# Question for the cap gurus (Grinch?)



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

If we get far enough below the cap so that signing someone like LJ doesn't cap us out, can we still go over to sign a 2nd FA? For example, what if signing LeBron still leaves us 5 million under? Can we still offer a max contract to another FA? If not, how much COULD we offer? And even if we are are restricted in that way, we could still do an unbalanced trade right? Salaries would no longer have to match, correct?


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

It should be possible, as long as there is cap space, we can sign. But we will have to trade away a few more guys before that can happen.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I think you got to be below the cap enough to sign the player to the amount your paying him. For instance, if you wanted to offer two $12 million per year contracts your payroll would have have to be $24 million below the cap.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

The salary cap as it stands now is at 58.68 million and generally increases for the following year. Assuming the cap is set at 60 million for 2010, the Knicks will have 18.16 million in salary. That leaves them with 41 million in cap space. The max they can pay James is 17.15 million, so they will have 24.69 million. They could then sign Chris Bosh, leaving them with 7.54 million. If they are able to trade Eddy Curry for Mark Blount like is being thrown around, they would then have 18.81 million and could sign Dwyane Wade and still have 1.66 million remaining. They then have that 1.66 million to work with along with the M.L.E. Which is a contract up to 5.5 million and the L.L.E. which would be 1.75 million. Gallinari and Chandler would still be under contract as well. This is assuming they didn't use any draft picks however.


----------



## pr1ncejeffie (Nov 17, 2008)

urwhatueati8god said:


> The salary cap as it stands now is at 58.68 million and generally increases for the following year. Assuming the cap is set at 60 million for 2010, the Knicks will have 18.16 million in salary. That leaves them with 41 million in cap space. The max they can pay James is 17.15 million, so they will have 24.69 million. They could then sign Chris Bosh, leaving them with 7.54 million. If they are able to trade Eddy Curry for Mark Blount like is being thrown around, they would then have 18.81 million and could sign Dwyane Wade and still have 1.66 million remaining. They then have that 1.66 million to work with along with the M.L.E. Which is a contract up to 5.5 million and the L.L.E. which would be 1.75 million. Gallinari and Chandler would still be under contract as well. This is assuming they didn't use any draft picks however.


I think part of it is incorrect. You are right with the top half but the bottom half is wrong I believe. If you're under the cap, you do not get a MLE or LLE. Only teams that are over the cap can receive a MLE or LLE. We still can sign players but just at minimum value.

If we trade Curry, which we will. We will only have 12 million on the books (Jared Jeffries, Ganillo and Chandler) but you guys must include 2009 first round pick. The 2010 first round goes to Utah (unprotected). And possibly a 2nd rounder or two.

So the numbers should go up by 16 million.

If the Cap is around 58 million we should have 40 million dollars to play with.

Lebron, Bosh, and co. will be on their 2nd contract meaning they can and will get max deals

If Lebron, Bosh and Wade really wants to play with each other, they will need to slash their demands and get a little under the max contract. Instead of 17m they will have to play for 12 to 13m. Of course this is NYC, their endorsement will go up through the roof and possibly double their endorsement right now. Playing in NYC can and will do that. Madison avenue is a cash cow for any player that wants to be here.

How to build a global icon?

Go to the biggest market, win in the biggest market. Easy access for world media to follow the team are big market cities. But madison avenue is the place to be if you want to globalize yourself.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

alphaorange said:


> If we get far enough below the cap so that signing someone like LJ doesn't cap us out, can we still go over to sign a 2nd FA? For example, what if signing LeBron still leaves us 5 million under? Can we still offer a max contract to another FA? If not, how much COULD we offer? And even if we are are restricted in that way, we could still do an unbalanced trade right? Salaries would no longer have to match, correct?


you can only offer the cap space you have you can not go over the cap in signing new players only to retain your own.


yeah we can go for other FA's, a dream plan i read in the paper is actually having enough to sign bosh , james and nash to a much lesser deal.

as of now the knicks have eddy , jeffries , nate, lee , galinari and wilson chandler on their payroll for 10-11.

in the summer of 2010 you have to assume eddy and jeffries will be gone, leaving nate and lee to be resigned while galineri and chandler are on their rookie deals.

i believe the cap holds on rookie deals are 300% of the qualifying offer , putting the duo of nate and lee at 16-17 mil. in summer of 2010....chances are in my opinion they will only keep nate and find a way to deal lee , most likely for a player on his rookie deal with a higher ceiling and quickly sign nate at substantially less than his nearly 9 mil cap hold.

