[ 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 5 of 6 « First‹ Previous 3  4  5  6 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
orangeblobman
Posts: 27269
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/1/2009
Member: #2539
Nauru
7/27/2009  12:56 PM
If we get Nate, 1 year, then we can trade him at the deadline.
WE AIN'T NOWHERE WITH THIS BUM CHOKER IN CARMELO. GIVE ME STARKS'S 2-21 ANY DAY OVER THIS LACKLUSTER CLUSTEREFF.
AUTOADVERT
Rookie
Posts: 27048
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 10/15/2008
Member: #2274
7/27/2009  1:09 PM
Posted by orangeblobman:

If we get Nate, 1 year, then we can trade him at the deadline.

Where...for who? Isn't he a BYC? I think signing N8 for 1 yr. gives DW alot of options.

A) he makes our team better next year adding scoring off the bench
B) Maybe we can trade him for a good prospect in the 2-3M range
C) We can use him to help move Jeffries
D) We maintain his bird rights and can retain him next season
E) We can send him to a contender for an expiring scrub and a draft pick
etc...

This is another good move by Walsh. The only question I have is if he isn't traded, is there a cap hold and when does it expire?
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  1:10 PM
Posted by Rookie:
Posted by orangeblobman:

If we get Nate, 1 year, then we can trade him at the deadline.

Where...for who? Isn't he a BYC? I think signing N8 for 1 yr. gives DW alot of options.

A) he makes our team better next year adding scoring off the bench
B) Maybe we can trade him for a good prospect in the 2-3M range
C) We can use him to help move Jeffries
D) We maintain his bird rights and can retain him next season
E) We can send him to a contender for an expiring scrub and a draft pick
etc...

This is another good move by Walsh. The only question I have is if he isn't traded, is there a cap hold and when does it expire?

nate still can veto a trade and his byc status would make him harder to trade

[Edited by - McK1 on 07-27-2009 1:10 PM]
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
Rookie
Posts: 27048
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 10/15/2008
Member: #2274
7/27/2009  1:13 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by Rookie:
Posted by orangeblobman:

If we get Nate, 1 year, then we can trade him at the deadline.

Where...for who? Isn't he a BYC? I think signing N8 for 1 yr. gives DW alot of options.

A) he makes our team better next year adding scoring off the bench
B) Maybe we can trade him for a good prospect in the 2-3M range
C) We can use him to help move Jeffries
D) We maintain his bird rights and can retain him next season
E) We can send him to a contender for an expiring scrub and a draft pick
etc...

This is another good move by Walsh. The only question I have is if he isn't traded, is there a cap hold and when does it expire?

nate still can veto a trade and his byc status would make him harder to trade

[Edited by - McK1 on 07-27-2009 1:10 PM]

Would this be the first time a BYC player is traded? OTOH, maybe it is what DW says it is, that he wants to keep N8??
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  1:15 PM
Posted by Rookie:
Posted by McK1:
Posted by Rookie:
Posted by orangeblobman:

If we get Nate, 1 year, then we can trade him at the deadline.

Where...for who? Isn't he a BYC? I think signing N8 for 1 yr. gives DW alot of options.

A) he makes our team better next year adding scoring off the bench
B) Maybe we can trade him for a good prospect in the 2-3M range
C) We can use him to help move Jeffries
D) We maintain his bird rights and can retain him next season
E) We can send him to a contender for an expiring scrub and a draft pick
etc...

This is another good move by Walsh. The only question I have is if he isn't traded, is there a cap hold and when does it expire?

nate still can veto a trade and his byc status would make him harder to trade

[Edited by - McK1 on 07-27-2009 1:10 PM]

Would this be the first time a BYC player is traded? OTOH, maybe it is what DW says it is, that he wants to keep N8??

nope. getting salaries to match up makes all BYC deals difficult unless a team is under the cap.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
martin
Posts: 76293
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/27/2009  1:18 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by Rookie:
Posted by McK1:
Posted by Rookie:
Posted by orangeblobman:

If we get Nate, 1 year, then we can trade him at the deadline.

