TLover wrote:Let's be positive here folks.. low cost player who's a hard nose defender at a minimal cost. Takes over the Sasha role as 10th man which is fine.

Sessions is not a hardnosed defender. In fact, his so-so defense and lack of a consistent jumpshot are the main reasons he bounces around the league. But I agree he was a good addition for the team. He has a wealth of experience and offensively, he is a solid pick and roll pg, who should be able to offer advice and leadership to Frank and baker on how to be an effective NBA point guard.

TripleThreat wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:It's a one year deal. If he's bad or even terrible, we can just cut him. This should be a complaining situation for nobody.

So ? - if Session's is awful can we just cut him on a vet min deal and sign someone else on the same vet-min type deal with no cap implications or are we stuck with Sessions for year?

Cap Hit Versus Cash Hit

If the Knicks want to cut Sessions and sign another player to the veterans minimum ( adjusted for that players service time ) they have to pay the cash hit, i.e. Sessions got a full year contract, so they have to pay him every penny of his contract. But it has no implication the salary cap and luxury tax. Nor would a veteran minimum player's salary if he was signed to replace Sessions.

Part of the rationale for the Veterans minimum is that the NBAPA wants teams to sign veteran players whenever possible, instead of young UDFAs or holding onto low round draft picks to fill out their roster, because they would be cheaper otherwise. It also operates as an injury buffer. If you have 6-7 guys get hurt, and you are over the cap, if the system locked you out of the veteran's minimum, how are you going to put a functional roster on the floor that night?

Warriors signed Jose Calderon last year, then cut him hours later to sign someone else. They had to pay Calderon anyway, but it had no tax implications for them. They also would not be seen as going over the cap if they were in that position ( they were IIRC over the cap)

CrushAlot wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:It's a one year deal. If he's bad or even terrible, we can just cut him. This should be a complaining situation for nobody.

So ? - if Session's is awful can we just cut him on a vet min deal and sign someone else on the same vet-min type deal with no cap implications or are we stuck with Sessions for year?

Cap Hit Versus Cash Hit

If the Knicks want to cut Sessions and sign another player to the veterans minimum ( adjusted for that players service time ) they have to pay the cash hit, i.e. Sessions got a full year contract, so they have to pay him every penny of his contract. But it has no implication the salary cap and luxury tax. Nor would a veteran minimum player's salary if he was signed to replace Sessions.

Part of the rationale for the Veterans minimum is that the NBAPA wants teams to sign veteran players whenever possible, instead of young UDFAs or holding onto low round draft picks to fill out their roster, because they would be cheaper otherwise. It also operates as an injury buffer. If you have 6-7 guys get hurt, and you are over the cap, if the system locked you out of the veteran's minimum, how are you going to put a functional roster on the floor that night?

Warriors signed Jose Calderon last year, then cut him hours later to sign someone else. They had to pay Calderon anyway, but it had no tax implications for them. They also would not be seen as going over the cap if they were in that position ( they were IIRC over the cap)

Great explananation. Thanks for posting this.

+1 thanks for that explanation. Which raises another question. Say we like what Sessions brings to the team. Can we somehow pay off the 2.3 mil we owe him, give him like a penny contract that would eat the cap but only a tiny bit, would we be able to free up our vet min to sign someone else?

TripleThreat wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:+1 thanks for that explanation. Which raises another question. Say we like what Sessions brings to the team. Can we somehow pay off the 2.3 mil we owe him, give him like a penny contract that would eat the cap but only a tiny bit, would we be able to free up our vet min to sign someone else?

The number of veteran minimum's you have ( It would termed the Veteran's Minimum if you are under the cap, and the Veteran's Minimum EXCEPTION if you are at or over the cap) is based on the number of roster spots you have outside of "cap holds"

A good example is the pre 2011 Miami Heat

1) LeBron James
2) Dwayne Wade
3) Chris Bosh
4) Udolis Haslem
5) Mike Miller
6) Mario Chalmers
7) Micheal Beasley
8) Vet Minimum
9) Vet Minimum
10) Vet Minimum
11) Vet Minimum
12) Vet Minimum
13) Vet Minimum
14) Vet Minimum

( I don't remember if it was a 14 man roster or a 15 man roster back in 2011, it's been a while, but you get the point here)

As long as you have an open roster spot you can clear, you can sign a player for the Veteran's Minimum OR the Veteran's Minimum Exception.

