New York Knicks Forum Resources - Knicks CBA/Stats/Info/Links

[Starks1994]

I was at Saturday's game and its even more painful to watch Amar'e at the Garden than it does on TV. With the Knicks on the hook for the rest of his contract, are there any positive cap implications we can get if he retires? I know that the Knicks can apply for cap relief a year after his retirement date, but what kind of relief would that be?

[MKCATL]

I was at Saturday's game and its even more painful to watch Amar'e at the Garden than it does on TV. With the Knicks on the hook for the rest of his contract, are there any positive cap implications we can get if he retires? I know that the Knicks can apply for cap relief a year after his retirement date, but what kind of relief would that be?

Don't think it'd really matter at this point, by the time he'd retire there'd only be a year or so left on his contract.

[Marty McFly]

Hypothetically can we Sign and Trade Melo in the offseason? I know there were some rule changes regarding S&T's in the new CBA.

Spoiler:

It's possible but unlikely because contracts signed under the sign and trade provision are now limited to a max of four years and 4.5% raises. Exactly the same conditions a free agent would have without a sign and trade.
Basically if a free agent wants to leave and the other team has cap room then the player can sign as a free agent, no need to pursue a sign and trade for an additional guaranteed season and higher yearly raises. It's no longer possible under current CBA rules.

The new CBA eliminated the possibility of a player keeping his team hostage and forcing them to accept a sign and trade to a team under the cap in order to receive compensation. Under previous CBA rules, teams used to accept one or two draft picks (+ a trade exception) as compensation for a free agent in a sign and trade (Lebron or Bosh for example). Under previous CBA rules, the player could have his cake and eat it too (playing for the team of his choice and getting the max in terms of number of years and annual raises).
Now, technically a player can still be signed and traded to a team under the cap but there's no incentive for the player or the other team, the only real possibility is a sign and trade to a team over the cap (a team with no cap room or not enough cap room and thus no leverage to force the issue).

For example, if Melo wants to play for a team under the cap like the Lakers or another team, he can simply sign there as a free agent (like Dwight did last year with Houston), no need to pursue a sign and trade.
However, let's say Melo wants to win a championship now at all costs and wants to sign with the Spurs (obviously it's highly unlikely but it's just an example) then the only way he can sign with the Spurs is via sign and trade.
Obviously, as sign and trade transactions are limited to four years and 4.5% raises, Melo would need to take less money and I seriously doubt he will do that. So far, money has always been his top priority, that's why (unlike Lebron, Wade and Bosh) he signed a max rookie extension with Denver and didn't have an opt out clause in 2010, that's why he was looking for an extend and trade transaction and had no interest signing with the Knicks as a free agent after the lockout.

Dolan and the Knicks are probably already in panic mode and will give Melo everything he wants.
Melo will dictate the contract. Melo will be offered a max five year contract with 7.5% raises next summer and he will probably sign it.

Just like he did in Denver, Melo will force a trade if he's truly unhappy and wants to win a championship asap. In the end, i doubt he will. He's probably happy in NY and I don't think he's the kind of guy willing to sacrifice everything in order to win a championship, he's just happy playing basketball. And let's face it, even if there was a trade possibility, the Knicks would probably be fleeced...Knicks management showed they cant be trusted, they have no plan, no direction and no clue.

Sadly, it's already too late. Knicks will live and die with Melo for the rest of the decade. They just need to make the most out of it. Problem is free agent signings and trade transactions show current management have no real plan to win a championship with Melo. They just take it year by year and their only goal seem to be making the post-season. And if they can't then at the trade deadline, they'll just use the same formula (quick fixes). There's a so called 2015 plan but if the Knicks are under 0.500 at the trade deadline then they will probably go for a quick fix and pull the trigger on an ill-advised trade to make the headlines and appease the masses.

Same old, same old, Knicks once again traded for an all star player and never tried to assess if they had enough flexibility and assets moving forward to put a championship caliber team on the floor.
When there's no real plan, no direction, you're going to pay the price for it at some point and that's exactly what Knicks management's experiencing right now. They probably wish they still had the amnesty provision available right now. Steve Mills is in familiar territory, he's been there before with his buddy Isiah Thomas. The only real plan at the helm seem to be : hire Isiah's cronies (Glen Grunwald, Steve Mills) as President/GM...

well, this **** sucks.

