I originally posted part of this yesterday, but I think it is important enough to merit its own discussion:
According to Larry Coon’s salary cap FAQ, after a buyout, the team’s cap number is adjusted downwards to reflect the buyout amount, rather than the original contract amount.
Also, after a bit of further research, it seems that it is possible to buy out an option year. The only provisos are that the player contract has to have a option buy-out clause and that the option buy-out clause cannot exceed 50% of the option year salary.
Thus, the Knicks could theoretically agree to buy out Curry’s option year but it could not for more than half his option year salary, which is about $11 million. In other words, if the Knicks bought out Curry to the maximum amount permitted under the CBA, they would save about 5.5 million under the 2010 cap.
Incidentally, they could do the same thing with Jeffries and save another 3.5 million or so based his approximate $7 million salary for his option year.
If the Knicks can’t trade either and either or both agree to such a buy-out, the Knicks are looking at another $3.5 to $9 million under the cap in 2010.
I think Jeffries is more likely to accept such an offer to buy-out his option year because he would only be forfeiting about $3.5 million. The way he’s playing, you’d think he could make that back in the first year of a new contract that would start next year, leaving him at break-even.
Curry? Would any team give him even $5.5 million next summer. Maybe, but it’s less likely. Of course, maybe he’d be willing to come out less than break-even in a short-term deal on his next contract to escape his current situation.
Currently, using Marc Stein’s $53.6 million cap projection, the Knicks have $23.4 million to spend. That is enough for a max free agent and about $6-$7 million for another player. If Jeffries takes the full buy-out, the number for the second guy goes to amount $9.5-$10.5 million. If Curry also takes the full buy-out that number goes to $15-$16 million.
Two important things to keep in mind:
1. The cap could be higher than the above $53.6 projection. In fact, the Knicks themselves are reportedly projecting a $54 million number, and you have to assume they’re being overly cautious.
2. For this kind of buy-out to work, there has to be an option year buy-out already in the contract. I don’t know if Jeffries’ or Curry’s contracts include an option year buy-out clause.
Neither Curry nor any other Knick would agree to a buy out of 50% of their salary in todays nba enviorment. They would have to be insane. Why would Curry, Currys family or Currys agent do that?
Last year Marbury only agreed to around 5%-10% (1-2 million from a 22 mill salary)
I disagree about the amount of buy out a player would take. Italian Stallion nailed it in one of his comments on the last post. A player would take a buyout from a bad situation if they could make up the difference with a new team.
Nobody was paying Steph more than the vets minimum. Jeffries could conceivably get 3.5 mil this summer. That’s about what he’s worth anyway IMO.
Curry, not so much.
Also, it’d be less than 50% of total salary. Just 50% of the option year. That’s closer to a 75% buy out.
It could all be moot anyway if these guys don’t have option year buy out clauses, which I hear on pretty good authority are pretty rare.
This may have been the “secret” Donnie alluded to a while back when he talked about some extra wiggle room under the cap that he believed team outsiders weren’t taking into account when calculating the Knicks’ 2010 space.
jon you keep mentioning this “secret”. dude get over it,there is no secret, that is just to keep us fans intrigued. No way Curry takes any kind of buyout. he may want to but his agent sure as heck aint gonna let that happen.
Does that $23.4 million under the cap take into account the cap holds/bird rights we have from Duhon, Hughes, Robinson, Harrington, and Lee?
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yg7erct
@torres, it assumes the Knicks renounce all those guys.
@Virgil
can’t get that link to work.
@ Torres: It doesn’t. They’d have to renounce all those guys to make the space.
@ Virgil: Completely disagree. That’s not how DW rolls at all. When was the last time he gave “misinformation”? In fact, I’ve never seen a more straightforward guy running a sports team. You’re still living in the Isiah era. If DW says he has extra cap wiggle room, then he does.
At this point I think the best case scenario is signing a max free agent and Lee for 9m-10m in the first year (assuming I even understand the cap hold nonsense).
If no max contract guys are willing to relocate to NY (Wade and James are the only ones I’d pay that much), then we’d probably resign Lee, pick up a second tier free agent to fill some role (probably PG or SG), and some other mid level guy or something. Then in 2011 we can revisit the available talent.
it was basically 3 team trade n8 to chicago, curry and mobley to houston and tmac and tyrus to ny. If that could happen I would not have another bad word to say about dw .
