Curry, Crawford, and Knicks 2010 cap

[drj]

Hi, this is a question about the Knicks attempt to create capspace for the 2010 FA market. I was wondering if there might be a tricky way for the Knicks to shave about 5m off cap, as follows:

1. Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford have opt-outs after this season. Assuming they do not opt out, they count for nearly 21.4m against the Knicks 2010 capspace (11.3 for Curry, 10.1 for Crawford [Hoopshype]). Barring breakout seasons, neither player is expected to opt out, on grounds that they would not make nearly as much in free agency.

2. So I was wondering if the following was legal:
(a) Knicks offer new contracts to Curry and Crawford as incentive to opt out
(b) The new contacts are structured to go DOWN in 2009, and DOWN again in 2010, and then RISE after that (they are basically structured to minimize the amount they count against the 2010 cap).

So the idea would be to offer the following option to Curry and Crawford after this season: "Opt out and we'll give each of you a 5yr/47m deal, structured at around 9m-8m-9m-10m-11m"?

3. If this is legal, and went through, Curry and Crawford would then only count for around 16m (rather than 21.4m) against 2010 cap. This winds up making a big difference -- by my calculations, with Curry and Crawford taking up 21.4m, the Knicks would need to move the very-hard-to-move Zach Randolph and his 17.3m 2010 caphold to clear space for a max FA. But with Curry and Crawford only taking up 16m, the Knicks would no longer need to move Zach. They would only need to move the not-as-hard-to-move Jared Jeffries and his 6.9m 2010 caphold to clear space for a max FA.

So, would this work? Is this legal?

[Dekko1]

One problem is the timeline. It does not work as an extension that I see and they can not legally negotiate a new contract after current one except under the extension rules.

They can not make any deals under the table and sure are not putting it in writing.
So if you are Curry are you going to trust giving up 22 million on a wink promise they will resign you for 5 more years?
"Gee" said Boozer "the cav's must have misunderstood me"...

And on an editorial note why would you want to sign those two to large contracts past the existing ones on a chancy 'maybe he will come' ?

[drj]

One problem is the timeline. It does not work as an extension that I see and they can not legally negotiate a new contract after current one except under the extension rules.

They can not make any deals under the table and sure are not putting it in writing.
So if you are Curry are you going to trust giving up 22 million on a wink promise they will resign you for 5 more years?
"Gee" said Boozer "the cav's must have misunderstood me"...

And on an editorial note why would you want to sign those two to large contracts past the existing ones on a chancy 'maybe he will come' ?

Thanks for the info, Dekko. I see that this is illegal.

As to your editorial note, I wasn't advocating this as a good idea. I was just wondering if it could be done. The main way for the Knicks to try to open up max capspace is to move Zach for a shorter contract or contracts, but it is not clear anyone will deal for Zach! So just exploring options.

[Dekko1]

The main way for the Knicks to try to open up max capspace is to move Zach for a shorter contract or contracts, but it is not clear anyone will deal for Zach! So just exploring options.

Well moving Zach for shorter contracts worked once. =)

One thing about Zach's contract that does not show on the surface, but just might help in a trade if they are running on a narrow or negative balance, is that while his cap amount is doG awful, the owner does get to postpone paying 30% of it for 6 years. So instead of coughing up 14.7 mil next year they will actually pay about 10.3 mil now and could earn investment return on the rest of Zach's money for 6 years....

--------------
Frank Layden on a 60-foot Maurice Lucas shot that
sent a game into overtime:
"In most places he would have won a car
or a trip to Hawaii. All he got was a tie."