# Rasheed a knick in the offseason



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

Article


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> But the Knicks, as currently constructed, don't have the necessary resources to snatch Rashweed and/or Ruben Patterson. And, if Isiah Thomas doesn't have them by the time the Feb. 19 trade deadline expires, it's safe to assume he won't have them for a sign-and-trade come summer.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

I think the point was Portland is thinking to let him just walk at the end of the season and he'd become a Knick thru free agency. That doesn't require resources other than money, which doesn't seem to be in short supply around here.


----------



## 82 (Jul 11, 2002)

I'm more suprised at his all start selections. Boozer but no K-Mart or Lebron?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

The Knicks may not be short on cash, but they are short on cap space. Unless you think Rasheed will sign for the veteran's minimum.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Rashidi, you probably understand this contractual stuff better than I. The article says Wallace might be willing to take a mid-level exemption to be with NY, which would cost around 5mil the first year.

So what is the implication of that? Would we simply need to drop that much salary first to be allowed to do that, say by buying out Shandon's contract?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

The Knicks can sign Wallace with the MIE, assuming they HAVE an MIE. They used it on Lampe last year, and you only get 1 every 2 years. I don't know the specifications of "1 every 2 years" though.

It could mean that after you use your MIE, you can't use it for 2 years.

Or it could mean that every 2 years, teams get a new MIE, regardless of whether or not they used it in the last two years. If that is so, then it is possible that the Knicks might be due for another full MIE.

However, if they do not get a new MIE, then they cannot sign Wallace with the full MIE (meaning he'd have to take about half of that or less) because half was given to Lampe this year.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Let's assume for the moment they have one, as that's what the gist of the article seems to imply. In using it do they have to dump any salary first or it's just a freebie to go that much higher over the cap?


----------



## hatnlvr (Aug 14, 2003)

But does it count if the player is no longer with the team?? The didn't use the full MLE on Lampe, they used a portion of it and Lampe is no longer a NY Knick.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

They don't have to dump salary. And even if they "dumped" Shandon(me) by waiving him, it wouldn't dump his salary.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> And even if they "dumped" Shandon(me) by waiving him, it wouldn't dump his salary.


I'm not so sure of that. When you buy a player out it doesn't mean you pay his (your) full salary. The buyout amount is negotiated. The bulls just bought out J Williams for 3 mil while owing him seven.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Theres a difference between a buyout and waiving. If Jay-Will is waived, another team can claim him. The Bulls don't want another team to claim him, and neither does Jay-Will.

Shandon(me) obviously has no interest in negotiating a buyout. If the team wants to dump him that badly, he'll be glad to take his free money. He has no incentive to negotiate a buyout. A buyout is mutual. Waivers are not.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> Shandon(me) obviously has no interest in negotiating a buyout.


SHANDON CAN BE SOLD ON IDEA OF KNICK BUYOUT:[SPORTS FINAL Edition]

FRANK ISOLA DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER._New York Daily News._New York, N.Y.:_Jan 30, 2004.__pg._90


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> "Who wouldn't want free money?" Anderson said, laughing. "If it happens it happens. If they come to me, me and my agent will entertain that."


Entertain.

He says "who wouldn't want free money".

Well, if he is boughtout for a lesser sum than what is listed on his contract, that's not exactly free money, is it?

Shandon will only be open to it if the money is close to what he is owed, because that way he can make up the rest of it in his next contract (since he is still good enough to make a lot of rotations).

The team definitely isn't close to doing it yet, and probably won't consider it until next year. Negotiating a buyout with a player that has the years and money he is owed isn't simple.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> The Knicks can sign Wallace with the MIE, assuming they HAVE an MIE. They used it on Lampe last year, and you only get 1 every 2 years. I don't know the specifications of "1 every 2 years" though.
> 
> It could mean that after you use your MIE, you can't use it for 2 years.
> ...


MLE you mean? You get one yearly if you are over the cap. Or under the cap by the MLE (amount itself). IE, ZO was signed from the Nets MLE this past year, the year before it was Rodney Rogers and Chris Childs.

-Petey


----------



## Tetsujin (May 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Entertain.
> ...


Sure... It is somewhat like getting "Free Money" as you're receiving money upfront without fulfilling the balance of your contractual obligation to the team.

Furthermore, if you consider time value of money, i.e. one dollar today is worth more than one dollar tomorrow as a result of inflation and other economical factors, receiving a lump sum payment today is a lot better than waiting for your money over time.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> It is somewhat like getting "Free Money" as you're receiving money upfront without fulfilling the balance of your contractual obligation to the team.


