smackeddog wrote:If we need the cap space we use the stretch provision, if we don't, we keep him.

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:If we need the cap space we use the stretch provision, if we don't, we keep him.

Exactly. As bad as he has been, he's still played well enough to justify taking up a roster space. So it makes more sense to pay him to be on the team than to pay him to go home unless we immediately need the cap space.

I think the given is that you cut him only if it leads to getting a FA. I doubt they would just cut him to cut him. I think they would hold on to him and try to see if he has any value at the deadline if he has a good year.

Although, if the Cap is really going to be $105m in 2017 maybe they won't care and use the stretch provision.

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:If we need the cap space we use the stretch provision, if we don't, we keep him.

Exactly. As bad as he has been, he's still played well enough to justify taking up a roster space. So it makes more sense to pay him to be on the team than to pay him to go home unless we immediately need the cap space.

I think the given is that you cut him only if it leads to getting a FA. I doubt they would just cut him to cut him. I think they would hold on to him and try to see if he has any value at the deadline if he has a good year.

Although, if the Cap is really going to be $105m in 2017 maybe they won't care and use the stretch provision.

Well you do have people here (led by Briggs) saying to just stretch him automatically.

oh okay. Maybe they want the space to bring back Shved. Idk.

He hasn't been able to play with POST threats and penetration threats that could make him the 4th/5th option on the court to to spread the floor
If we stretch him, he will be on the books for an additional 2 more years, while there is a possibility to trading him when he is an expiring or to have another amnesty clause after the new CBA is done in 2017

I just do not think the reward is worthy of stretching him, we never know when we would need his salary to match a trade in the future
I have a feeling we will be looking to acquire more picks and possibily use some of our future picks if needed with all the possible UFA's in 2017, teams might be pressured to trade their talents like if Durant forced a trade out of OKC and did what CA did to come to NY

Knicks1969 wrote:We have two young kids we drafted last year (theNasty and the French kid) that we have to groom to play next season

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:We have two young kids we drafted last year (theNasty and the French kid) that we have to groom to play next season

You're allowed to have fifteen guys on the roster. Calderon is good enough to at least be a 10th man.

I agree that he has some value, especially if he can come back healthy next year.

WaltLongmire wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:We have two young kids we drafted last year (theNasty and the French kid) that we have to groom to play next season

You're allowed to have fifteen guys on the roster. Calderon is good enough to at least be a 10th man.

...and if he plays better next year maybe we can get something for him at some point.

I agree that he has some value, especially if he can come back healthy next year.

As long as he is not the starting PG, I could probably endure 1/2 season of this dude. He is way to slow for my taste and needs to play for a half court team.

Knicks1969 wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:We have two young kids we drafted last year (theNasty and the French kid) that we have to groom to play next season

You're allowed to have fifteen guys on the roster. Calderon is good enough to at least be a 10th man.

...and if he plays better next year maybe we can get something for him at some point.

I agree that he has some value, especially if he can come back healthy next year.

As long as he is not the starting PG, I could probably endure 1/2 season of this dude. He is way to slow for my taste and needs to play for a half court team.