I didn't know this. According to the Daily News, quoting Nate's agent, we can. If this is true, I think it's best case scenario with Nate and Lee. I don't know what it would do to BYC issues, but I'm guessing it would make the unrestricted free agents next off-season. maybe it gets around that ridiculous triple cap hold rule though (where they have a triple cap hold if they sign the QO).

"We don't have a deal yet but we're negotiating to get a deal done with the Knicks," Aaron Goodwin said. "Nate wants to stay in New York."
Goodwin refused to discuss terms of a possible deal, but according to a Knicks source, Robinson is expected to sign a one-year contract worth between $4 million and $5 million, or at least $1 million more than his qualifying offer.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/2009/07/23/2009-07-23_agent_confident_nate_robinson_will_stay_with_knicks.html#ixzz0M6XNINKA

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/2009/07/23/2009-07-23_agent_confident_nate_robinson_will_stay_with_knicks.html


[Edited by - crzymdups on 23-07-2009 1:29 PM]

of course we can sign them to 1 year deals, but then we lose their Bird Rights... that means they won't be able to sign for anything over the MLE this season & next season we won't be able to go over the cap to sign them to extensions either.

Posted by TMS:

of course we can sign them to 1 year deals, but then we lose their Bird Rights... that means they won't be able to sign for anything over the MLE this season & next season we won't be able to go over the cap to sign them to extensions either.

this is interesting TMS, in light of what we were talking about in terms of signing the QO and players being able to veto trades.

CAUSE.... if it isn't the QO, Nate would NOT have the right to nix a trade, right?

THAT'S HUGE in terms of trade flexibility for Walsh.

Posted by martin:

Posted by TMS:

of course we can sign them to 1 year deals, but then we lose their Bird Rights... that means they won't be able to sign for anything over the MLE this season & next season we won't be able to go over the cap to sign them to extensions either.

this is interesting TMS, in light of what we were talking about in terms of signing the QO and players being able to veto trades.

CAUSE.... if it isn't the QO, Nate would NOT have the right to nix a trade, right?

THAT'S HUGE in terms of trade flexibility for Walsh.

that's my understanding of it but this whole cap crap is so damn confusing i may have read it wrong... if i'm wrong feel free to let me know.

as far as i know, if Nate accepts a QO he will earn veto rights over any trade... if he accepts a 1 year deal at over the QO, he won't have veto rights over a trade.

Posted by earthmansurfer:

Posted by martin:

Posted by TMS:

of course we can sign them to 1 year deals, but then we lose their Bird Rights... that means they won't be able to sign for anything over the MLE this season & next season we won't be able to go over the cap to sign them to extensions either.

this is interesting TMS, in light of what we were talking about in terms of signing the QO and players being able to veto trades.

CAUSE.... if it isn't the QO, Nate would NOT have the right to nix a trade, right?

THAT'S HUGE in terms of trade flexibility for Walsh.

But, why is it huge for Walsh if the team receiving Nate doesn't know if he would sign long term. Bird rights are lost, so a team wouldn't give up much...

if Nate signed the QO, he would lose his Bird rights, so it's a wash from that standpoint, but Walsh has essentially taken away the trade veto.

Posted by fishmike:

If Nate signs the QO he plays next year with the Knicks, who still have his bird rights. we can resign him for whatever and go over the cap.

If Nate signs the QO he can veto any trade, BECAUSE if he accepts that trade he forfeits his bird rights.

If Nate signs a one year deal with the Knicks I dont know what that means as far as Bird rights or trades, etc. If its treated like a normal extension it should mean he's treated like a normal player with a normal contract

right, except we are forfeiting his bird rights. and he'd be treated as a BYC player because it'd be such a large raise from his 08-09 salary. i think it's a beneficial move for both parties. if nate wants to try free agency next summer it lets him do so and it gives us a chance to retain him for the MLE next summer after using our cap space.

Posted by martin:

BYC defines the salary that's used to compare players for compliance under the Traded Player exception (see question number 68 for more information about the Traded Player exception). Usually the salary used for comparison is the player's actual salary. But under either of the following circumstances, a different salary is used when comparing salaries for trading purposes:

* The team is over the salary cap, used the Larry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20% (unless it's the minimum salary).
* The team is over the salary cap, it extended the player's rookie scale contract, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.

If either of the above apply, then the player is considered a base year player. A player remains a base year player for six months, or until June 30, whichever comes later. When trading a base year player, the salary used for comparison is the player's previous salary, or 50% of the first-year salary in his new contract, whichever is greater.

Here is an example of a BYC calculation: A player earned $2 million in 2004-05, after which he became a free agent. He then signs a new contract (re-signing with his previous team, which is over the salary cap) starting at $9 million. This player qualifies for BYC, so his trade value is the greater of his previous salary ($2 million) or 50% of his new salary ($4.5 million), or $4.5 million. So this player, who actually earns $9 million, is worth $4.5 million for trading purposes.

When comparing salaries for trade, teams use their own player's BYC value and the other player's full salary, even if the other player is also BYC. Here is a simple example -- two $5 million players, both of whom are re-signed (by teams over the cap) for $10 million. Both players become base year players whose base year amount is $5 million (50% of the new salary). If the teams want to trade these players for each other they compare their player's base year amount to the other player's full salary. So each team can take back a maximum of 125% plus $100,000 of their player's $5 million base year amount, or $6.35 million. They compare $6.35 million to the other player's full $10 million. $10 million is way too high, so this trade can't be done, even though the players' actual salaries match exactly.

If one of the teams in the above example was below the cap, the trade still couldn't be done. For the team under the cap, their player would not be BYC, so they would be comparing $10 million to $10 million. But since the other team is over the cap, their player is BYC, and they'd still be comparing $5.85 million to $10 million, which prevents the trade from working. (See question number 75 for more information about trading BYC players.)

For the most part, Nate's salary is so relatively small, that BYC #'s wont make too much of a difference in a trade.

The NBA has to have the all-time worst system for trades and free agency. It's terrible.

so this is my understanding:

If the Knicks sign either Nate or Lee to 1-year contracts this year

- the players would forgo their QO, which means they do NOT have veto rights with regards to trades.
- the players become BYC, but this is kind of negligible cause of the size of their contracts (if they are traded with JJ or Curry or Hughes or whatnot).
- the players would retain their Bird rights even if they are traded.

This is VERY good for the KNicks.

From Marc Stein...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&page=Chatter-090723

Details remain scarce, but David Lee's name is finally starting to come up again more often now that pretty much all the top unrestricted free agents apart from Odom and Andre Miller have been signed. With summer league ball behind us, the free-agent focus starts to shift to restricted free agents like Lee.

The problem? Unless Portland uses its cap space to make him an offer, Lee will be relying on the Knicks to cooperate in a sign-and-trade arrangement. And it's believed that New York is determined to retain Lee and Nate Robinson on one-year deals that preserve full Bird rights for both players without obligating the Knicks to slice into their projected salary-cap space for 2010 free agency.

But one well-placed insider volunteered this tip when it comes to Lee's situation: "Keep your eye on Chicago."

Yeah they should definitely have Bird Rights for a 1 yr deal- they've been with the team for long enough. We'd only lose their bird rights if we renounced them first.

That is how i understand it

sorry then i stand corrected... all these cap rules confuse the crap outta me.