[JVGDietCoke]

I know this is unlikely but curious to get peoples thoughts. What if Melo didn't opt out. Would him being a free agent in 2015 help the Knicks go after two max guys? Basically would they be able to go out and sign two guys and then use Melos bird rights to go over the cap? I know he would have a cap hold but curious about this. Doesn't this essentially extend Melo's contract another year, at a age when he'll probably be to old to get another max deal? If he wants to stay with the Knicks and build a winner, this doesn't seem outlandish to me.

[Nyk4lyfe]

I know this is unlikely but curious to get peoples thoughts. What if Melo didn't opt out. Would him being a free agent in 2015 help the Knicks go after two max guys? Basically would they be able to go out and sign two guys and then use Melos bird rights to go over the cap? I know he would have a cap hold but curious about this. Doesn't this essentially extend Melo's contract another year, at a age when he'll probably be to old to get another max deal? If he wants to stay with the Knicks and build a winner, this doesn't seem outlandish to me.

I think you have to either resign him first or else he has a crazy high cap hold. Not 100% sure

[navyblue]

I know this is unlikely but curious to get peoples thoughts. What if Melo didn't opt out. Would him being a free agent in 2015 help the Knicks go after two max guys? Basically would they be able to go out and sign two guys and then use Melos bird rights to go over the cap? I know he would have a cap hold but curious about this. Doesn't this essentially extend Melo's contract another year, at a age when he'll probably be to old to get another max deal? If he wants to stay with the Knicks and build a winner, this doesn't seem outlandish to me.

I think you have to either resign him first or else he has a crazy high cap hold. Not 100% sure

melo cap hold will be the maximum salary he is allowed under the cba.

[Nyk4lyfe]

I know this is unlikely but curious to get peoples thoughts. What if Melo didn't opt out. Would him being a free agent in 2015 help the Knicks go after two max guys? Basically would they be able to go out and sign two guys and then use Melos bird rights to go over the cap? I know he would have a cap hold but curious about this. Doesn't this essentially extend Melo's contract another year, at a age when he'll probably be to old to get another max deal? If he wants to stay with the Knicks and build a winner, this doesn't seem outlandish to me.

I think you have to either resign him first or else he has a crazy high cap hold. Not 100% sure

melo cap hold will be the maximum salary he is allowed under the cba.

Right

[GONYK]

I'm having a discussion with a poster who is saying that the Commissioner can unilaterally force an owner to sell the team.

Does anyone know if this is true? I would assume not, since the Commish works for the owner. I would think, at the very least, the Board of Governors (the rest of the owners) would have to want the move.

[seren]

I'm having a discussion with a poster who is saying that the Commissioner can unilaterally force an owner to sell the team.

Does anyone know if this is true? I would assume not, since the Commish works for the owner. I would think, at the very least, the Board of Governors (the rest of the owners) would have to want the move.

Of course he can not. Commissioner does not own anything. He is a paid employee. How can an employee force an owner to sell his business? Doesn't make any sense.

[kosmovitelli]

I'm having a discussion with a poster who is saying that the Commissioner can unilaterally force an owner to sell the team.

Does anyone know if this is true? I would assume not, since the Commish works for the owner. I would think, at the very least, the Board of Governors (the rest of the owners) would have to want the move.

If you want a comparison, the Commissioner is like the CEO in a corporation. Just like a CEO is usually appointed by a Board of Directors, the NBA Commissioner is appointed by the NBA Board of Governors.

