Sorry, can't clarify.
That contradicts everything I've read on here.
Chris Sheridan of ESPN said this in his most recent chat:
Chris Sheridan (3:44 PM)
Yes, that is understood. And to clarify for everyone, if the Knicks get LeBron they CANNOT afford to keep David Lee. They won't have enough space left (unless they deal Jeffries/Curry for expiring contracts by Feb. 18). what they can do, however, is use David Lee/Nate Robinson/Al Harrington/Larry Hughes in a sign-and-trade deal to bring in a second max player. That is their Plan A.
What makes Donnie Walsh think that Lee and Nate will agree to being signed and traded somewhere to help the Knicks land a second max guy?
Chris Sheridan (3:54 PM)
Because that's how they can get paid the most money. Lee has been the most underpaid player in the NBA for four of his five years (he was the 30th pick of the 1st round, meaning he was locked into a low rookie scale number for his first 4 years), and he's producing like a $10-12 million per year player. Donnie did David a favor my bumping his saary to $7 million rather thanh making him sign for the qualifying offer, and that did two things: It bought some goodwill from Lee, and it ensures that Lee (and Robinson, who also got a bump) will not be base-year compensation playrs on July 1, thereby making it easier to move them in sign-and-trade(s).
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
I'm not sure Sheridan knows his ass from his elbows. Is anyone familiar with sign-and-trade deals?
Is it actually possible for Donnie to go this route to get two max free agents? Sign Lee, Nate, Harrington and Hughes to get the 2nd max?
I don't think this is possible because we can't sign them and go over the cap. But can someone please verify? And if it is possible, by going over the cap for a sign and trade, does it then make the MLE available to us?
LJ, if you don't know, nobody on this board will know...but I'll try my hand.
At least giving it a glazing overview, maybe it would work out where we would retain Bird-rights for guys such as Lee, Nate, and sign them over the cap (which under Bird-rights we are entitled to do). Then, trade them away to a team for deals expiring or cancellable.
I don't know, I'm really not familiar enough with it to speak on it. I bet there's some one way that it is do-able, I just don't know how.
I'm thinking Chris Sheridan doesn't know squat about Bird Rights and cap space. What a blowhard.
It's this dude's job to know about this stuff. He gets paid (probably a lot of money too) to know the ins and outs of professional sports. And me, on the other hand, who has a full time job outside of sports, probably knows more about it than this guy. SMH.
DANUTZ and Oldtimer are also very knowledgeable posters. Maybe they know?
I generally look to the Collective Bargaining Agreement to determine what is permissible. I would not even know where to begin in an attempt to verify what Sheiridan is talking about. As LJ4PtPlay and others have pointed out, it makes no sense.
The Cap space we have been projecting for the Knicks assumes that we renounce our Bird rights to the expiring contracts of Lee, Robinson, Harrington, etc. If we were to sign and trade all of them and get no contracts in return, we end up with the same cap space we are projecting if we renounce. Whatever we get back for the sign and trades that reaches into 2010 will reduce our projected cap space.
If we do not renounce, we do not have enough cap space to sign LeBron as the 1st max contract. A sign and trade could get us a max contract, for example Bosh or Amare, but this max would then interfere with signing LeBron.
If LeBron comes to New York, which I doubt, he will not do it just to get a max contract. His basketball salary is a small portion of his annual income. Perhaps he will take less so that the Knicks can keep Lee and perhaps Lee will take less than his market value to stay in New York and play with Lebron.
78. Can a free agent be signed and immediately traded?
Under no circumstances can a team sign and then trade another team's free agent. But there is a rule that allows teams to re-sign their own free agents for trading purposes, called the sign-and-trade rule. Under the sign-and-trade rule, the player is re-signed and immediately traded to another team. This is done by adding a clause to the contract which stipulates that the contract is invalid if the player's rights are not traded to the specific team within 48 hours.
A sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players who have been renounced, but cannot be made when the player is signed using the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual or Disabled Player exceptions. Sign-and-trade contracts must be for three years or longer, but only the first season of the contract must be guaranteed. The three year minimum (even though the last two seasons may be non-guaranteed) ensures that the new team will not acquire Bird rights to the player any sooner than if they had signed him directly, because they would have to waive him, after which they wouldn't be able to use Bird rights (see question number 25).
One complication with sign-and-trade deals is that the signed player can immediately become a BYC player (see question number 75 for more information on BYC), so the player's BYC value must be used when determining whether the trade is allowed.
If a sign-and-trade contract contains a signing bonus, then either team can pay it. By default the team that signs the player pays the signing bonus (as with any other contract), but since a sign-and-trade is in essence a contract with the receiving team, the teams can agree that the receiving team will pay it. However, any portion that is paid by the signing team counts toward the $3 million limit for cash included in a trade (which in effect limits the portion of a signing bonus that can be paid by the signing team to $3 million).
If a sign-and-trade contract contains a trade bonus, then the bonus is not earned upon the trade that accompanies the signing, but rather on the first subsequent trade.
80. Why would teams or players want to do a sign-and-trade?
Teams benefit because it allows them to get something in return for players they would otherwise lose to free agency. Players benefit because they can get a richer contract, and/or play for a team that is over the salary cap and otherwise wouldn't be able to afford them. Unlike the new team, the player's original team can use the various Bird exceptions (as long as the player qualifies) to sign the player without regard to the cap. Also, if the player's original team has full Bird rights, they can offer the player larger raises (10.5%, as opposed to 8%) and more seasons (six, as opposed to five -- see question number 46 for more information).
