RealGM

I agree I've lost it. But I'm intrigued by what Curry could do as a low post scorer/second unit center assuming he's healthy. We know we are getting absolutely zero from Gadz the next two years. Let's say we could dump Bell's contract in this thing also. Now we're neutral as to cost.

paulpressey25 wrote:

trwi7 wrote:Curry's deal is the same length as Gadz'. Which is why PP25 has lost it.

I agree I've lost it. But I'm intrigued by what Curry could do as a low post scorer/second unit center assuming he's healthy. We know we are getting absolutely zero from Gadz the next two years. Let's say we could dump Bell's contract in this thing also. Now we're neutral as to cost.

Would surprise me unless they already have a Ridnour trade worked out.

LUKE23 wrote:

Would surprise me unless they already have a Ridnour trade worked out.

Even if they had a Ridnour trade worked out, it would be an inexcusable and indefensible move.

DrugBust wrote:

LUKE23 wrote:Knicks fans think it's Duhon for Sessions.

Wouldn't surprise me.

europa wrote:

paulpressey25 wrote:

trwi7 wrote:Curry's deal is the same length as Gadz'. Which is why PP25 has lost it.

I agree I've lost it. But I'm intrigued by what Curry could do as a low post scorer/second unit center assuming he's healthy. We know we are getting absolutely zero from Gadz the next two years. Let's say we could dump Bell's contract in this thing also. Now we're neutral as to cost.

Just say no to Eddy Curry.

You'll be happy you did.

Trust me.

WRau1 wrote:Lee is a good fit w/ BJ.

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:I have bad feeling in my stomach that we will be seeing a lot of Chris Duhon next year.

paul wrote:[Eddy Curry is in a 4 way equal tie with Iverson, Starbury and Randolph for the 4 players in the entire league I would least like to see in a Bucks uniform

Here is an example of a BYC calculation: A player earned $2 million in 2004-05, after which he became a free agent. He then signs a new contract (re-signing with his previous team, which is over the salary cap) starting at $9 million. This player qualifies for BYC, so his trade value is the greater of his previous salary ($2 million) or 50% of his new salary ($4.5 million), or $4.5 million. So this player, who actually earns $9 million, is worth $4.5 million for trading purposes.

When comparing salaries for trade, teams use their own player's BYC value and the other player's full salary, even if the other player is also BYC. Here is a simple example -- two $5 million players, both of whom are re-signed (by teams over the cap) for $10 million. Both players become base year players whose base year amount is $5 million (50% of the new salary). If the teams want to trade these players for each other they compare their player's base year amount to the other player's full salary. So each team can take back a maximum of 125% plus $100,000 of their player's $5 million base year amount, or $6.35 million. They compare $6.35 million to the other player's full $10 million. $10 million is way too high, so this trade can't be done, even though the players' actual salaries match exactly.

blueedwards wrote:Yeah I check the NY board. WOW Theres something in the water there.

No you gonna have to live with Tinsley. Thats if hes there yet after we match the Sessions offer in a week. Most likely Philly will sign Tinsley before you guys.

LUKE23 wrote:Anyone want to translate this:

Here is an example of a BYC calculation: A player earned $2 million in 2004-05, after which he became a free agent. He then signs a new contract (re-signing with his previous team, which is over the salary cap) starting at $9 million. This player qualifies for BYC, so his trade value is the greater of his previous salary ($2 million) or 50% of his new salary ($4.5 million), or $4.5 million. So this player, who actually earns $9 million, is worth $4.5 million for trading purposes.

When comparing salaries for trade, teams use their own player's BYC value and the other player's full salary, even if the other player is also BYC. Here is a simple example -- two $5 million players, both of whom are re-signed (by teams over the cap) for $10 million. Both players become base year players whose base year amount is $5 million (50% of the new salary). If the teams want to trade these players for each other they compare their player's base year amount to the other player's full salary. So each team can take back a maximum of 125% plus $100,000 of their player's $5 million base year amount, or $6.35 million. They compare $6.35 million to the other player's full $10 million. $10 million is way too high, so this trade can't be done, even though the players' actual salaries match exactly.

kingofkingz wrote:

blueedwards wrote:Yeah I check the NY board. WOW Theres something in the water there.

look you guys came to our boards and started trolling, so why wouldnt we get mad. And every fanbase has homer inside them so if you want a discussion you agree with stick to your board. if not than come to our board and we chat.

And dont even say you havent trolled:

No you gonna have to live with Tinsley. Thats if hes there yet after we match the Sessions offer in a week. Most likely Philly will sign Tinsley before you guys.

Let's just say David Lee made $2 million last year and agrees to a S&T of $9 million. While his actual salary next year will be $9 million, his trade salary will only be $4.5 million. So a straight swap of Lee S&T at $9 million for a player on another team making $9 million wouldn't work since Lee's salary in a trade would only be $4.5 million, so the team trading Lee would have to send out more salary if they wanted the $9 million player.

blueedwards wrote:Well next time post realistic offers for S&T of Sessions. You guys over there act your getting Sessions for Duhon. lmao We will just match Session and skip a S&T if its gonna be for scrubs.

DrugBust wrote:Knicks are never going to give up that much cap space for 2010 just to sign Sessions. Curry is one of their big expiring deals.

LUKE23 wrote:

Let's just say David Lee made $2 million last year and agrees to a S&T of $9 million. While his actual salary next year will be $9 million, his trade salary will only be $4.5 million. So a straight swap of Lee S&T at $9 million for a player on another team making $9 million wouldn't work since Lee's salary in a trade would only be $4.5 million, so the team trading Lee would have to send out more salary if they wanted the $9 million player.

I get the half value thing, where I'm confused is if you're trading two BYC players, both sides have to view it as:

Knicks: Lee is worth $4.5M, Sessions $5.8M
Bucks: Sessions is worth $2.9M, Lee is worth $9M

is that correct? That twists my brain in a pretzel.