@ jon not living in Isaiah era at all. But how long ago was it that this “secret” came about and was supposed to be announced. Ok well if it isnt dw its the media. But how is any of this a secret when we knew these options existed to an extent. None of this could be extra wiggle room, because the players would have to agree to a buy out and who thinks they have. If they did, then couldnt that be a problem ala minny a few years back.
I’d do that trade Virgil.
What Donnie said is that there is flexibilty he will have that nobody talks about, but he knows about it. It’s true that were the ones who have labelled it a secret. But it isn’t as if Walsh is tipping his hand.
The article was from the AP and was so cryptic and vague that it could mean anything. It could be this thing but it could be something nobody has even thought about, it could be nothing.
But I don’t think Donnie was saying it just to say it.
@Jon:
“@ Virgil: Completely disagree. That’s not how DW rolls at all. When was the last time he gave “misinformation”? In fact, I’ve never seen a more straightforward guy running a sports team. You’re still living in the Isiah era. If DW says he has extra cap wiggle room, then he does.”
DW reasoned that Curry’s development was the reason why we didn’t get Iverson? If his development is so important, then why isn’t he playing?
That sounds like misinformation to me and it’s not the first time he’s done it.
Would you have preferred that he said we already have a younger and healthier version of iverson on the squad who can’t get off the bench cuz he’s a loser?
By the way, how’s that iverson signing working out for the sixers?
And I still don’t understand why would JJ or Curry give away $? Why would they agree to losing $ that they were guaranteed?
@DanL
that’s not the point. he asked:
“…When was the last time he gave “misinformation”?”
he gave misinformation when he said that $hit. the manner he wanted to say he didn’t want AI doesn’t matter to me. i understand it’s a business. i’m just answering the question as to when was the last time DW gave misinformation that I could recall…
that’s being fair…
“By the way, how’s that iverson signing working out for the sixers?”
what does that have to do with anything? where is the argument/disagreement of AI’s value?
You’re right JLS, that was besides the point.
I think maybe sometimes things are just said maybe for pr purposes. Like rather than saying something bad about iverson they said they’re just focusing on other things. Depending on your perspective, you could say that’s misinformation. Someone else might say pr, someone else might say white lie.
Anyway, Jeffries might be willing to take a 75% buyout. If the Knicks continue to win and JJ continues to play ok he could break even or maybe even come out ahead.
Not Curry though.
Also, those first couple games, especially the Pacers game, Curry did look like he might make a positive impact.
@JLS: DW didn’t give misinformation there. Curry came back and started playing at the exact same time they were thinking about Iverson. But then he missed more time with more injury troubles after DW had already decided not to pursue Iverson.
The Knicks were hoping to prop up Curry’s value by getting him some minutes. But his body wouldn’t cooperate. Now the team is playing well and they’ve decided not to squander minutes (and wins) trying to find a taker for Eddy.
It’s fair to disagree with the decision to bury Curry, but I don’t believe Donnie was lying when he cited that (among other things) as a reason not to sign AI.
But you’re right, the reason they gave for not signing Iverson was not the real reason, most likely.
But I do think DW probably has some flexibilty that he’s not broadcasting. I guess well see.
I don’t think he was lying at all. They were legitimately excited about Curry’s fitness level and working him in. Then he got injured again about 3 days after they decided not to pursue Iverson.
It may not have been the only reason they passed on Iverson, but it was one of the reasons.
Donnie Walsh on some of the reasons for not pursuing Iverson on Nov. 20th, the day he actually decided to pass on Iverson:
“It did get interesting for a while because Allen’s a great player and has always been a great player,” Walsh said Friday. “You’re 1-9 and you’re thinking, ‘We’ve got to get some help in here.’ But when we rethought it and I talked to Mike and he talked to me, we feel that could hurt our development of the future, and so we want to go the way we’re going.
“There will be other things we can do during the year that will be more in line with what our philosophy has been entering into this. And I want to really make it clear that this has nothing to do with Iverson. He’s a great player, I’ve always admired him. I think he’d be a great addition for a team that is in a different position than we’re in, and I hope he gets picked up.”