Who says the buyout would be given to him upfront? Teams pretty much always defer large payments. Obviously if they gave Shandon 20 million dollars with a snap of their fingers, , it would have quite an economic impact on Madison Square Garden.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

So getting back on topic, if I may, it seems the point of the article is that if Portland lets Rasheed walk at the end of the season it would be possible for the Knicks to sign him with the MLE, without having to give up anybody for him.

If it sounds too good to be true it probably is....


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Oh goody! Another contract!

The only way Rasheed takes the MIE is if he gets a 6 year deal like Juwan Howard did.

Wallace for six years...

He's more interesting as a rental than he is as a long term investment.


----------



## Tetsujin (May 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Who says the buyout would be given to him upfront? Teams pretty much always defer large payments. Obviously if they gave Shandon 20 million dollars with a snap of their fingers, , it would have quite an economic impact on Madison Square Garden.


Then its "free money" because Anderson would be receiving money from the Knicks over time for doing nothing and in turn free to sign another contract with another team.

However you want to look at it, it is "Free Money".


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

"Shandon(me) obviously has no interest in negotiating a buyout. If the team wants to dump him that badly, he'll be glad to take his free money. He has no incentive to negotiate a buyout."

Of course he(you),has interest in negotiating a buyout..Its just a matter of finding an equilibrium point..Think about it..

First off,Shandon departately want to play..The question is how much is he willing to "pay" for that....

Secondly,his agents job is to put feelers out and see what Shandon is worth on the open market...

Lets assume Shandon makes 8 mil per year..And lets assume Shandon has another team interested in him for 2 mil per year..

Logically,Shandon would want a 6 mil buyout to be whole...But maybe Shandon would be willing to give up 1 mill per,just to play elsewhere..Then his agent would ask for a 5 million dollar buyout..

As for lump sum vs deferred payment it is not really an issue in a low interest rate enviorment...If you know how to present value a lump sum,you will know that the discounting factor is negligible with rates this low


----------



## 82 (Jul 11, 2002)

with a contract buyout do teams actually do a pv calculation for the total value of the contract? When the Knicks bought out LJ's contract didn't Cablevision just pay him whatever the total amount of his contract was and not discount it back and then pay him the PV of the future cash flows?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

i would assume in a contract buyout,the PV effect is built in especially for the settlement of a long term contract when rates are really high...Its probably not specifically stated but definetly taken into consideration


----------



## 82 (Jul 11, 2002)

yeah, it would obviously make sense. I guess it's never mentioned being that the average fan wouldn't understand or care


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> They don't have to dump salary. And even if they "dumped" Shandon(me) by waiving him, it wouldn't dump his salary.





> Originally posted by <b>Tetsujin</b>!
> 
> 
> Then its "free money" because Anderson would be receiving money from the Knicks over time for doing nothing and in turn free to sign another contract with another team.
> ...



Hmmm not really. If a waived player is picked up by another team, im pretty sure the original salary is cleared off the teams books.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>shazha</b>!
> Hmmm not really. If a waived player is picked up by another team, im pretty sure the original salary is cleared off the teams books.


No. The difference still belongs to the team that waived him. IE Mutombo. IE Kemp...

-Petey


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> 
> 
> No. The difference still belongs to the team that waived him. IE Mutombo. IE Kemp...
> ...


ah k, thats what i kinda meant. i stand corrected.

There fore say the jazz, who have cap room want anderson back, and they sign him to half his salary, that would be a significant relief to the knicks. (considering they dont need him since demar is here!!  )


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> No. The difference still belongs to the team that waived him. IE Mutombo. IE Kemp...


If it weren't the case, then nobody in their right mind would pick up the waived player. Who in their right mind would pick up Mutombo if they had to pay him 17 million?


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> If it weren't the case, then nobody in their right mind would pick up the waived player. Who in their right mind would pick up Mutombo if they had to pay him 17 million?


I was replying to someone whom made a post that sounded otherwise...

-Petey


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

I know.


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

Rasheed rejects Portlands offRasheed rejects Portland's contract extension offer


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

I hope he goes to the Lakers, and that Shaq, Karl, Gary and Kobe, take turns throwing the ball at his head.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

I hope he goes to the Lakers, and that Shaq, Karl, Gary and Kobe, take turns throwing the ball at his head.

LOL....thats pretty #$$%^ funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------

