RealGM

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=902909

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q53

There are some Knicks fans saying he can still be traded, I was under the assumption that since he was forced into medical retirement, the Knicks can no longer trade him... It'd be like trading a contract with no player attached to it o_O...

Can Cuttino Mobley still be traded?

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=898751

As long as the contract wasn't waived then he can still be traded, even if he "retired". See: KVH, and Aaron McKie as the most recent examples.

I don't think he was ever removed from the Knicks' 15-man roster this season, so if that's true he never retired in any sense of the word. He just didn't play.

magnumt wrote:As long as the contract wasn't waived then he can still be traded, even if he "retired". See: KVH, and Aaron McKie as the most recent examples.

KVH and Mckie were not under contract and had not put in their retirement papers with the league. Both were signed and traded by their former teams in order to make trades work financially. Mobley is currently under contract to the Knicks through June 2010 and on their 15-man roster. His contract could therefore be included in a trade.

Dunkenstein wrote:

magnumt wrote:As long as the contract wasn't waived then he can still be traded, even if he "retired". See: KVH, and Aaron McKie as the most recent examples.

KVH and Mckie were not under contract and had not put in their retirement papers with the league. Both were signed and traded by their former teams in order to make trades work financially. Mobley is currently under contract to the Knicks through June 2010 and on their 15-man roster. His contract could therefore be included in a trade.

The distinction you've made as to KVH and McKie is an important one, and there's one more note to add.

Before KVH and McKie could be sign-and-traded, there had to be space cleared so they could be added to their team's 15-man roster. Being on the roster - or being eligible to be added to it (such as a player whose contract has expired from that team and who hasn't signed with anyone else) and then being added as part of a SNT - is a prerequisite of a team's ability to trade a player.

Mobley can be traded as an expiring contract, but the team that acquires him can't claim a career ending exception on him, such as the Hawks once did after trading for Terrell Brandon. Therein lies the confusion, possibly.

The confusing part for me (which is why I asked a similar question) is that MANY stories on the subject says "Mobley announced his retirement today" or "Mobley officially retired from basketball today" or something similar. He even had a press conference.

But apparently his "official retirement" is not official, at least not by the requirements of the CBA.

Why would anyone officially retire, when KVH was able to get millions just by existing? Maybe some people need the medical coverage but any recently retired player with a dent 's worth of cap space won't.

Because Dallas had full Bird rights on Van Horn, and many retired players don't have that luxury, thus they don't have the possibility of having that happen to him.

DelaneyRudd wrote:Why would anyone officially retire, when KVH was able to get millions just by existing? Maybe some people need the medical coverage but any recently retired player with a dent 's worth of cap space won't.

While many players announce that they are retiring from the NBA, few actually file retirement papers with the league until they become eligible to receive their league pensions.

Coincidentally, I just filmed a segment for ESPN discussing the Mobley situation in detail. Look for it on "Outside the Lines" the last week of this month.

And yeah -- Dunk nailed it. "Retire" is one of those terms that means something different depending on whether you're speaking technically or informally. Informally (which is how Cuttino was speaking), he was ending his playing career. Technically, he didn't file the requisite paperwork with the league to retire. So informally he's retired, but technically he isn't.

LarryCoon wrote:Coincidentally, I just filmed a segment for ESPN discussing the Mobley situation in detail. Look for it on "Outside the Lines" the last week of this month.

Larry will also be at the Grand Opening of a Sonic Burger in Anaheim on May 29th. And he'll be the guest of honor at the closing of North Hollywood Chrysler/Dodge on June 15th.

One reason that he is supposed to be an attractive trading chip is that 75% of his contract is supposedly insured. Has anyone confirmed that. I thought this was a pre-existing condition that his other teams had known about, in which case it might not be covered by insurance (like Q-rich and his bad back).

It's covered by insurance. However, the Knicks are not eligible for a DPE or salary cap relief. They're also applying for luxury tax relief, and that's a Board of Governors decision.

BTW, here' my ESPN segment on Mobley:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=420266 ... id=2378529

Thanks for the answer. I couldn't get your piece from the link (it just took me to the current sports center report).

Yeah, it was only up for a week. ESPN told me their license to post stuff that includes NBA footage only lets them keep it online that long.

^You may find it on YouTube.

someone has indicated that even if the Mobley contract is traded, the recipient would not receive the insurance benefits of the contract and that those benefits can only run to the Knicks. Is that true?

I seem to recall that others (like Snow) were in this situation and that there was a lot of chatter about how attractive they were for the insurance benefits.

I know the Knicks are the only team that can wipe Mobley's contract off the luxury tax rolls due to his career ending injury, but I think the insurance coverage goes with him to any team. They just have to be ok with him on the luxury tax rolls.