So sign-and-trade is a useful tool for teams that are capped-out and unable to offer players large contracts.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
I guess this just confuses me more. It says sign-and-trades can occur even when a player is renounced...but it also says it is useful for teams that are capped out.
I can't find anything that says a team can (or can not) go over the cap in sign-and-trade deals.
it is very confusing... thank god we have donnie...or is it heaven help us....
The sign and trade information that LJ4PtPlay found should not logically apply to Sheridan's comments about a second max. I am surprised at the suggestion, however, that despite renouncing Bird rights, an original team can still do a sign and trade.
The sign and trade rules simply permit a team with Bird rights to get something back for the free agent it really does not want to retain at the price he can get on the market. But what it gets back becomes part of its cap.
Now if the Knicks can (1) renounce their Bird rights to Lee etc., (2) sign leBron with the cap space thereby produced, (3) sign and trade one or more of the renounced payers to (4) a team with similar sign and trade rights to a max player whom it has signed for that purpose, then perhaps Sheridan is right. For example, we sign and trade Lee and Nate for a combined max amount to Toronto who gives us a signed and traded Bosh at the max.
I just do not understand how we would continue to have Bird rrights to players whose Bird rights we have renounced.
i think it'll be difficult to do that with both.walsh should have given lee a 14 mill 2 year deal.it wouldn't have eaten into the capspace(at least as currently projected) and lee would have been a more valuable trade chip.
now, the only logical way for us to get any value from him is by either packaging him with one of our prospects or two, for crap an a pick; or to a team that is lacking in the frontcourt, or to a playoff team looking for some efficient scoring to put them over the hump.
the jazz blazers and warriors fit some of that criteria.
maybe the jazz would send our pick back if they got lee and gallo?
the warriors have no frontline to speak of with the exception of bedriens and randolph, who's a stick figure and should be a sf for the time being, and they have no capspace for a year or 2 depending on the randolph situation. maybe they'd part with their pick and crap if they got lee + gallinari or hill and chandler?
the blazers frontline is in bad shape, if they added lee they could possibly have a rotation at the frontline that would be crazy scary for years to come.
oden/Aldridge and pryz/lee spliting the minutes between the four, i'd go as far as to say they would contend for a championship next year.
i don't think they are going to part with bayless or batum, so fernandez is the odd man out.
phoenix could be a player too.i'd take robin from them.
all i know is, some of these assets we got got to get moved so this team is a better fitted, and not a total mismatch for longer or more atheletic teams.
Last edited by ANU; Feb 09, 2010 at 14:21.
OK here is my two cents.
C Sherridan scenario could work but there are some variables that have to be right before something like that can happend.
1. we have to know what the salary cap will be.
2. who will be on our rooster comes july 1 2010
Let say the cap is 54mill.
1. We are on the books for 27.336 mill which leave us with 26.664 mill.
2. If we sign a max (16.2mill) we will still have 10.464 mill left and 7 players under contract.
3. we add 5 minimum cap holds at 475k each(2.375mil.) and we are left with 8.089 mill.
4. If we can buyout curry and/or jeffries(and they may do it so they can sign new deals under the current CBA) we can gain an additional 3-4 mill. Then we can have enough to keep DLEE bird rights(10.5mill) and the 2 extra minimum cap holds (950k).
5. then we can go over the cap and do a sign and trade for dlee in order to get a second max.
6. if we renounce Dlee we can still S&T him but only for whatever cap we have left(can't go over) which will be 10.5-11 mill. Dlee sallary needs to be at least 12 mill in order for us to get back a max 16.2 mill(125% trade rule) so another player(s) or team(s) have to be involved.
Therefore, some sort of trades(jeffries) or buyouts(curry or jeffries) and a salary cap of at least 54 mill has to be in place before that can happend.
That being said for the bolded parts this is how I think it works.
1. A team can S&T its free agent regardless if they hold their bird rights or they renounced. But if they have their bird rights a team can go over the cap and offer more money in order to get a even bigger contract back(max deal) We dont have to give Lee a max contract(125% trade rule) to get back a max. Now if we renounce his rights we can only do a S&T for whatever is left on the cap which won't be egnough to get back a max.
Under no circumstances a team can S&T other teams free agents or renounced players.
2. Assuming we renounce Nate and Lee bird rights(can't go over the cap after) and we only have about 10-11 mill left on the cap is imposible to S&T them for a max because a) trade wont work money wise, b) Nate and Lee sallary demands combined will be more than 10-11 mill.
DANUTZ39's posts make good sense, but Sheridan still does not.
As DANUTZ39 points out, the ability to sign and trade without Bird rights has virtually no value. The other team could sign Nate and Lee to the same amount without trading anything.
DANUTZ suggests in his earlier post that a buy-out of Jefferies and/or Curry would produce some reduction in Team Salary and thus increase the Cap space for 2010. i recall seeing that point made before but could not confirm it from a cursory review of the CBA. I hope he is right.
maybe the jazz would send our pick back if they got lee and gallo?
lets do it now... so we can really tank the season..
If I remember correctly, sign and trades are used specifically for that reason - teams can't go over the cap to sign existing free agents, but if they retain a player's bird rights they can go over the cap to sign that player to a contract and then trade him for an equally large contract so long as the salary cap matches.
But this has nothing to do with the Knicks because we're not retaining Lee/Nate/etc.'s Bird rights because it'd eat into our salary cap.