Once he's appointed, the NBA Commissioner's responsibilities are far-reaching, he has to report to the Board of Governors but he's the boss. He can set the direction and the goals of the NBA. Just like a CEO needs to have the back of the Board of Directors, the Commissioner needs to make sure he has the support of the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors also elects a chairman (right now, it's Peter Holt, owner of the Spurs). The Commissioner and the Chairman of the NBA Board of Governors are the two most powerful men in the NBA.
The Commissioner and the NBA Board of Governors meet on the regular basis and if the Commissioner does a good job (and that's what Stern did overall during his tenure), he will have no problem to implement his basketball and business ideas. It's basically politics. You have 30 teams and 30 votes, the Commissioner just need to make sure he has enough votes to remain in power and continue to reign on the NBA. When a team's on sale or there's an importance change to discuss, the Commissioner and the Board of Governors usually refers to a Committee (for example a relocation committee if an owner wants to move his team) that will be in charge of the matter and then the NBA Board of Governors will reach a decision by vote.

Back to the original question, per se obviously the Commissioner can't force an owner to sell his team but he has authority to make a suggestion like that and the Board of Governors will duscuss the matter at the next meeting. The Commissioner will explain why the owner needs to be expelled from the NBA.
Obviously, it will never happen, unless an owner has a conduct detrimental to the NBA, the Commissioner will never ask the Board of Governors to vote on a sensitive matter like that. It would ruin the reputation of that owner and the NBA will become less atractive for rich investors and wealthy entrepreneurs.

That said, just like he did with Dolan in 2007 (after the Larry Brown saga and the Anucha Browne-Sanders sex scandal), the Commissioner can put an owner on a tight leash and force him to make changes in his organization. The Anucha Browne-Sanders sex scandal and the trial irritated Stern and the NBA Board of Governors, it was bad publicity for the league. That's why Stern and the Board of Governors wanted Isiah out of the league and Stern suggested Walsh's name as potential successor to clean the house and restaure the reputation of the Knicks franchise.
Dolan had to eat crow and he hated it, he wanted to keep Isiah Thomas as GM/President. That's why as soon as Walsh cleaned the mess, Dolan tried everything he could to rehire Isiah Thomas. The league vetoed it on a technicality (conflict of interest) but the NBA Board of Governors made it clear (behind the scenes) they don't want Isiah back in the NBA at this point and that's why Isiah Thomas is focusing on business ventures and is no longer pursuing a job in the NBA. He tried with the NBPA (the players union) but they didn't want him.
Dolan usually never takes no as an answer but this time, he had to accept it and that's why he said last week in an interview it would be unfair for Isiah to rehire him and he wouldn't get a fair shake. The reality is Isiah is unwanted in the NBA.

About the future of the Knicks ownership, it's doom and gloom. The Knicks are the most valuable franchise in the NBA and with a looming lucrative new tv deal in 2016, Knicks and most NBA teams have seen their value go significantly up the past two years. After the lock-out ended, owers and players signed a 10-year pact more favorable to the owners, combined with TV broadcast rights soaring, it makes the NBA more appealing for investors and advertisers. The value of the Knicks right now is approx $1.1 billion ! When Dolan took over as President of MSG in 2001, the Knicks were worth $392 million. Knicks only won one playoff series in 12 years but the value of the team tripled. Don't expect Cablevision to sell the team anytime soon. Our only hope is Dolan no longer being interested by MSG. Right now, after the spin-off, Jimmy Dolan is the chairman of both Madison Square Garden Company and Cablevision. Our only hope is he quits being the chairman of MSG in order to focus entirely on Cablevision...

[seren]

Kosmo, by going your example, wouldn't each of these team owners be equivalent to a shareholder? I don't know how a company can force a shareholder to sell his shares. They can try to make the life miserable for him I suppose, but I don't think they have the authority of making him sell.

[kosmovitelli]

Kosmo, by going your example, wouldn't each of these team owners be equivalent to a shareholder? I don't know how a company can force a shareholder to sell his shares. They can try to make the life miserable for him I suppose, but I don't think they have the authority of making him sell.

Yes, technically you could argue an owner is the equivalent of a shareholder. The NBA Constitution defines the NBA as a joint venture organized to operate a league consisting of professional basketball teams each of which shall be operated by a member of the Association. All aspects of the transfer of membership are covered in the NBA Constitution (articles 7 and 8 in particular).