you can offer a free agent whatever from a max level contract on down to the minimum if you have the that much below the salary cap...but that space can be worthless when signing FA'S if its below whatever the mle is because teams with space dont have the MLE to use they they can be outbid rather easily if its less than whatever the league determines the MLE to be., but still very useful in trading deals that no longer have to be all that close salarywise.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Thanks, guys...next question*

What IS the max for the available FAs? Is it the same for all? Are any likely to NOT command the max? I would think there may be some injury concerns about some of them before doling out long term contracts, such as Amare's micro fracture issues..AND even Wade's history of getting hurt. I also am not sure that having 3 of these guys is smart or necessary. LJ with any other plus a solid supporting cast tailored to the style and coach would be simply amazing. Don't forget, if LJ does sign here, Chandler is likely to get traded unless he can play SG or thrive at PF. If traded, he'll fetch a very good player in return. These are exciting times to think about, my friends. If they can sign 2 max guys and have $ left to get appropriate roles players, why would LJ NOT come? NYC, MSG, team of his players with likely the side kick of his choice, great style to play, and a chance for a dynasty. I just don't think anyone else can offer the same. If they pull this off.....


----------



## pr1ncejeffie (Nov 17, 2008)

the max isn't all the same. The first max contract is something like 6 years 90 million or something like that. The second max contract that players get (Rashard Lewis) gets something over 100 million.

Da Grinch.. Jeffries last year is 2010/11.. it is a player's option. You think he will decline it? I doubt it. He won't see that type of money ever. So you have to assume that Jeffries, Chandler, Gallinari, and 2009 first rounder will be on the books for the summer of 2010.

If they really want Jeffries contract gone.. they need to tack his contract with lee and Nate Rob.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Thanks, guys...next question*



alphaorange said:


> What IS the max for the available FAs? Is it the same for all? Are any likely to NOT command the max? I would think there may be some injury concerns about some of them before doling out long term contracts, such as Amare's micro fracture issues..AND even Wade's history of getting hurt. I also am not sure that having 3 of these guys is smart or necessary. LJ with any other plus a solid supporting cast tailored to the style and coach would be simply amazing. Don't forget, if LJ does sign here, Chandler is likely to get traded unless he can play SG or thrive at PF. If traded, he'll fetch a very good player in return. These are exciting times to think about, my friends. If they can sign 2 max guys and have $ left to get appropriate roles players, why would LJ NOT come? NYC, MSG, team of his players with likely the side kick of his choice, great style to play, and a chance for a dynasty. I just don't think anyone else can offer the same. If they pull this off.....


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q11

the league has stacked the deck in favor of the home team, no matter what the knicks offer the cavs can offer more...they can meet with him now and get his input on roster restructuring, whatever little things he wants .

its not like the knicks haven't been doing a bunch of wink , wink stuff behind the scenes,

from continuosly finding ways to give money to Lebron's agent.

when he was repesented by aaron goodwin the knicks signed 2 players he repesented jamal crawford and ...ahem vin baker whom they didn't need and was finished.

to the drafting of mardy and balkman who were represented by leon rose who was James' new agent.

jamison brewer , a leon rose client ...as is eddy curry(not sure if he was his agent when the knicks signed him , but i'd bet it is the case)...if you think a man with to my knowledge under 20 clients but has had 4 players become knicks over the past few years is an accident , I've got this bridge that leads from manhattan to brooklyn i'd like you to purchase.

to the very obvious plans to clear money for the summer run at free agents, 1 in particular.

the knicks have a shot ....i just dont think it will happen, not with this coach nor GM....but it wont be for a lack of effort from either thomas or walsh.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

pr1ncejeffie said:


> the max isn't all the same. The first max contract is something like 6 years 90 million or something like that. The second max contract that players get (Rashard Lewis) gets something over 100 million.
> 
> Da Grinch.. Jeffries last year is 2010/11.. it is a player's option. You think he will decline it? I doubt it. He won't see that type of money ever. So you have to assume that Jeffries, Chandler, Gallinari, and 2009 first rounder will be on the books for the summer of 2010.
> 
> If they really want Jeffries contract gone.. they need to tack his contract with lee and Nate Rob.


your maximum salary is based on your years in the league, Lewis got more because was a 9 yr. vet ,it was actually his 3rd contract btw.

i think jeffries will be dealt , he should look very good in D'antoni's system and like crawford and randolph , be sent away for a deal that ends by 7/1/10


