CrushAlot wrote:Have you checked to see which teams have the ability to absorb 54 mil over two years? I don't think Melo would mind going to the Nets but I think they will pick some guys to offer poison pill deals to (I.e. Noel).
I am not sure about the particulars of a buyout if a player doesn't clear waivers. I would assume the player would have to pay back the team he was leaving the buyout money.
Also, if there was a hint that a team would pick up Melo before he would clear waivers why wouldn't Phil just waive Melo? Getting Melo and his contract off of the cap without taking bad deals or giving up an asset would be a win for him.

http://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/245167/The-Maximum-Available-2017-Cap-Space-for-All-30-NBA-Teams-Version-40

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/projecting-2017-cap-space-pre-lottery/

Hawks might do it. Why not. Millsap is not coming back. Selofosha is off their books. Losing Horford and trading Teague basically gutted the team.

Sacto might be able to do it as it's no completely clear what Rudy Gay will or will not do ( no matter what's being said in public)

Bizarrely, if either Paul or Griffin leave via FA, the other will likely leave. Which means there's no point in resigning Redick. The Clippers could oddly end up with a massive amount of space this offseason. They can offer Paul and Griffin more money than anyone else, but it depends on how much those guys want to win and if they see it in LA or not.

Buyout terms are only enforced if the player clears waivers. If he doesn't clear waivers, none of the buyout terms matter. Clearing waivers is seen as a formality in most cases, but this would be sort of a unique case if it happened. A lot of teams that would never have a chance at a marquee name player for marketing purposes would have a chance at one.

Collusion wouldn't be worth it to Phil Jackson ( i.e. a silent handshake deal with another GM in place) Glen Taylor and Kevin McHale were smashed hard over Joe Smith, and they were colluding in house to circumvent the then salary cap/salary structure in place. Collusion across team lines would be catastrophic. Minimum would be lifetime bans. Jackson would likely be stripped of his HOF status. The Knicks would lose 1st round picks for a decade.

Reason Melo is pushing for it now is waiting until the dust has settled will leave teams who lost in FA more incentive to do it. What else would they spend the money on then?

TripleThreat wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Have you checked to see which teams have the ability to absorb 54 mil over two years? I don't think Melo would mind going to the Nets but I think they will pick some guys to offer poison pill deals to (I.e. Noel).
I am not sure about the particulars of a buyout if a player doesn't clear waivers. I would assume the player would have to pay back the team he was leaving the buyout money.
Also, if there was a hint that a team would pick up Melo before he would clear waivers why wouldn't Phil just waive Melo? Getting Melo and his contract off of the cap without taking bad deals or giving up an asset would be a win for him.

http://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/245167/The-Maximum-Available-2017-Cap-Space-for-All-30-NBA-Teams-Version-40

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/projecting-2017-cap-space-pre-lottery/

Hawks might do it. Why not. Millsap is not coming back. Selofosha is off their books. Losing Horford and trading Teague basically gutted the team.

Sacto might be able to do it as it's no completely clear what Rudy Gay will or will not do ( no matter what's being said in public)

Bizarrely, if either Paul or Griffin leave via FA, the other will likely leave. Which means there's no point in resigning Redick. The Clippers could oddly end up with a massive amount of space this offseason. They can offer Paul and Griffin more money than anyone else, but it depends on how much those guys want to win and if they see it in LA or not.

Buyout terms are only enforced if the player clears waivers. If he doesn't clear waivers, none of the buyout terms matter. Clearing waivers is seen as a formality in most cases, but this would be sort of a unique case if it happened. A lot of teams that would never have a chance at a marquee name player for marketing purposes would have a chance at one.

Collusion wouldn't be worth it to Phil Jackson ( i.e. a silent handshake deal with another GM in place) Glen Taylor and Kevin McHale were smashed hard over Joe Smith, and they were colluding in house to circumvent the then salary cap/salary structure in place. Collusion across team lines would be catastrophic. Minimum would be lifetime bans. Jackson would likely be stripped of his HOF status. The Knicks would lose 1st round picks for a decade.

Reason Melo is pushing for it now is waiting until the dust has settled will leave teams who lost in FA more incentive to do it. What else would they spend the money on then?