“In the beginning I didn’t think it fit,” Walsh said. “Then I started thinking about it, and it’s enticing to think that you can get a guy that can score the ball that way. But as I went on, I started to think that he’s going to take time from some of the players that we want to develop, he’s probably not going to be there when the team is at its full strength down the road, and so we’re better off sticking with what we’ve got.
“And trying to add to that, if we do, it’ll be with people we think we can go forward with. Our goal this year was to develop the young players and to see which of the young veterans we have fit into what we want to do in the future.”
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4674184
He’s not exactly pushing the Curry angle real hard. I don’t see much guile there.
Just saying…
And here’s one from the Post where you can see DW’s words in context. Not exactly saying Eddy is THE REASON the Knicks passed on AI, as JLS suggests:
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/knicks_deal_with_allen_iverson_dead_35LzRZcKcsUX8RRcooWOZO
@ dan I agree that all of it is in the eye of the beholder. The spins are all over the place. PR, Lies, Whatever.
@jon I guess we can all understand that you are a true follower of the Gospel according to DW. While I do think that he has some flexibility with some of the cap space as we still have no idea what the number is. That could be his “secret” Stern told him what it is>>> It could be anything and each week everyone seems to have a speculation. Thanks for the assist JLS. Anyway there is always misinformation coming out of Camp Cablevision one way or the other so please lets not forget that
@ Virgil: Look, I’m not trying to argue that DW is perfect. It’s definitely fair to criticize the Hill pick at this point or the decision to pass on Iverson in and of itself. I’ve always thought he was foolish for trying to make the playoffs last season instead of dealing off pieces and working to get as high a draft pick as possible.
Alls I’m saying is that there’s not a whole lot of evidence that he’s a guy that spins situations or tries to mislead the fanbase. That was more Isiah’s racket.
Moreover, I just can’t see any upside for him for telling reporters that he had some extra leeway under the salary cap that nobody talks about if it wasn’t true. Especially since the entire Knicks fanbase is totally consumed with the team’s cap number for 2010. Even if he was a liar, only an idiot (Isiah perhaps) would lie about something like that.
So if he’s hinted that he has some extra cap space (and he has), then I think he probably does. And my first comment was only intended to point out that it’s possible, just possible, that Dan’s post could pertain to the extra space he’s referenced.
[...] more: How The Knicks Can Save Another $3.5 To $9 Million For 2010. | The … Posted in Buyout | Tags: 3-5-million-, a-new-contract, accept-such, first, his-option, [...]
I also think that “spin” or “misinformation” is not a strategy that DW has monopolized. Obviously, Isiah was the master, but “spin” is everywhere in sports. Look at Belichek, Larry Brown, Nate Robinson and his agent, the New York Post, Stephon Marbury, Allen Iverson and the Grizzlies.
By and large anytime there’s conflict there are parties who are self interested and the result is spin. For the most part I think it’s fairly easy to call out the side that is consistently full of it. Here, I just don’t think it’s DW. I see no reason for him to say there is some potential added flexibility. I don’t know what his angle would be to say that. He already has the most cap room of any NBA team this summer (the Nets have a high first rounder that will put them behind NY).
lol Jon if i didn;t pick an argument with you today i would be bored out of my mind
I m just givn us something to talk about. these football games suck today
Lol! Fair enough. That Giants game was just unwatchable. Nice way to close the place down.
It’s all good. I’m always up for some debate and I’m always happy when there’s a healthy discourse going here.
Man, I hope the Knicks play well today. I can’t watch them get blown out by 20 two hours after the Giants got spanked by 30 to close down the Meadowlands…
well at least we had thejets do something no one expected them to do.
@Virgil
“Thanks for the assist JLS. ”
No problem. And I’m a fan of what DW is trying to do. I’m just not going all in. I think that’s a prudent way of viewing this current administration after the past decade of futility we’ve been subjected to. I’m always happy when the team is winning. However, there are some things that are beneath the surface that still smacks of the negative culture that always seems to lie at the feet of the players instead of the management that breeds this culture.
