[ 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 4 of 6 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/26/2009  4:52 PM
Posted by kam77:
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.

the Knicks could feasibly send over some cash to offset the luxury tax hit on MIL... it would still save the Knicks about $2-3 million off Duhon's salary for this season if they execute a S&T rather than just signing Sessions outright.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
AUTOADVERT
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/26/2009  4:54 PM
if Nate's no trade status stays the same and his cap hold is approximately the same, why is Walsh giving him a 1 yr 5 mil contract instead of just the QO?
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/26/2009  4:54 PM
Posted by s3231:

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]

the cap rules are just getting more & more confusing by the second... so Nate still has his veto rights even if he signs an above QO 1 year deal? then what the hell is the point in signing him? face it, we shoulda just traded him last year like i said.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
7/26/2009  4:59 PM
Posted by McK1:

if Nate's no trade status stays the same and his cap hold is approximately the same, why is Walsh giving him a 1 yr 5 mil contract instead of just the QO?

a show of good faith?
¿ △ ?
martin
Posts: 76293
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/26/2009  5:00 PM
Posted by s3231:

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]

your bullet from the Salary Cap only described the QO. http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q85

Nate for a 1-year deal at $5M is not the QO.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
martin
Posts: 76293
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/26/2009  5:01 PM
Posted by crzymdups:
Posted by McK1:

if Nate's no trade status stays the same and his cap hold is approximately the same, why is Walsh giving him a 1 yr 5 mil contract instead of just the QO?

a show of good faith?

see my post. this is not the same scenario.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/26/2009  5:01 PM
Posted by crzymdups:
Posted by McK1:

if Nate's no trade status stays the same and his cap hold is approximately the same, why is Walsh giving him a 1 yr 5 mil contract instead of just the QO?

a show of good faith?

showing what?
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/26/2009  5:04 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by s3231:

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]

your bullet from the Salary Cap only described the QO. http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q85

Nate for a 1-year deal at $5M is not the QO.

the rule says this includes the QO. It doesn't exclude Nate. Nate under a 1yr deal puts him in the category of players who will have Bird rights at the end of that 1 yr contract.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
7/26/2009  5:05 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by crzymdups:
Posted by McK1:

if Nate's no trade status stays the same and his cap hold is approximately the same, why is Walsh giving him a 1 yr 5 mil contract instead of just the QO?

a show of good faith?

showing what?

that they value him but that the 2010 finances are tricky. you really need to ask that question?
¿ △ ?
s3231
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #544
USA
7/26/2009  5:06 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by martin:
Posted by s3231:

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]

your bullet from the Salary Cap only described the QO. http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q85

Nate for a 1-year deal at $5M is not the QO.

the rule says this includes the QO. It doesn't exclude Nate. Nate under a 1yr deal puts him in the category of players who will have Bird rights at the end of that 1 yr contract.

Exactly. That is my interpretation of the rule.

I mean, I hope Martin is right and I just misinterpreted it but from what I read, it seems to include all one year deals for players who will have Bird rights at the end of that 1 yr. contract.
"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)
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/26/2009  5:07 PM
Posted by crzymdups:
Posted by McK1:
Posted by crzymdups:
Posted by McK1:

if Nate's no trade status stays the same and his cap hold is approximately the same, why is Walsh giving him a 1 yr 5 mil contract instead of just the QO?

a show of good faith?

showing what?

that they value him but that the 2010 finances are tricky. you really need to ask that question?

can they give him more money on an extension than if they QO'd him if they realize before the free agent period begins none of their targets are coming to NY?

the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
s3231
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #544
USA
7/26/2009  5:11 PM
Maybe Walsh gives him the 1 yr deal with the understanding that Nate and Walsh will work together to trade him to a team he wants to go to while getting Walsh something in return for Nate?

