Knicks · OT: Bucks Waiving Nate Wolters (page 4)

BigRedDog wrote:Phil PLEASE pick him up. Love this guy. Anyone that wants Lin back, how can you not want Wohlers. Better prospect than Lin was before Lin broke out

I dont know about that--I dont think Wolters is capable of what Lin did here. But Lin was also wildly inconsistent and really turnover prone. Complete opposite here--this guy doenst turn the ball over and hes a much better defensive player.

BRIGGS wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:Phil PLEASE pick him up. Love this guy. Anyone that wants Lin back, how can you not want Wohlers. Better prospect than Lin was before Lin broke out

I dont know about that--I dont think Wolters is capable of what Lin did here. But Lin was also wildly inconsistent and really turnover prone. Complete opposite here--this guy doenst turn the ball over and hes a much better defensive player.

I didn't say he could do what Lin did, I said before Lin broke out that Wohlers is a better prospect. You know more than most about Wohlers- he scored what like 43pts in a game in college- Lin never did anything close to that

Anyone really know this rule?

I think Phil wants to absorb a salary with those 2 free roster spots and get an asset back. But Wolters, might be better than anything we can get as I think that kid really fits this system. Heck, we can always cut Larkin then.

smackeddog wrote:I don't know- he looks really slow in all the youtube vids. Still, we have 2 spots so why not use one of them to try him out. If by the basketball gods will, we trade Calderdone we'll need another PG.

BigRedDog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:Phil PLEASE pick him up. Love this guy. Anyone that wants Lin back, how can you not want Wohlers. Better prospect than Lin was before Lin broke out

I dont know about that--I dont think Wolters is capable of what Lin did here. But Lin was also wildly inconsistent and really turnover prone. Complete opposite here--this guy doenst turn the ball over and hes a much better defensive player.

I didn't say he could do what Lin did, I said before Lin broke out that Wohlers is a better prospect. You know more than most about Wohlers- he scored what like 43pts in a game in college- Lin never did anything close to that

I think Wolters would make this team better--it would be fun to watch the young guiys play and add Wolters and somebody else. There is NO doubt he would be a positive influence on a culture that needs to change. Gym rat hard worked and skilled hooper. We need to find a LOT of cheap players if we want to keep flexibility and maximum cap space.

BRIGGS wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:Phil PLEASE pick him up. Love this guy. Anyone that wants Lin back, how can you not want Wohlers. Better prospect than Lin was before Lin broke out

I dont know about that--I dont think Wolters is capable of what Lin did here. But Lin was also wildly inconsistent and really turnover prone. Complete opposite here--this guy doenst turn the ball over and hes a much better defensive player.

I didn't say he could do what Lin did, I said before Lin broke out that Wohlers is a better prospect. You know more than most about Wohlers- he scored what like 43pts in a game in college- Lin never did anything close to that

I think Wolters would make this team better--it would be fun to watch the young guiys play and add Wolters and somebody else. There is NO doubt he would be a positive influence on a culture that needs to change. Gym rat hard worked and skilled hooper. We need to find a LOT of cheap players if we want to keep flexibility and maximum cap space.

He is much more like a Larkin than a Galloway type of PG, and you have to think that Fisher and Phil are looking for a more conservative, low risk taking, PG.

Fisher would have seen him play in person a number of times last year- he might have a good take on what he can or cannot do.

One note of caution- He was being coached by one of the best pure PGs of recent years, and was let go by them. I know it was a number's game, but I find it somewhat alarming.

Still want to pick him up if we can. Prigs and Calderon should only be getting enough playing time at this point to let other teams know they can still play and are worth trading for if they are desperate for a PG.

I'm looking at a shotgun approach to finding players. Bring in as many as you can at once- give them some good playing time, and see if they are worth keeping.

Galloway seems like a keeper at this point, but we still need more guards, as well as a big man.

Having a large group of guys 22-24 playing together the rest of the year is the way to go. Maybe some bonds are formed, and they really grow up as players together.