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I actually have a question of my own as well. Let's assume that we use the $40 million worth of estimate cap space we'd have on FA's. Would it be possible to use our MLE then considering we'd be a team over the cap, having spent it all on FA's?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Thanks, guys...next question*



alphaorange said:


> What IS the max for the available FAs? Is it the same for all? Are any likely to NOT command the max? I would think there may be some injury concerns about some of them before doling out long term contracts, such as Amare's micro fracture issues..AND even Wade's history of getting hurt. I also am not sure that having 3 of these guys is smart or necessary. *LJ with any other plus a solid supporting cast tailored to the style and coach would be simply amazing. Don't forget, if LJ does sign here, Chandler is likely to get traded unless he can play SG or thrive at PF.* If traded, he'll fetch a very good player in return. These are exciting times to think about, my friends. If they can sign 2 max guys and have $ left to get appropriate roles players, why would LJ NOT come? NYC, MSG, team of his players with likely the side kick of his choice, great style to play, and a chance for a dynasty. I just don't think anyone else can offer the same. If they pull this off.....


It's because of those reasons that I felt last week's trades were a bit of an overkill. You don't need a host of other superstars with LeBron James to get to the Eastern Conference Finals every year. The dude has taken Cleveland there with their supporting cast twice already and most of them were never that good or on the tail ends of their careers; I honestly think Kevin Durant has a better supporting cast with the Thunder than James has with the Cavs. As much as people are talking about ditching Curry and Jefferies and Lee, I'd prefer to get some intangible value for them at this point because I find the liklihood that he signs not as promising as most do. Maybe thats why Walsh made sure to create this much cap space in 2010...to gaurantee we end up with 2 other major free agents to offset that 1 LeBron James signing should he fail to sign with us.

I also envision LeBron playing the 4 for us like he did in the Olympics. I always thought the 4 spot might make him an even better player under certain circumstances (cough, cough...Mike D'Antoni circumstances). That would give Wilson Chandler the opportunity to play the 3 for us. I still would consider using the guy for trade bait IMO.

P.S., does anyone think that we would not see the best out of LeBron or Bosh on the same team together? I think they play too similar a position and style for the both of them to do what they are doing now with their respective teams. This forces me to ask the question, why sign both to a max contract then if they are not going to be playing at the level we've seen them play? With that being said, I think Wade and Bosh are better fits next to each other.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> you can only offer the cap space you have you can not go over the cap in signing new players only to retain your own.
> 
> 
> yeah we can go for other FA's, a dream plan i read in the paper is actually having enough to sign bosh , james and nash to a much lesser deal.
> ...


If we're getting rid of Lee, we might as well get rid of Robinson. IMO, packaging them for an impact player would do the trick for me. I wouldn't have minded keeping them last year but after the performances Lee has been having this season, it might be best to trade him before the league takes notice of the decline in his game. The situation in Philly has me a bit interested because I think Igoudala is kind of in the same boat but with a lot of money attached to his name. He's probably unhappy and I know the Sixers are unhappy about his performance thus far. Those two along with contracts that extend till beyond 2010 (Curry, Jefferies) would get the deal done for me.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I actually have a question of my own as well. Let's assume that we use the $40 million worth of estimate cap space we'd have on FA's. Would it be possible to use our MLE then considering we'd be a team over the cap, having spent it all on FA's?


any team once over the cap can use the MLE.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> any team once over the cap can use the MLE.



So, technically we'd have $45-$46 million to spend during the 2010-2011 offseason. That's enough money to build an entire team.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> If we're getting rid of Lee, we might as well get rid of Robinson. IMO, packaging them for an impact player would do the trick for me. I wouldn't have minded keeping them last year but after the performances Lee has been having this season, it might be best to trade him before the league takes notice of the decline in his game. The situation in Philly has me a bit interested because I think Igoudala is kind of in the same boat but with a lot of money attached to his name. He's probably unhappy and I know the Sixers are unhappy about his performance thus far. Those two along with contracts that extend till beyond 2010 (Curry, Jefferies) would get the deal done for me.


I basically assume nate can be had for about 4-5 mil. a year ....but some1 will want to grossly overpay for lee, he might still avg. 15 and 10 this year with increased minutes...but in reality is worth about what nate is.

he is just a good 6th man....same as nate.

its probably wiser to deal them for a true impact player but unless you are going to take a chance on some1 who is flopping (tyrus thomas) or unproven (brendan wright) its probably not going to realistically happen.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Thanks, guys...next question*



Da Grinch said:


> http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q11
> 
> *the league has stacked the deck in favor of the home team, no matter what the knicks offer the cavs can offer more...they can meet with him now and get his input on roster restructuring, whatever little things he wants .*
> 
> ...