I stopped posting on this subject after a point but, I do think it’s unprofessional to waste N8 on the bench when he can be useful in spurts. I’m not saying to put him back in at whatever minutes he was playing, but this team is not that good to be pushing a 6 man rotation. We need all hands on deck. That includes an in-shape Curry as well. I mean, hell, use him as a big body and tell him “you’ve got 6 fouls to give. use them all”. I mean, MD has been able to modify his offensive system to collect wins. So it’s not like he’s incapable of making more adjustments and fitting a system around players.
I thought the point is to pawn these guys off onto some other team for cap space. So, why not play to their strengths while working around the weaknesses? Their doing it for Jeffries, Duhon and Harrington. N8 gives you scoring. Use him when you need instant offense. Give him 15 mpg and distribute it mostly when we’re down by “X” amount of points and the team needs energy. Keep him on a tight leash. If we comfortably keep a lead, then we didn’t need him that night. Who can argue with that? I already mentioned what to do with Curry. Who doesn’t need 7 ft of height?
I’m not comprehending MD’s inflexibilility. Maybe it’s because I figured he did his research and knew what he signed on for when he accepted the job. It’s equally as arrogant as these same players that are presumably getting the blame from the fans.
I’m sure others feel different so let me get in front of it by saying “agree to disagree”…
JLS125
I go along with the “idea” of playing a short rotation because I agree that it gives the Knicks their best chance of winning games right now, but I have to agree that in some situations it makes sense to tweak things.
There are times when it’s clear the offense is off, the defense is taking away the pick n roll, etc…. and a few minutes of Nate simply can’t hurt that much.
He’s a bit of a black hole with the ball, but so is Harrington.
He does stupid things a little too often, but so does Harrington.
I really don’t see the difference other than Harrington is not trying to not be an idiot, he just can’t help it. Nate seems to enjoy being an idiot. lol
agreed on all points stallion and Jls
Harrington is coachable.
Harrington doesn’t ignore the defensive side of the game.
Harrington doesn’t shoot at the wrong basket, give up on plays, give up height, act like he’s the only guy on the team, act like he’s accomplished something because he scores a basket with the team down 20, have a miserable record in games in which he has played more than 20 minutes, talk back to the coach and the assistant coach.
I’m sure I’m forgetting many things.
I have to say it’s a little hard for me to understand how people fail to trust results and their own eyes.
Don’t results mean anything when it comes to Nate and Curry?
In games Curry has played lately he’s killed the flow of the offense, to the point where the team couldn’t get it back even when hes been off the court. The Knicks have lost.
Same with Nate. How do you argue with the numbers?
Frankly, if all you want is 6 fouls, put me in the game. I think the Knicks would lose though. Having six fouls is not a reason to play Curry. Should Jerome James have gotten minutes on this basis?
I don’t know if you guys remember but both Pat Riley and Jeff Van Gundy rarely played more than 8 players in regular rotation. If a ninth guy ever played it wasn’t for more than a few minutes, and it was usually a gritty hustle defensive guy who nobody expected to score, like Anthony Bonner.
You know, Lee Nailon could score as well as anyone but the Knicks were a bad team when he got minutes.
I also remember in John Wallace’s rookie year when he couldn’t get off the bench I went to a game and a we want wallace cheer broke out. Van Gundy didn’t put him in.
Eddy Curry is good for six fouls?
I just really don’t get that. Have you seen him try to play defense?
What’s his role, to go out there and get the Knicks into the penalty as fast as he can?
Chris Dudley was good for six fouls. Buck Williams was good for six fouls.
the results are fine. happy to see winning basketball. just saying that we’re trying to move contracts and create cap space for 2010 more than winning games. it’s just a fact. if we were happy with winning results then we wouldn’t have traded randolph and crawford as fast as we did. the team was playing very well.
but like i said earlier i agree to disagree on this.
1. Jeffries has no reason to take a buy-out. He is a favored player in D’Antoni’s rotation and is having the time of his life. The proof will be that it will not happen. DW will not do a buyout. The contract and the player are too valuable to let go for nothing. NOTHING. The proof will be that DW will not do it.