Hope we sign him.

earthmansurfer wrote:On the other forum someone mentioned that even if we are over the cap, we can use our trade exception(s) on him. It makes sense to a point, at least something like "Our cap minus the trade exception value is our ' true cap' as far as picking up a waived player and being under the cap to do so".

Anyone really know this rule?

I think Phil wants to absorb a salary with those 2 free roster spots and get an asset back. But Wolters, might be better than anything we can get as I think that kid really fits this system. Heck, we can always cut Larkin then.

This very well could be true according to the language on

Line number 65 on Coon's page we meet 1 of the criteria

With the trade exceptions created

However when players were waived this summer

Stein made mentioned of a restriction with teams over the Cap

He may have been referring to priority now that I think of it

Teams under the salary cap have first priority, then it would go next to teams with worst records

If say equal bid amounts were placed on waived player

WaltLongmire wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:Phil PLEASE pick him up. Love this guy. Anyone that wants Lin back, how can you not want Wohlers. Better prospect than Lin was before Lin broke out

I dont know about that--I dont think Wolters is capable of what Lin did here. But Lin was also wildly inconsistent and really turnover prone. Complete opposite here--this guy doenst turn the ball over and hes a much better defensive player.

I didn't say he could do what Lin did, I said before Lin broke out that Wohlers is a better prospect. You know more than most about Wohlers- he scored what like 43pts in a game in college- Lin never did anything close to that

I think Wolters would make this team better--it would be fun to watch the young guys play and add Wolters and somebody else. There is NO doubt he would be a positive influence on a culture that needs to change. Gym rat hard worked and skilled hooper. We need to find a LOT of cheap players if we want to keep flexibility and maximum cap space.

Do you think he is able to play in a more disciplined offensive system, or do his ball handling skills already translate well with the Triangle?

He is much more like a Larkin than a Galloway type of PG, and you have to think that Fisher and Phil are looking for a more conservative, low risk taking, PG.

Fisher would have seen him play in person a number of times last year- he might have a good take on what he can or cannot do.

One note of caution- He was being coached by one of the best pure PGs of recent years, and was let go by them. I know it was a number's game, but I find it somewhat alarming.

Still want to pick him up if we can. Prigs and Calderon should only be getting enough playing time at this point to let other teams know they can still play and are worth trading for if they are desperate for a PG.

I'm looking at a shotgun approach to finding players. Bring in as many as you can at once- give them some good playing time, and see if they are worth keeping.

Galloway seems like a keeper at this point, but we still need more guards, as well as a big man.

Having a large group of guys 22-24 playing together the rest of the year is the way to go. Maybe some bonds are formed, and they really grow up as players together.

Hope we sign him.

I think hes a player who can taylor his game. I look at his Turn over rate which is very low and his defense. he can score pass and rebound--Im sure he can taylor his game anyway the team needed. We'll see a free look on this team should be close to a no brainer---lets let Prigs move on--he has absolute zero value here.

earthmansurfer wrote:On the other forum someone mentioned that even if we are over the cap, we can use our trade exception(s) on him. It makes sense to a point, at least something like "Our cap minus the trade exception value is our ' true cap' as far as picking up a waived player and being under the cap to do so".

Anyone really know this rule?

I think Phil wants to absorb a salary with those 2 free roster spots and get an asset back. But Wolters, might be better than anything we can get as I think that kid really fits this system. Heck, we can always cut Larkin then.

No, that's not how trade exceptions work; we can't sign players or pick them up on waivers using them. We can only use them in trades and only by themselves.

callmened wrote:ive been a fan of nate since he was in college. i wouldnt mind picking him up however since he was a 1st rd pick would his contract be guaranteed for next yr?

He was a 2nd round pick. And we can only pick him up if he clears waivers so we would be signing him to a new contract anyway.

VCoug wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:On the other forum someone mentioned that even if we are over the cap, we can use our trade exception(s) on him. It makes sense to a point, at least something like "Our cap minus the trade exception value is our ' true cap' as far as picking up a waived player and being under the cap to do so".