In the case of the Heat, they drove their team right to the cap to get LBJ and Bosh the most money possible. So they signed guys like Big Z and Erick Dampier to veteran minimum contracts.

If the Knicks wanted another player for the veteran's minimum, let's say Jameer Nelson for example. They can simply clear another roster spot ( dump someone without a guaranteed contract) and sign him, and have him AND Sessions at the vet minimum. Or they can cut Sessions, and sign Nelson to his roster spot.

In the Tyson Chandler trade, IIRC, Jackson traded away Outlaw and a 2nd to get his contract ( over the vets minimum) off the book so the team could sign Travis Wear to his roster spot.

The Vet Minimum is really a sliding scale depending on the players tenure in the league. Sessions has been playing longer than a guy like Shane Larkin, so Sessions vet minimum rate will be higher. Whatever placement you are on this sliding scale is the rock bottom any team can pay you in the NBA on a one year deal. Think of it like real life minimum wage. The Knicks can't offer Sessions a 1 dollar contract. Nor can they pay him more than the face value of his minimum contract off the books to entice him or to create a cap advantage.

This is why teams , esp team cap locked or close to the edge of the cap, have to think hard about back of the roster decisions. Signing Ron Baker to his deal takes away his disposability. He's no longer a minimum level player.

I think what you are asking is if there is just one Vet Minimum Exception. And the answer is No, it's as many as you have roster spots not absorbed by "cap holds" i.e. players with guaranteed contracts above the vet minimum, up to 15. Two way players IIRC don't qualify, as they need less than 3 years service time to be eligible to be two way players.

What there is only one of is the Room Exception. This was a compromise to replace the previous Mid Level Exception for cap locked teams. The MLE still exists, but only for teams under the cap.

Thank you for such a complete answer. That's exactly what I was wondering about.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/IanBegley/status/892039223624192001/actions

Nalod wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/IanBegley/status/892039223624192001/actions

I think Sessions is much better suited for the mentoring role. Derrick must have really sold it in his exit meeting.

Who knows what phil was cooking up for this summer!

knicks1248 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/IanBegley/status/892039223624192001/actions

I think Sessions is much better suited for the mentoring role. Derrick must have really sold it in his exit meeting.

what makes a journey player who has made a living on 1 yr contracts, a better mentor than a former MVP, who has done a lot more winning the Sessions (2 short playoffs run).

knicks1248 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/IanBegley/status/892039223624192001/actions

I think Sessions is much better suited for the mentoring role. Derrick must have really sold it in his exit meeting.

what makes a journey player who has made a living on 1 yr contracts, a better mentor than a former MVP, who has done a lot more winning the Sessions (2 short playoffs run).

This Is just further proof of how different the views were in the front office when phil was here.

How is that?

Nalod wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/IanBegley/status/892039223624192001/actions

I think Sessions is much better suited for the mentoring role. Derrick must have really sold it in his exit meeting.

what makes a journey player who has made a living on 1 yr contracts, a better mentor than a former MVP, who has done a lot more winning the Sessions (2 short playoffs run).

This Is just further proof of how different the views were in the front office when phil was here.

How is that?

no more triangle- A system mills said will not at all be required to run
no rose- A guy phil wanted to bring back at the right price
bringing THJ back-A guy phil traded

knicks1248 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/IanBegley/status/892039223624192001/actions

I think Sessions is much better suited for the mentoring role. Derrick must have really sold it in his exit meeting.

what makes a journey player who has made a living on 1 yr contracts, a better mentor than a former MVP, who has done a lot more winning the Sessions (2 short playoffs run).

This Is just further proof of how different the views were in the front office when phil was here.