2. Nate will be back in the rotation. JLS is absolutely right about MD’s incomprehensible inflexibility except that he coaches more by feel (superstition and intuition) than by logic. The short rotation makes no sense when it short circuits your ability to score and win. Nate’s firepower will be needed and D’Antoni will concede. It’s a long season and he has already advised that Nate will be back. It’s a long season and Nate just has to wait. (Although I disagree with MD)
3. Nate may be immature but he has for the most part been very coachable. For the past three years, he has been misused. He was the sixth man fixer for our penchant for double digit deficits. How can you be a winner, when your coaches put you in to clean up the starters mess. Last year, he worked very hard to be a little more for D’Antoni than a shooter, but D’Antoni’s stubborn refusal to recognize that Duhon sucks and his insistence that Nate and teh rest of the Knicks shoot open tres was as much bad coaching as bad decision making by the players.
4. Dan, what do you think about us going 0-2 in the last two games. Our December record is starting to dip a little. Unexpected?
O yeah Dan You forgot Al doesn’t hang on the rim twice and cost the team the game.
OOPS my bad he does do that.
Yea. I know there’s plenty of people out there who want the Knicks to swoon again so they can say thatD’Antoni is a bad bad coach and the Knicks are a bad team and the key the Knicks success would be for Nate and Eddy to play 48 minutes and to bring back Marbury and fire D’Antoni, but that’s just wrong.
JLS, I’d play Curry every minute of every game if it meant the Knicks could trade him soon but when he’s playing he plays poorly and the Knicks lose. Zach and Jamal were playing well and the Knicks were winning and that’s why they were traded when prior, the were considered untradeable. Jeffries was considered unmovable until the good December.
Showcasing only works if there is something to showcase.
You have me on that one Virgil but I still choose Harrington over Nate 100 times out of 100.
Jeffries would take a buyout if the team made it clear that they didn’t want him and he thought he could recoup the money on the open market. Simple as that.
I don’t think it’ll come to that, though, because Jeffries is becoming pretty movable in a trade.
I agree that Curry is unlikely to give up $5.5 million given his well documented financial struggles.
While I think there’s merit to what Stallion and JLS say (why just bury a guy even when he can help once in a while?), I don’t Nate will be back in the rotation. Like him or not, D’Antoni is the coach of this team and he’s going to be for a while. He clearly has no use for Nate and the team is playing much better.
Dan,
I don’t think it’s correct to assume that the Knicks went on favorable run because Nate is not on the court. He has too long a record with the Knicks where his Adjusted +/- was one of the best on the team to think all those years were an accident and a handful of games when he’s off are meaningful. I think it’s possible the Knicks would have won an extra game two if Nate was used very selectively.
I definitely agree that there are some downsides to him being on the court and I also certainly agree that he behaves like an idiot a lot of the time. But he has uses. Ultimately, if he winds up on a good team and is used as a 6th man when the offense needs a spark, I think he’s going to prove to be very valuable.
Curry on the other hand has a long statistical record of ineptness and a terrible +/- every season he’s played for us. There’ no question he’s been terrible so far this year and was never that good to begin with.
Jon,
I don’t disagree with the points you are making, but I still think Harrington is as much of an idiot as Nate. I even think Harrington is a fairly poor PF. He doesn’t board, is mediocre on defense against the bigger PFs, doesn’t block shots, is a black hole with the ball, and doesn’t score efficiently because he spends too much time shooting from the outside etc.. Those are all things you get from good PFs. He’s more of a SF playing out of position.
He even just got a idiotic technical foul at a key point in the Miami game when he didn’t get a call. That could easily have cost us the game. When he hits a shot he does the same chest pounding as Nate while running up the court (even when he’s having a terrible overall game).
The difference is that he wants to be a good player and listens. Nate does not.
I don’t disagree with any of that. Al is a bit of a bonehead and a very one dimensional player. While I don’t think Al is a bad guy (I don’t think Nate is either for that matter) neither player is all that great and both are poor fits in this system.
Actually, I think I disagree with your comment to Dan about Nate someday being a valuable 6th man. I always thought that Jamal’s best role was primary scorer off the bench and I think he’s proven he can excel in that spot on a contender. But Jamal is a consummate professional. Nate would have to undergo a truly miraculous transformation as a human being before I’d believe he could be trusted with a vital role on a good team.
While I think Nate is a talented guy, I think his niche in the NBA will ultimately be as a change of pace guy that coaches deploy judiciously for an energy boost a la Jannero Pargo or Eddie House. And, while Nate is obviously more talented than those guys, I’m not convinced he’ll ever be as trustworthy as either one of them.