Where...for who? Isn't he a BYC? I think signing N8 for 1 yr. gives DW alot of options.

A) he makes our team better next year adding scoring off the bench
B) Maybe we can trade him for a good prospect in the 2-3M range
C) We can use him to help move Jeffries
D) We maintain his bird rights and can retain him next season
E) We can send him to a contender for an expiring scrub and a draft pick
etc...

This is another good move by Walsh. The only question I have is if he isn't traded, is there a cap hold and when does it expire?

nate still can veto a trade and his byc status would make him harder to trade

[Edited by - McK1 on 07-27-2009 1:10 PM]

Would this be the first time a BYC player is traded? OTOH, maybe it is what DW says it is, that he wants to keep N8??

nope. getting salaries to match up makes all BYC deals difficult unless a team is under the cap.

if you are talking about trading Nate straight up for another player you would be correct, but any scenario that adds in the likes of JJ would make nate's byc contract # negligible.

And it's pretty much a gray area if Nate would keep his veto rights. I don't think he would.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Rookie
Posts: 27048
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 10/15/2008
Member: #2274
7/27/2009  1:33 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by Rookie:
Posted by McK1:
Posted by Rookie:
Posted by orangeblobman:

If we get Nate, 1 year, then we can trade him at the deadline.

Where...for who? Isn't he a BYC? I think signing N8 for 1 yr. gives DW alot of options.

A) he makes our team better next year adding scoring off the bench
B) Maybe we can trade him for a good prospect in the 2-3M range
C) We can use him to help move Jeffries
D) We maintain his bird rights and can retain him next season
E) We can send him to a contender for an expiring scrub and a draft pick
etc...

This is another good move by Walsh. The only question I have is if he isn't traded, is there a cap hold and when does it expire?

nate still can veto a trade and his byc status would make him harder to trade

[Edited by - McK1 on 07-27-2009 1:10 PM]

Would this be the first time a BYC player is traded? OTOH, maybe it is what DW says it is, that he wants to keep N8??

nope. getting salaries to match up makes all BYC deals difficult unless a team is under the cap.

So then you are saying that DW is willing to live with more difficult to match salaries in a trade in order to keep more options available. Yup, that sounds about right to me too
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  2:29 PM
Posted by martin:


if you are talking about trading Nate straight up for another player you would be correct, but any scenario that adds in the likes of JJ would make nate's byc contract # negligible.

And it's pretty much a gray area if Nate would keep his veto rights. I don't think he would.

whats gray about it? If he keeps his Bird rights on a 1 yr deal he also keeps his right to veto.

If Nate gets 5 mil, Nate and Jeffries equals 9 mil going out in trades but to the incoming team thats 11.5 mil. New York would have to add a million dollars more in salaries to complete the trade.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
martin
Posts: 76293
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/27/2009  2:35 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by martin:


if you are talking about trading Nate straight up for another player you would be correct, but any scenario that adds in the likes of JJ would make nate's byc contract # negligible.

And it's pretty much a gray area if Nate would keep his veto rights. I don't think he would.

whats gray about it? If he keeps his Bird rights on a 1 yr deal he also keeps his right to veto.

If Nate gets 5 mil, Nate and Jeffries equals 9 mil going out in trades but to the incoming team thats 11.5 mil. New York would have to add a million dollars more in salaries to complete the trade.

not sure about your first point. lots of players traded who keep their Bird right but do no have veto rights. As far as I know, veto right exists with the QO, which the $5M offer is NOT.

to your second point, trades with teams over the cap have to be within 125% of each other or something like that?
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
7/27/2009  2:40 PM
This is a confusing mess. It's a good thing I'm not a GM I'd be tempted to cut both these guys on the spot and let them go play in Memphis for 1M each.

I guess it's a good thing we brought on John Gabriel. He's been referred to as a "capologist" and is likely behind the whole 2010 cap space thing in the first place.