I mean other than that, the only reason I can think of is Walsh just wants Nate back to win more games this season. After all, we don't have our pick and Nate at $5 million is a good deal.
"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  5:15 PM
Posted by s3231:
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]

Yeah, you're right. That makes it a little more difficult but plenty of BYC players get traded and I'm sure Walsh can figure it out. The only other option that I'd consider is to lose Nate for nothing. So even if Walsh only gets a late 1st round pick (25 to 30), I'd be happy with the trade.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/26/2009  5:20 PM
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. When the player consents to such a trade, the team loses its Larry Bird/Early Bird rights, and the player is considered a Non-Bird free agent. Note: when there is an option year involved, they can get around this regulation by invoking the option prior to the trade.
Well then I hope we have a team option on a 2nd year for a contract with Nate--unless I'm misunderstanding how it works.
s3231
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #544
USA
7/26/2009  5:27 PM
No Bonn, I think you might be correct on the option (good catch). The language kind of leaves it unclear whether or not its talking about the bird rights issue or the no-trade clause.

If we add a team option for a 2nd year, it looks like we should be able to circumvent that rule. Hopefully Donnie does that but I'm not sure that Nate and Goodwin would agree to the team option.



[Edited by - s3231 on 07-26-2009 5:30 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)
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/26/2009  5:56 PM
Giving Nate the 5 mil could be in exchange for him not excersizing his right to veto a trade.



the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
s3231
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #544
USA
7/26/2009  6:02 PM
Posted by McK1:

Giving Nate the 5 mil could be in exchange for him not excersizing his right to veto a trade.

I think so too. Donnie and Nate will probably try to help each other out (aka Nate gets traded to a team he wants to go to and Donnie gets something in return).

Worst comes to worst though, we get Nate back for a year and he helps us win more games.

This was the best option for both sides I think.
"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)
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
7/26/2009  6:11 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by kam77:
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.

the Knicks could feasibly send over some cash to offset the luxury tax hit on MIL... it would still save the Knicks about $2-3 million off Duhon's salary for this season if they execute a S&T rather than just signing Sessions outright.

Lets explore that thought

Duhon puts them 3 mil over the tax... so instead of getting a couple million back from the league for being a non tax paying team, they have to pay 3 mil penalty for being 3 mil over the tax. We send them 3 mil to offset. They still are out the money (couple mil) they would've gotten if they had stayed under the tax.

Are they better off renting Duhon at the cost of a couple million dollars or just resigning sessions and stay under the tax.

We have to first threaten that we'll sign Seesions outright and see if the Bucks match... If they match an offer that puts them in tax territory THEN we can explore SnT.
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.
TheGame
Posts: 26637
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
7/27/2009  8:46 AM
Posted by TMS:

at least if Donnie gets him signed to this 1 year deal i don't have to worry about losing him for nothing for a few more months at least... this should buy him some time to work out some kinda trade to either dump Fishlips or Curry's contracts or at least get back something else of value like a 1st round pick in 2010... in the meantime Nate will be motivated to put up #'s once again since he'll still be playing for his next contract, so we'll have the best of both worlds if things work out the way Donnie hopes they will.

He should definitely package Nate and Jeffries or Curry to another team. This one year deal is a great signing for us.
Trust the Process
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/27/2009  12:43 PM
Posted by kam77:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by kam77:
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.

the Knicks could feasibly send over some cash to offset the luxury tax hit on MIL... it would still save the Knicks about $2-3 million off Duhon's salary for this season if they execute a S&T rather than just signing Sessions outright.

Lets explore that thought

Duhon puts them 3 mil over the tax... so instead of getting a couple million back from the league for being a non tax paying team, they have to pay 3 mil penalty for being 3 mil over the tax. We send them 3 mil to offset. They still are out the money (couple mil) they would've gotten if they had stayed under the tax.

Are they better off renting Duhon at the cost of a couple million dollars or just resigning sessions and stay under the tax.

We have to first threaten that we'll sign Seesions outright and see if the Bucks match... If they match an offer that puts them in tax territory THEN we can explore SnT.

u have a good point there... i think a 1 year deal on Nate gives Walsh some leeway to work some deals this year in case we lose out on Sessions.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Page 4 of 6 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›
« 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