Do you think he would go to Atlanta? Think the reason Melo got a NTC is because he didn't want to worry about Phil back stabbing him out of NY and forcing him to move. Melo has said it before, he is not worried about anything unless it is brought up to him and he thinks its something he is interested in doing. Dont think he will volunteer to go as his kid is here and that trumps all. He will still ball and go home and see his kid.

Only option is for Phil to waive him. Do not think Melo feels he is done in two years. If he wanted to he can jump on the Lebron coat tail in a few years. So why agree to a buy out now? Why should he? To help Phil or the scumbag fans that dislike him? Yeah right. Cuz they would do the same for him.

y2zipper wrote:The Knicks should either buy Melo out or just waive him and eat the money. That is the only correct move.

I understand re-signing him, I even get the no-trade clause and I even understand Phil trying to change Melo and make it work. Melo isn't going to change, has never been the star to build teams around and neither he or Jackson are going to be really good free agent recruiters anytime soon. So the Knicks can either have a borderline playoff team led by Melo or a bad team with good prospects led more by Lee and Noah and featuring Porzingis. Sign me up for the second one and give me access to a top pick next year.

Phil should just come out, tell the fans it isn't working and release Melo.

Why is this the only correct move? Why does Phil get to shift blame? To Melo at that? Shouldn’t Porzingis, Noah, Lee, Rose shoulder some of the “blame” Melo shows up every night. Phil has done not a thing. I will re-ask my last question…wasn’t Phil suppose to surround Melo with talent. Last I checked this hasn’t happened….Affalo, Lopez, Noah and Rose does not count. The original promise was two bonifide studs to play along with Melo…that hasn’t happened. I’m sorry but Phil has not come through with any of his promises..he needs to go..Wakeup Dolan.

HofstraBBall wrote:Do you think he would go to Atlanta?

Functionally, if Melo was waived and the Hawks claimed him, he'd have a choice and he would also not have a choice.

A buyout is designed to help get a player and a franchise some freedom. But like any freedom, it's not really free. The possibility of being claimed is part of the CBA and every version of the modern CBA. You can't just pick and choose which parts of the CBA you want or think should be enforced.

Refusing to go to the Hawks, if claimed, belies a labor issue. If players under the NBAPA refuse to go by the CBA and it's rules, why should the owners? You see the slippery slope developing?

Right now, Leon Rose and CAA are more valuable to Melo for his branding and post career than the other way around. Melo's career is about over. He's not the marketing giant like other players. He refuses to go to the Hawks, Rose can just drop him from his client list. Rose has to think about ALL HIS CLIENTS and his relationships with ALL THE OTHER OWNERS. People might hate Dolan, other owners might hate Dolan, but he's still ONE OF THEM.

Melo could decide to retire as a threat. But if he tries to unretire, the Hawks would still technically own his rights, but be clear of his salary commitment eventually.

While it's not openly discussed in public much at all, I'll talk about it here. During the post LBJ/Bosh/Wade Big Three fiasco and the labor war that followed, the owners were in heavy discussions to formulate a true hard cap and widespread use of non guaranteed contracts. The conflict was the NBAPA and the players would fight it, and the lockout could last two years( to basically starve the players out financially. Ewing was right about one thing, NBA guys make a lot of money, but they spend a lot of money too) This is bad for agents. They get a percentage of a total contract as a fee, but that wipes out if the contract is non guaranteed and could be shredded like old trash at will by the owners and GMs. Melo refusing to go to any team that claimed him would only add fuel to this fire. You think the owners didn't talk about Gilbert Arenas going insane and bringing guns into his locker room and how much that cost the NBA in bad PR and how his contract was like a giant anchor to that franchise?

The NTC only covers trades. Nothing can cover being processed through league waivers. The same contract that Melo signed that offers him NTC protection is the same contract that has the standard waivers provisions in it for being part of the NBAPA. He can't just expect everyone to honor the parts that benefit him only. If Rose drops him, he also loses CAA's media protection. Does he want every infidelity, every love child, every indiscretion, every mistake, dragged out into the press? Because without Rose, it would happen.

Atlanta and a few other teams simply struggle in FA to sign anyone useful. They might end up with cap space unused even trying their best.