Say if the Cavs match the Knicks offer and one ups them in terms of dollars and years, does that mean LeBron is obligated to go back to the team? The way the papers have made it seem, players are obligated to go back to their team if they match. I recall the Charlie Bell situation with the Bucks, in which he wanted to go to Miami after being insulted by the Bucks offer and their in difference in signing him. He eventually went back to Milwaukee reluctantly but was that under his own free will?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Thanks, guys...next question*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Say if the Cavs match the Knicks offer and one ups them in terms of dollars and years, does that mean LeBron is obligated to go back to the team? The way the papers have made it seem, players are obligated to go back to their team if they match. I recall the Charlie Bell situation with the Bucks, in which he wanted to go to Miami after being insulted by the Bucks offer and their in difference in signing him. He eventually went back to Milwaukee reluctantly but was that under his own free will?


restricted free agents are signed to offer sheets and their teams can match them and keep them, unrestricted can go wherever for whatever and they dont need to go back to their previous team for any reason.

the cavs can offer more years on his contract and they can give him 12.5 % raises every year while a new team can only go as high as 10%, 

i dont remember bell's situation off hand. but if the heat just made an offer and not signed him to an offer sheet , he was a ufa and he just chose to come back, if he signed an offer sheet he was an rfa and had no choice in the matter.

lebron is unrestricted free agent in 2010.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> I basically assume nate can be had for about 4-5 mil. a year ....but some1 will want to grossly overpay for lee, he might still avg. 15 and 10 this year with increased minutes...but in reality is worth about what nate is.
> 
> he is just a good 6th man....same as nate.
> 
> its probably wiser to deal them for a true impact player but unless you are going to take a chance on some1 who is flopping (tyrus thomas) or unproven (brendan wright) its probably not going to realistically happen.


For some reason I think Nate is going to demand more and they'll be a big fiasco over his hold out. Maybe its just me but I see him demanding Leandro Barbosa kind of money (considering he's every bit as good as him), which neither player is worth. That deal started at $6 million per and ends at $7.6 million in the 5the 5th year of the deal. It's unlikely we'll be able to move Jefferies, who I don't see having a role on this team, so why not move both he and Robinson for Barbosa to avoid paying Robinson and making use of the money we'd owe to Jefferies?

I think I would be willing to take a chance on Brandan Wright for David Lee. He'd have enough time to develop behind the front court players we have and has the tools to be a pretty good player. I'd even give them cash to get back Marco Belinelli.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Thanks, guys...next question*



Da Grinch said:


> restricted free agents are signed to offer sheets and their teams can match them and keep them, unrestricted can go wherever for whatever and they dont need to go back to their previous team for any reason.
> 
> the cavs can offer more years on his contract and they can give him 12.5 % raises every year while a new team can only go as high as 10%,
> 
> ...


He was a restricted free agent and if what you said is true, why are we even bothering with these "free agents?" All of them will be restricted free agents and their teams will match every offer for them. It all goes back to my position that we should be collecting assets for 2010 rather than cap space to get these guys to New York. No team is going to see these caliber of players walk away for nothing if they have the right to keep them where they are, unless you could find something (not necessarily equal in value but benefitial) that might appease them in a sign and trade.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Twinkie....these guys are all going to be UNRESTRICTED*

FAs. I can see Bosh as a center in this system. I don't see any real similarity in their games at all. LJ will want a rebounding defensive presence, guys that defend and shoot at the others, and IMO, selflessness will be a high priority. Amare or Bosh fills number 1. Might there be enough for Joe Johnson? I think PG will be less of a factor sionce LJ has the ball so much, anyway. Lee is the perfect compliment to LJ and a defensive board-hound of a center.


----------



## pr1ncejeffie (Nov 17, 2008)

Nate is a restricted FA. No way in hell will Nate get more than Ben Gordon or even at the same pay scale. If Nate wants that then he can find another team. I don't 'want this team to overpay players like they did with the Isiah Thomas era. 

The reason why Walsh isn't giving an extension to lee or nate is because he is waiting to see how much teams are willing to pay for Lee or Nate. If the price is reasonable they will match the offer. I don't see Lee getting what he wants, which is 10m a year. Nor do I see Nate getting 8m.


----------