Walsh didn't even know he had traded for Chris Wilcox, remember that? Leads me to believe Walsh's primary jobs are to talk to the media and organize the people below him but THEY do all the heavy lifting.

John Gabriel is apparently one of those guys. As long as we don't go the Orland Magic route of destroying our team for six consecutive seasons believing Tim Duncan will eventually take our cap space it's all good.
http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  2:45 PM
Posted by martin:


not sure about your first point. lots of players traded who keep their Bird right but do no have veto rights. As far as I know, veto right exists with the QO, which the $5M offer is NOT.

to your second point, trades with teams over the cap have to be within 125% of each other or something like that?

* the language isn't ambiguous in the least bit.
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.

that would be Nate if he signs a 1 yr deal.
This includes first round draft picks following their fourth (option) season, who accept their team's qualifying offer for their fifth season.

rookies who sign the QO fall into this category as well

* 11.5/9 mil is 127.7% which is more than the 125%

[Edited by - McK1 on 07-27-2009 2:51 PM]
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
7/27/2009  2:47 PM
basically now the only way for Nate not to lose his Bird Rights if he gets traded this year is to sign him to a multiyear deal, or at least a 1 year deal w/a team option for a 2nd that gets picked up as a condition of a trade.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
martin
Posts: 76293
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/27/2009  3:07 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by martin:


not sure about your first point. lots of players traded who keep their Bird right but do no have veto rights. As far as I know, veto right exists with the QO, which the $5M offer is NOT.

to your second point, trades with teams over the cap have to be within 125% of each other or something like that?

* the language isn't ambiguous in the least bit.
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.

that would be Nate if he signs a 1 yr deal.
This includes first round draft picks following their fourth (option) season, who accept their team's qualifying offer for their fifth season.

rookies who sign the QO fall into this category as well

* 11.5/9 mil is 127.7% which is more than the 125%

[Edited by - McK1 on 07-27-2009 2:51 PM]

when I read the whole bullet from Larry Coon as one complete thought, I see a lot of gray area; it does not exactly address Nate's scenario. I emailed Larry over the weekend, hopefully he will get back to us.

and seriously dude, for someone who liberally rounds the age of 36 and calls is 40, your point of 127.7% not being 125% makes you full of shyt. Here is an easy table and note that JJ has a trade kicker that will up his contract:


5	2.5	6.9	9.4	11.9	1.266%
5	2.5	7	9.5	12	1.263%
5	2.5	7.1	9.6	12.1	1.260%
5	2.5	7.2	9.7	12.2	1.258%
5	2.5	7.3	9.8	12.3	1.255%
5	2.5	7.4	9.9	12.4	1.253%
5	2.5	7.5	10	12.5	1.250%
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  3:08 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by McK1:
Posted by martin:


not sure about your first point. lots of players traded who keep their Bird right but do no have veto rights. As far as I know, veto right exists with the QO, which the $5M offer is NOT.

to your second point, trades with teams over the cap have to be within 125% of each other or something like that?

* the language isn't ambiguous in the least bit.
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.

that would be Nate if he signs a 1 yr deal.
This includes first round draft picks following their fourth (option) season, who accept their team's qualifying offer for their fifth season.

rookies who sign the QO fall into this category as well

* 11.5/9 mil is 127.7% which is more than the 125%

[Edited by - McK1 on 07-27-2009 2:51 PM]

when I read the whole bullet from Larry Coon as one complete thought, I see a lot of gray area; it does not exactly address Nate's scenario. I emailed Larry over the weekend, hopefully he will get back to us.

and seriously dude, for someone who liberally rounds the age of 36 and calls is 40, your point of 127.7% not being 125% makes you full of shyt. Here is an easy table and not that JJ has a trade kicker that will up his contract.:

5	2.5	6.9	9.4	11.9	1.27
5	2.5	7	9.5	12	1.26
5	2.5	7.1	9.6	12.1	1.26
5	2.5	7.2	9.7	12.2	1.26
5	2.5	7.3	9.8	12.3	1.26
5	2.5	7.4	9.9	12.4	1.25
5	2.5	7.5	10	12.5	1.25


wtf does me rounding ages have to do with the nba contract rules. not a god damn thing.

there is a trade checker on realgm and espn. 125 is 125 despite whatever your agenda be.

