The Knicks and the Derek Anderson provision

[ziggy]

I have changed the name from the Allan Houston provision to the Derek Anderson provision, since the Knicks didn't use it on Houston, and Da was the first casualty.  Why didn't the Knicks use it on Allan Houston, instead of Jerome Williams?  This make no sense whatsoever.  Could someone explain it to me.

[Skandery]

I have no idea whatsoever why the Knicks didn't use it on Allan Houston.  I read the article posted below from Yahoo.  It seems as though Zeke thinks that Allan is training real hard and making a real effort to get back to form.  I think Houston's ties to the owner can't hurt either.  Jerome Williams is starting to wind down, he was always good for energy and his advanced age has diminished his greatest asset.  They are also stocked at PF.  If you release Houston, you save twice as much money but the upside of Williams is nil.  On the other hand if you cut Williams and take the risk on Houston, you don't have the cash but have an added bonus should Houston regain form.  In this situation, I'd have taken the 40 mil....
 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-k...ov=ap&type=lgns

[Guest_Randy]

Word is that the Knicks are hoping that Houston will retire based on injury -- to date, Houston hasn't been willing to do that but the Knicks are still pushing in that direction.  

I don't think the Knicks really CARE how much they are paying in luxury tax -- they are trying to clear more cap space -- that's the reason, IMO, why the keep Houston rather than clear him.

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, I had heard that the Knicks were wanting Allan Houston to take a medical retirement.  In that way, they'd be off the hook for 75% of Houston's salary without using their "Anderson provision."  They'd then use that to dump a second player.

 

[ziggy]

Houston has already gone on record stating he will not retire.  Houston is due $40 million over the next 2 years, Williams $18 over 2 years.  They don't gain cap space any sooner by releasing Williams, and of course the salary cap means nothing to the Knicks.  Even after the contracts of Williams and Houston end, NY will still be over the cap.  Who's contract will be easier to trade next year, Williams at $9 million or Houston at $20,000,000?  The knicks have Richardson, Crawford, Marbury, and also Robinson at the 2 guard positions, so where will Houston's minutes come from?

The only way this makes sense is if they have an ironclad 100% agreement from Houston that he will retire in September.  If that is the case, then why not retire now?  If he just wants to see if he can go, what if he decides he can go?  Well you just lost out on $22 million in savings so he could sit on the bench, and be your 5th guard.

I am sorry, but this is stupid, and whoever made this decision is an idiot.

[Reality]

Houston has already gone on record stating he will not retire.  

The only way this makes sense is if they have an ironclad 100% agreement from Houston that he will retire in September.  If that is the case, then why not retire now?

WAs Houstons statement made BB or AB?
Before Brown or After Brown.

Or both.

Gotta believe Brown wanted an answer prior to becoming a Knick.

If he is going to retire, only explaination for Sept instead of now would be lawyer/contract babble?

[JoMal]

Anyone else here question the logic of this one-time amnesty option teams can exercise to cut high-cost, low-yield players?

Here you have these players, like Finley, Williams (or Houston), Anderson, Christie, who are still costing their host teams lots of money in salary, but cutting into the luxury tax dollars being paid out, who are then "gifted" out to any other team on their dime, to play exciting butt-cheek, bench-gluing basketball elsewhere, motivated by a desire to outcreak the sound systems during pre-game stretching exercises.  

How does it make any sense to pick up players who just need to show up to get their paychecks?"  

[Reality]

Here you have these players, like Finley, Williams (or Houston), Anderson, Christie, who are still costing their host teams lots of money in salary, but cutting into the luxury tax dollars being paid out, who are then "gifted" out to any other team on their dime, to play exciting butt-cheek, bench-gluing basketball elsewhere, motivated by a desire to outcreak the sound systems during pre-game stretching exercises. 

How does it make any sense to pick up players who just need to show up to get their paychecks?"

It can make sense because the team picking up the "gift" has to in turn pay such a relatively small salary (by greedy NBA standards) that the risk is minimalized.

For example Finley was due to have surgery that supposedly would help greatly.  I think he already had it done this summer.  So if he can even semi return to his healthy days, even if he becomes a 6th 7th 8th man for the Suns or ??, for that relatively small amount of cash he is a steal.  Ditto Christie.  Some players will not be butt bench warmers.

I think it's a total burn to the ex team (Mavs-Finley Knicks-Houston)  to have to continue to pay these pampered clowns mega millions.  But then again, the owners make billions so....

While it was before the "Amnesty" nonsense, look at how much Zo and Deke helped their respectives all while their ex's footed the bill.

It's kind of like an ex wife living it up on your dime.  As for NBA owners ever stopping the practice of signing outrageous salaries in the 1st place, it didnt stop this summer.  So prepare for more Alan Houstons 3 years from now...