BRIGGS wrote:I don’t like giving 36 year old guys that much but I think if we get a player like him without giving up draft picks keeping what we have. We’ll improve the team

The NBA doesn't like it either. The over-38 rule will kick in. I don't have an issue with "Sign Chris Paul". We are just talking contract terms now.

EwingsGlass wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I don’t like giving 36 year old guys that much but I think if we get a player like him without giving up draft picks keeping what we have. We’ll improve the team

The NBA doesn't like it either. The over-38 rule will kick in. I don't have an issue with "Sign Chris Paul". We are just talking contract terms now.

I’m kind of scared we’ll do the trade 5 number 1s and swap 6 others when we have simple cap space. I know Dolan still there

MS wrote:120MM over 4 years.

He's getting injured in the next two years, we can't repeat the same mistakes over again. We obviously should have traded for him the past two season, but it would be a huge mistake right now. Maybe he get us to the second round, but then we have to max randle and we are essentially stuck.

I hear what you’re saying. I’m hoping to stay away from giving up 8 picks for a player. I think that’s worse

BRIGGS wrote:I don’t like giving 36 year old guys that much but I think if we get a player like him without giving up draft picks keeping what we have. We’ll improve the team

Paul's birthday falls before the October cut off date. So that means if the Knicks signed him to a 3 year deal at 60 million total, it would be a 2021-22 cap hit of 60 million dollars, but the cash hit would be 20 million a year for three years.

As a tenured 10+ year vested veteran street free agent, Chris Paul, in theory, could be signed to a 4 year max contract worth about 38 million AAV with annual 5 percent raises. The problem is the balloon cap hit in one year breaches the total projected cap. It's not actually possible for the Knicks to give Chris Paul a street free agent max.

That means the Knicks can give Paul anywhere up to 70 million ( while factoring in annual 5 percent raises) and anywhere up to four years, but the AAV has to be be scaled to not exceed 70 million in total. The Knicks would need to renounce all their existing free agents. Then they could only sign veteran minimum players to fill out the rest of the roster.

What Chris Paul is actually doing is seeing which team owner is willing to pay him crypto under the table.

On paper, there is zero reason for him to turn down his player option this offseason. I don't care what articles or pundits are saying what and when. The only X factor is money under the table.

Plus he is flopping all over the floor and just looks a bit overmatched physically right now.

Great player but would we be getting him right near end of line.

I’ve seen guys like Cheeeks, Westphal, Vandeweghe…etc arrive in NY when they were basically shells of former selves and they didn’t come in for $40M a year

gradyandrew wrote:Just keep Rose for 12 million per year on a 2 Or 3 year deal, much better value.

I’d bring back Rose on a one year deal but not as a starter. He’s a sixth man now

TripleThreat wrote:

Philc1 wrote:1. 2 year deal max is the longest we should offer

The Knicks have about 70 million in potential open cap space

Any Chris Paul contract would need to be an IMMEDIATE total cap hit all at once ( deferred comp) because of the Over 38 Rule

Paul's street FA max amount is Year 1 - 38 million and Year 2 - 38 million plus 5 percent. That's way more than 70 million.

You consistently say things that are illegal to the CBA or can't be possible under the current rules in place. Quit randomly making **** up. This is an opportunity to empower yourself by learning how the league and contracts work. There is more information out there than in any other time in sports fandom if you just Google'ed it more often.

Does it really matter? It's just board talk, it's not like Rose reads this forum looking for ideas. He's just saying he'd rather only do at 2 year deal rather than a 4 year one, no need to be anal about it.