As I said in my previous post, although the Commissioner and the NBA Board of Governors could in theory force an onwer to sell, it will never happen. When he buys a team (and consequently the right to be a member of the Association) an owner has several obligations (specified by the NBA Constitution) and as long as he complies, there's no reason to impeach an owner. Especially when there's a grey area like misconduct (Anucha Browne-Sanders sex scandal for example and how it tarnished the league's reputation in the short term) but it's taken care of by the NBA Board of Governors and Commissioner secretly behind closed doors and nothing goes public.

If you go way back, you have the infamous Sam Schulman who was the owner of the Seattle SuperSonics from 1966 until 1983 and he basically alienated all the other members and all of them wanted him gone. Sam Schulman was very stubborn but he was a skilled terrific negotiator. He would never quit. Owners hated his guts and how he used to run his business but they couldn't do anything about it because he's done nothing wrong legally.

Sam Schulman became famous when he signed Spencer Haywood (in defiance of the NBA rule that said a player could not be signed until four years after he graduated from high school). The league tried to veto but Schulman took the case to the Supreme Court and they ruled in his favor. Before he pulled the trigger and lured Haywood to Seattle (from the ABA), several other NBA teams, including the Lakers, Milwaukee, Boston, New York, Buffalo, San Francisco, Atlanta, Phoenix, and Cincinatti, had been trying to lure Haywood to the NBA. For example, Red Auerbach wanted Haywood but none of them dared because it was illegal to sign players whose college class had not yet graduated. Sam Schulman became even more hated. He was basically the Mark Cuban of the 70s. The ruling of the Supreme Court led to a revision of the NBA policy. At the time, the first CBA (1970-1973) had just been signed.

The Commissioner and the Board of Governors hated Sam Schulman and used to make things difficult for him. For example, Robert Schmertz (owner of the Boston Celtics) sold the team to Harold Lipton and Irving Levine in april 1972. The NBA Board of Governors refused to approve the sale (because Levine was alledgely a friend of Sam Schulman and they were afraid he would help Schulman gain more power (the NBA wanted Sam Schulman to remain isolated). The Board of Governors claimed it was a matter of conflict of interest (Levine and Schulman were both on the National General Corporation’s Board of Directors). Robert Schmertz refused to repurchase the team and both Schmertz and the NBA were sued by Levine and Lipton. They won and reclaimed the Celtics. After Levine and Lipton were no longer on the NGC Board of Directors, the NBA had no other choice but to accept them as legit members.

Now that the league is more professional, you'll never see cases like that. Owners cooperate on a regular basis and when an owner becomes a problem, things are taken care of in house. The NBA is a monopoly, it's basically a cartel. They all need to cooperate and if there's a problem, an appointed committee and/or a meeting will resolve the matter by vote. Expelling a member is out of the question, things will never go that far as it will be bad publicity and detrimental to the league and business. Dolan's an idiot and a terrible owner (from a basketball perspective) but the value of the team tripled under his watch and the Knicks contribute a lot to revenue sharing. Things could be different if it was a team receiving from the league (luxury tax shares and other benefits) and not contributing that much to revenue sharing (a struggling small market team for example), the NBA Board of Governors could use a sex scandal, a police investigation or something like that against the owner if they want him out and think the NBA would generate more money without that owner. For the Knicks, it's a different story, all teams like raping the Knicks in trades and seeing them pay huge luxury tax fees.

[xNewYorkMadex]

Anybody know at what number is the tax level?

[Nyk4lyfe]

Kosmo, by going your example, wouldn't each of these team owners be equivalent to a shareholder? I don't know how a company can force a shareholder to sell his shares. They can try to make the life miserable for him I suppose, but I don't think they have the authority of making him sell.

Yes, technically you could argue an owner is the equivalent of a shareholder. The NBA Constitution defines the NBA as a joint venture organized to operate a league consisting of professional basketball teams each of which shall be operated by a member of the Association. All aspects of the transfer of membership are covered in the NBA Constitution (articles 7 and 8 in particular).

As I said in my previous post, although the Commissioner and the NBA Board of Governors could in theory force an onwer to sell, it will never happen. When he buys a team (and consequently the right to be a member of the Association) an owner has several obligations (specified by the NBA Constitution) and as long as he complies, there's no reason to impeach an owner. Especially when there's a grey area like misconduct (Anucha Browne-Sanders sex scandal for example and how it tarnished the league's reputation in the short term) but it's taken care of by the NBA Board of Governors and Commissioner secretly behind closed doors and nothing goes public.

