TripleThreat wrote:Nalod wrote:I’m not sure the wrath of Silver would come raining down on the franchise that I believe still has the most paid in taxes to the league via the Isiah Era if they cap floored for just one season.
Cash Hit Versus Cap Hit
When you trade a player in the middle of the season, you get credit for his Cap Hit onto your cap, however the Cash Hit is PRORATED at that point in time of the contract.
If Player X is signed for 20 million that season, and 1/2 the season is over, you trade for him, the 20 million goes onto your CAP SHEET, but you are only paying 10 million in cash. His previous team paid him 10 million already to that point.
Now this doesn't impact most teams cash wise because most teams are trading out nearly equalizing salaries. Which is why the CBA mandates a salary matching principle UNLESS a team has open cap space. This is also why there is a cap floor in the first place, so teams aren't just leaving dead cap space all over the place as a profit strategy.
This was even a contention with the Yankees and Brian Cashman with revenue sharing. The Yankees had to pay out more than any team in MLB history into revenue sharing because of their bloated payrolls. Apparently Cash went into a meeting with GMs and owners and said, No one is bitching about our financial warchest when we cut this revenue sharing check. Then he went for the ****ing kill. He said who should criticize us when smaller market teams takes those checks, and DON'T REINVEST INTO THEIR TEAMS TO WIN and then bitch to the press about how they can't compete with Yankee/Red Sox type money. Which is why MLB has rules now that revenue sharing money has to be pumped back into FA/player development/etc/etc to force teams to actually compete.
What Hinkie did was piss off owners ( They are all paying X amount, the 76ers were paying less and sweeping up top lottery picks) Then he pissed off the agents and NBAPA ( Inflationary control of salaries), then he pissed off the brands and networks ( nothing to market out of Philly, no stars and they were losing on purpose)
Hinkie did something many GMs wanted to do, but never got the green light from their owners to do it.
I recognize many here think Hinkie is an idiot, but in pro sports, in front offices, he's seen like a swagged out Keyzer Soze. The dude had huge ****ing balls. He knew the league would come after him and he just did not give a ****. His goal was to build a team with a chance to win and he did, cost be damned.
You say what you think, I say what I know. Any NBA team rides under the salary floor into the season, that franchise is gonna start some **** with the league administration.
Knicks need to spend that money because it's good resource management. But also because sometimes because you can do something doesn't mean it's gonna help you over the long haul if it opposes the culture in place.
Aren't the threats you outlined somewhat hollow to a flagship franchise and given our team's recent history? We're already screwed annually in the draft. Has there been a single lottery where we beat the odds and picked higher than our record would suggest? Even when we break even, it occurs in drafts where the player we want is projected a pick or two higher than when we select (e.g. Rubio/Curry; Westbrook/Love/Mayo; Jahlil Okafor/Karl Anthony Towns; etc.). And this might be fan bias but I think we continually get shafted on 50-50 calls by refs. So what is the downside of us telling the league to go **** itself?