You're just being indiscriminately negative.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm


[Edited by - bonn1997 on 07-26-2009 1:59 PM]
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
7/26/2009  2:07 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by djsunyc:

unrestricted FA in 2010 + BYC player at feb deadline = nate plays the 09/10 season with the knicks and then leaves for nothing

negatives outweigh the positives. he is going to try to put up #'s to pump up his value and no s&t is feasible as they will have to renounce him to remove his cap hold (and lose his bird's rights in the process).

it's more advantageous for the knicks to sign the QO for the knicks long term but since he's not in the plans, he's only re-signed for a 1 year deal. knicks have no intentions of bringing him back but were forced to give him a deal since they struck out on many other FA's.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07-26-2009 1:28 PM]

It just means that his trade value is half his salary ($2.5) mil. That should be irrelevant to trading him. You're just being indiscriminately negative.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm


[Edited by - bonn1997 on 07-26-2009 1:59 PM]

bonn, you should read this cap FAQ page:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap2.html
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
7/26/2009  2:08 PM
Posted by s3231:

We can't sign Nate to an MLE type deal next summer.

A) Because if we are under the cap, we won't have an MLE to use.

B) to sign Nate to MLE money, we have to keep his bird right's, which means a $7.5 million cap hold and no possibility of signing a max. free agent.

Unless I'm dead wrong on this CBA stuff, I see no way we can keep him here long-term while also adhering to Donnie's plan.

if this deal holds true i think the idea with this deal is cap flexibility:

- if nate shows he is worth his cap hold then signing him to a $7.5 mil a year type of deal may not be so bad, even if it takes cap space. walsh hasn't explicitly said that he HAS to get under the cap by X dollars after this coming season because the idea is to get better, not just under the cap. whichever works best seems like the idea, hence using the term "cap flexibility."

- with his value being something some teams might covet he is not going to be too hard to move as part of a deal during the season if someone we want is available in a deal.

basically, signing guys to reasonable or short deals in our current circumstances allows the knicks to have such flexibility.

Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
s3231
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #544
USA
7/26/2009  2:12 PM
Moving Nate won't be the easiest thing to do in the world because of the BYC status.

I think this was still the best option for both sides but as I said earlier, there really is no way we resign Nate unless Donnie plans to throw his 2010 plan out the window.
"This is a very cautious situation that we're in. You have to be conservative in terms of using your assets and using them wisely. We're building for the future." - Zeke (I guess not protecting a first round pick is being conservative)
Paladin55
Posts: 24321
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/6/2008
Member: #2098
7/26/2009  2:16 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Knicksfan:
Posted by TMS:

if we end up signing Nate & Sessions then i think Duhon is gonna be traded for sure.

Duhon could be the one going in a sign and trade for Sessions.

that would seem to be a logical scenario

It is also something that was floated around recently because Duhon got along well with Skiles in the past. Maybe the signing of Nate is an indication that we are about to do a S&T with Duhon for Sessions.

Duhon will get some good minutes with the Bucks, and might be willing to stay on with them after next year. Nate has 1 year, and we can deal with him after that year, and maybe we get Sessions at a lower price because Walsh has been patient and Sessions has not had any other suitors.
No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities- C.N. Bovee
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/26/2009  3:40 PM
Posted by s3231:

Moving Nate won't be the easiest thing to do in the world because of the BYC status.

I think this was still the best option for both sides but as I said earlier, there really is no way we resign Nate unless Donnie plans to throw his 2010 plan out the window.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the BYC status, for someone with a low salary like his, the impact should be negligible (as I explained to DJ). Can you explain why you think the impact will be larger?
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
7/26/2009  3:55 PM
Posted by Paladin55:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Knicksfan:
Posted by TMS:

if we end up signing Nate & Sessions then i think Duhon is gonna be traded for sure.

Duhon could be the one going in a sign and trade for Sessions.

that would seem to be a logical scenario

It is also something that was floated around recently because Duhon got along well with Skiles in the past. Maybe the signing of Nate is an indication that we are about to do a S&T with Duhon for Sessions.

Duhon will get some good minutes with the Bucks, and might be willing to stay on with them after next year. Nate has 1 year, and we can deal with him after that year, and maybe we get Sessions at a lower price because Walsh has been patient and Sessions has not had any other suitors.

Duhon would put the Bucks in Luxury Tax territory.

The talk is, if Sessions will be signed for about 3 iml, the Bcks can match and stay under the tax.

iF we gave Sessions our MLE, there's no way in the world the Bucks would match.
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.
s3231
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #544
USA
7/26/2009  4:27 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by s3231:

Moving Nate won't be the easiest thing to do in the world because of the BYC status.

I think this was still the best option for both sides but as I said earlier, there really is no way we resign Nate unless Donnie plans to throw his 2010 plan out the window.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the BYC status, for someone with a low salary like his, the impact should be negligible (as I explained to DJ). Can you explain why you think the impact will be larger?

From my understanding of BYC, it means that Nate's trade value to us is $2.5 million. So when we trade, we have to consider Nate's BYC value (the $2.5 million) and compare that to the other player's full salary (the guy we are trading for, that is).

So basically, we can only take back 125% plus $100,000 of Nate's $2.5 BYC value, which means we can only take up to $3.225 million in return. That is, if we are trading Nate alone.

Now, you might say, then lets trade Nate for a contract around $3 million. Problem is, I don't think you can do that because the other team is bringing in Nate's $5 million contract (that is, it doesn't count as $2.5 million for the other team). So basically, if the other team trades $3 million, they can only take back up to 125% plus $100,000 of that $3 million contract, which comes out to $3.85 million. In other words, $5 million is too much to take back.

It seems like the easiest way to trade Nate in this situation would be to get a third team that is under the cap involved.

Here is one example of a trade that work financially (I'm not suggesting we do this trade by any means! Just an example of where the numbers work):

NY trades: Nate Robinson ($2.5 million BYC status) to Washington
Gallinari ($3 million) to Memphis

NY trades = $5.5 million salaries
NY receives = $6 million salaries

Washington trades: C- Brendan Haywood ($6 million) to NY
Washington receives $5 million in salaries from NY

Memphis trades: Future first round pick
receives: Gallinari ($3 million)

Memphis would just eat $3 million of their cap space here.


So if my understanding of the CBA is correct (and honestly I'm not 100% sure if I'm right here because the BYC is confusing stuff), then trading Nate wouldn't be exactly easy but doable if you can find a third team under the cap.



[Edited by - s3231 on 07-26-2009 4:28 PM]
"This is a very cautious situation that we're in. You have to be conservative in terms of using your assets and using them wisely. We're building for the future." - Zeke (I guess not protecting a first round pick is being conservative)
s3231
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #544
USA
7/26/2009  4:47 PM
According to the CBA, even with a one year deal (not just the qualifying offer), we can't trade Nate without his permission?

Below is one of the scenarios where you cannot trade a player without his permission:
Without the player's consent when the player is playing under a one-year contract (excluding any option year) and will have Larry Bird or Early Bird rights at the end of the season. This includes first round draft picks following their fourth (option) season, who accept their team's qualifying offer for their fifth season.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm



[Edited by - s3231 on 07-26-2009 4:48 PM]
"This is a very cautious situation that we're in. You have to be conservative in terms of using your assets and using them wisely. We're building for the future." - Zeke (I guess not protecting a first round pick is being conservative)
Page 3 of 6 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4  5 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Nate: 1 year, 5M - expected to be done next week.
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