Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Back surgery! We really are doing this guy a solid.

OK, so I thought maybe the Knicks did this because his agent has a couple of high profile clients the Knicks may want down the road. Here is David Bauman's client list as far as I can find:

https://basketball.realgm.com/info/agent-client-list/David-Bauman/27

I just don't get it. Hard to imagine Bullock is going to play this season yet we decided to give him a contract anyway when we didn't have to?

Simple- because if he recovers we have him next season for $4mil. So instead of paying him $11mil per season for 2 seasons, we land him for 1 season (just not this one) for $4mil- which is a good salary hit. What else were we going to spend $4mil on this offseason? There's a log jam this season anyways, so it's not like we'll miss him. In the mean time he's meant to have a good character and offer vet leadership from the bench. The money and roster spot would other wise have gone on Lance or say Vince Carter, neither of which would give you anything on the court this season. May as well take the chance on Bullock, who has potential use further down the line.

smackeddog wrote:

Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Back surgery! We really are doing this guy a solid.

OK, so I thought maybe the Knicks did this because his agent has a couple of high profile clients the Knicks may want down the road. Here is David Bauman's client list as far as I can find:

https://basketball.realgm.com/info/agent-client-list/David-Bauman/27

I just don't get it. Hard to imagine Bullock is going to play this season yet we decided to give him a contract anyway when we didn't have to?

Simple- because if he recovers we have him next season for $4mil. So instead of paying him $11mil per season for 2 seasons, we land him for 1 season (just not this one) for $4mil- which is a good salary hit. What else were we going to spend $4mil on this offseason? There's a log jam this season anyways, so it's not like we'll miss him. In the mean time he's meant to have a good character and offer vet leadership from the bench. The money and roster spot would other wise have gone on Lance or say Vince Carter, neither of which would give you anything on the court this season. May as well take the chance on Bullock, who has potential use further down the line.

Maybe this was all an innocent coincidence and it works out better for the Knicks financially in the long run. But doesn't he also still have plantar fasciitis that typically doesn't just go away? Even on a cheap deal he better be a heck of a locker room guy because physically there are a lot of red flags with this guy.

HofstraBBall wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Back surgery! We really are doing this guy a solid.

OK, so I thought maybe the Knicks did this because his agent has a couple of high profile clients the Knicks may want down the road. Here is David Bauman's client list as far as I can find:

https://basketball.realgm.com/info/agent-client-list/David-Bauman/27

I just don't get it. Hard to imagine Bullock is going to play this season yet we decided to give him a contract anyway when we didn't have to?

Simple- because if he recovers we have him next season for $4mil. So instead of paying him $11mil per season for 2 seasons, we land him for 1 season (just not this one) for $4mil- which is a good salary hit. What else were we going to spend $4mil on this offseason? There's a log jam this season anyways, so it's not like we'll miss him. In the mean time he's meant to have a good character and offer vet leadership from the bench. The money and roster spot would other wise have gone on Lance or say Vince Carter, neither of which would give you anything on the court this season. May as well take the chance on Bullock, who has potential use further down the line.

Disagree that it's that simple.

Think Bullocks value is considerably lower after back surgery and Plantar issues?
We will basically eat $4M for vet presence? We do have coaches to help with that and there were other options. Not to mention we are doing this with a crowded back court.
Bottom line for me on Bullock is that he had a good 3pt. percentage but out of 8 years in the league, he basically had one decent year in Detroit. Is that something worth taking a risk on and eating up cap space for? Don't think so IMO. Specially when its essentially $4m lost or $8.2 for a guy that if healthy can give you 10 a game and not much more.

I agree with this. My suspicion is that the agent was so complimentary to the Knicks because we were the only ones willing to sign him once injury surfaced

I would have preferred that we just politely tell him "let's reconnect when you're well and we'll go from there". We saw from Lance (and others) that plantar fasciitis can be a big deal for mobility

Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Back surgery! We really are doing this guy a solid.

OK, so I thought maybe the Knicks did this because his agent has a couple of high profile clients the Knicks may want down the road. Here is David Bauman's client list as far as I can find:

https://basketball.realgm.com/info/agent-client-list/David-Bauman/27

I just don't get it. Hard to imagine Bullock is going to play this season yet we decided to give him a contract anyway when we didn't have to?

Cash Hit Vs Cap Hit

Insurance will cover out much of Bullock's cost. So while he factors in the cap equation, he doesn't in the cash equation.

One of the strong points of the MoneyBall film was the "Find The Money/Keep The Money" principle.

Beane wanted a reliever, Rincon, his owners said you can trade for him, but it can't increase the cash hit. So Beane worked some deals to create the cash to offset Rincon's salary.

While the Knicks are a cash rich team, they still a budget and they can't just spend freely without restraint. The cash savings could go to international scouting, specialized coaching, maybe keeping around their extra film room guy, some new training equipment or into the general "payoff " fund. (i.e. every team has slush money set aside to pay people off during the season. Player does something stupid, you have to pay off a fan or a media person to keep them silent, etc)

On Bullock's side, he keeps accruing service time, which goes towards his later years pension and benefits.

Bullock signed in good faith. The Knicks saw a cash benefit and maybe Bullock can help them later and also simply acted in part in good faith.

It's easy to look at these huge team cap numbers and minimize the value of a couple of million in cash, but it's a huge deal operationally for any team.