If you go way back, you have the infamous Sam Schulman who was the owner of the Seattle SuperSonics from 1966 until 1983 and he basically alienated all the other members and all of them wanted him gone. Sam Schulman was very stubborn but he was a skilled terrific negotiator. He would never quit. Owners hated his guts and how he used to run his business but they couldn't do anything about it because he's done nothing wrong legally.

Sam Schulman became famous when he signed Spencer Haywood (in defiance of the NBA rule that said a player could not be signed until four years after he graduated from high school). The league tried to veto but Schulman took the case to the Supreme Court and they ruled in his favor. Before he pulled the trigger and lured Haywood to Seattle (from the ABA), several other NBA teams, including the Lakers, Milwaukee, Boston, New York, Buffalo, San Francisco, Atlanta, Phoenix, and Cincinatti, had been trying to lure Haywood to the NBA. For example, Red Auerbach wanted Haywood but none of them dared because it was illegal to sign players whose college class had not yet graduated. Sam Schulman became even more hated. He was basically the Mark Cuban of the 70s. The ruling of the Supreme Court led to a revision of the NBA policy. At the time, the first CBA (1970-1973) had just been signed.

The Commissioner and the Board of Governors hated Sam Schulman and used to make things difficult for him. For example, Robert Schmertz (owner of the Boston Celtics) sold the team to Harold Lipton and Irving Levine in april 1972. The NBA Board of Governors refused to approve the sale (because Levine was alledgely a friend of Sam Schulman and they were afraid he would help Schulman gain more power (the NBA wanted Sam Schulman to remain isolated). The Board of Governors claimed it was a matter of conflict of interest (Levine and Schulman were both on the National General Corporation’s Board of Directors). Robert Schmertz refused to repurchase the team and both Schmertz and the NBA were sued by Levine and Lipton. They won and reclaimed the Celtics. After Levine and Lipton were no longer on the NGC Board of Directors, the NBA had no other choice but to accept them as legit members.

Now that the league is more professional, you'll never see cases like that. Owners cooperate on a regular basis and when an owner becomes a problem, things are taken care of in house. The NBA is a monopoly, it's basically a cartel. They all need to cooperate and if there's a problem, an appointed committee and/or a meeting will resolve the matter by vote. Expelling a member is out of the question, things will never go that far as it will be bad publicity and detrimental to the league and business. Dolan's an idiot and a terrible owner (from a basketball perspective) but the value of the team tripled under his watch and the Knicks contribute a lot to revenue sharing. Things could be different if it was a team receiving from the league (luxury tax shares and other benefits) and not contributing that much to revenue sharing (a struggling small market team for example), the NBA Board of Governors could use a sex scandal, a police investigation or something like that against the owner if they want him out and think the NBA would generate more money without that owner. For the Knicks, it's a different story, all teams like raping the Knicks in trades and seeing them pay huge luxury tax fees.

Youre the man

[ibraheim718]

If Melo leaves and we let STAT and Chandler expire how much cap space will we have?

[Marty McFly]

If Melo leaves and we let STAT and Chandler expire how much cap space will we have?

we'd have 12.5 mill on the books and the current cap projection for 2014/2015 is 62 million.

[Kn1cksNation]

You think JR's mad?

http://instagram.com/p/ij3-rfNfHS/

Oh yeah he maddddddddddddd

[spaceballer]

Anybody know at what number is the tax level?

For the 2013-2014 season, it's $71.748M.

We don't know what it will be for 2014-2015 yet. They calculate it during the July Signing Moratorium by tallying up all the revenue from the previous season, and then announce the new tax level and new salary cap on the first day of the end of the July Moratorium when free agents are allowed to sign contracts.

[MKCATL]

Can someone tell me how we are going to field a competitive team next season under the current cba.

[Dunk93]

Jesus Christ stickying this thread probably wouldn't irritate me so much is the other ten stickies taking up the whole first page weren't about stuff no one cares about.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using RealGM Forums mobile app