[Edited by - McK1 on 07-27-2009 3:10 PM]
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
martin
Posts: 76293
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/27/2009  3:19 PM
McK1, here is my orginal:
if you are talking about trading Nate straight up for another player you would be correct, but any scenario that adds in the likes of JJ would make nate's byc contract # negligible.

Since you insist on being pretty simple minded and have little creative thought or initiative, let me help you:

Nate + JJ + any one of Sene, Hunter, Crawford (all around $1M). All those would work out to meet the 125% mark.

Making Nate's BYC #'s kinda negligible.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/27/2009  4:04 PM
i'm not being simple minded. you'retrying to oversimplify a complex situation. trading a byc player mid season is difficult for more than just the salaries matching

you also have to account for roster spots available to incoming team to accept players in this case 3. teams are required to carry 14 players. if its a 3 for 3 deal fine or if the deal is 3 for 2 and its made with a team at 14 then no problem. If its a 3 for 1 deal a 3rd team will have to be involved.

then factor in the issue of meeting Walsh's requirements which is clearing 010 cap and a team losing Nate's bird rights plus taking on Jeffries remaining year along with the trade kicker...

add it up: moving Nate by himself to anything but a team with caproom will be very difficult

the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
martin
Posts: 76293
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/27/2009  4:47 PM
Posted by McK1:

i'm not being simple minded. you'retrying to oversimplify a complex situation. trading a byc player mid season is difficult for more than just the salaries matching

you also have to account for roster spots available to incoming team to accept players in this case 3. teams are required to carry 14 players. if its a 3 for 3 deal fine or if the deal is 3 for 2 and its made with a team at 14 then no problem. If its a 3 for 1 deal a 3rd team will have to be involved.

then factor in the issue of meeting Walsh's requirements which is clearing 010 cap and a team losing Nate's bird rights plus taking on Jeffries remaining year along with the trade kicker...

add it up: moving Nate by himself to anything but a team with caproom will be very difficult

trades can be complicated. thanks.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
7/27/2009  5:17 PM
alan hahn is tweeting that the nate offer is not real. he's saying two separate sources have told him so.

i hope we do it, but it seems like it's not a done deal.
¿ △ ?
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
7/27/2009  5:48 PM
Posted by crzymdups:

alan hahn is tweeting that the nate offer is not real. he's saying two separate sources have told him so.

i hope we do it, but it seems like it's not a done deal.

Alan Hahn has said nothing of value, nothing true, nothing worth noting, ever since Cablevision purchased Newsday.

He is a NOBODY.

How many times last offseason did he say a trade was imminent? Only for not just nothing to happen but to find out at least one of his "imminent trades" was three month old rumors that failed at the Feb 2009 trade deadline!?!?!?

I liked Alan but damn this dude has become as worthless as myself when it comes to inside information.

He knows NOTHING.
http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
martin
Posts: 76293
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/27/2009  6:23 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by McK1:

i'm not being simple minded. you'retrying to oversimplify a complex situation. trading a byc player mid season is difficult for more than just the salaries matching

you also have to account for roster spots available to incoming team to accept players in this case 3. teams are required to carry 14 players. if its a 3 for 3 deal fine or if the deal is 3 for 2 and its made with a team at 14 then no problem. If its a 3 for 1 deal a 3rd team will have to be involved.

then factor in the issue of meeting Walsh's requirements which is clearing 010 cap and a team losing Nate's bird rights plus taking on Jeffries remaining year along with the trade kicker...

add it up: moving Nate by himself to anything but a team with caproom will be very difficult

trades can be complicated. thanks.

ps. You only need to have 13 players on your roster, not 14.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q64

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Page 5 of 6 « First‹ Previous 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