Anyone really know this rule?

I think Phil wants to absorb a salary with those 2 free roster spots and get an asset back. But Wolters, might be better than anything we can get as I think that kid really fits this system. Heck, we can always cut Larkin then.

No, that's not how trade exceptions work; we can't sign players or pick them up on waivers using them. We can only use them in trades and only by themselves.

Went back and read this again and the problem is

There is a difference between "Trade Exception" and "Traded Player Exception"

So I'm going back to what I said earlier now until I hear otherwise

We can't place a bid on Wolters because we don't meet the following criteria

A team can claim a player on waivers only if one of the following is true:

- The team is far enough under the salary cap to fit the player's entire salary.

- The team has a Disabled Player exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 25), and the player is on the last season of his contract.

- The team has a trade exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 85).

- The player has a minimum salary contract.

If a team trades away a player with a higher salary than the player they acquire in return (the deal hereafter referred to as "Trade #1"), they receive a Traded Player Exception, also known as a "Trade Exception". Teams with a trade exception have up to a year in which they can acquire more salary in other trades (Trade #2, #3, etc.) than they send away, as long as the gulf in salaries for Trade #2, #3, etc. are less than or equal to the difference in salary for Trade #1. This exception is particularly useful when teams trade draft picks directly for a player; since draft picks have no salary value, often the only way to get salaries to match is to use a trade exception, which allows trades to be made despite unbalanced salaries. It is also useful to compensate teams for losing free agents, as they can do a sign and trade of that free agent to acquire a trade exception that can be used later. Note this exception is for single player trades only, though additional cash and draft picks can be part of the trade.

F500ONE wrote:

VCoug wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:On the other forum someone mentioned that even if we are over the cap, we can use our trade exception(s) on him. It makes sense to a point, at least something like "Our cap minus the trade exception value is our ' true cap' as far as picking up a waived player and being under the cap to do so".

Anyone really know this rule?

I think Phil wants to absorb a salary with those 2 free roster spots and get an asset back. But Wolters, might be better than anything we can get as I think that kid really fits this system. Heck, we can always cut Larkin then.

No, that's not how trade exceptions work; we can't sign players or pick them up on waivers using them. We can only use them in trades and only by themselves.

Went back and read this again and the problem is

There is a difference between "Trade Exception" and "Traded Player Exception"

So I'm going back to what I said earlier now until I hear otherwise

We can't place a bid on Wolters because we don't meet the following criteria

A team can claim a player on waivers only if one of the following is true:

- The team is far enough under the salary cap to fit the player's entire salary.

- The team has a Disabled Player exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 25), and the player is on the last season of his contract.

- The team has a trade exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 85).

- The player has a minimum salary contract.

Dude he's a minimum salaried player.

nixluva wrote:From my understanding the Traded Player Exception and Trade Exception are the same thing.

If a team trades away a player with a higher salary than the player they acquire in return (the deal hereafter referred to as "Trade #1"), they receive a Traded Player Exception, also known as a "Trade Exception". Teams with a trade exception have up to a year in which they can acquire more salary in other trades (Trade #2, #3, etc.) than they send away, as long as the gulf in salaries for Trade #2, #3, etc. are less than or equal to the difference in salary for Trade #1. This exception is particularly useful when teams trade draft picks directly for a player; since draft picks have no salary value, often the only way to get salaries to match is to use a trade exception, which allows trades to be made despite unbalanced salaries. It is also useful to compensate teams for losing free agents, as they can do a sign and trade of that free agent to acquire a trade exception that can be used later. Note this exception is for single player trades only, though additional cash and draft picks can be part of the trade.

Oh shit! I stand corrected. It looks like we can put in a bid using the traded player exception, I thought they could only be used in trades.

nixluva wrote:From my understanding the Traded Player Exception and Trade Exception are the same thing.

If a team trades away a player with a higher salary than the player they acquire in return (the deal hereafter referred to as "Trade #1"), they receive a Traded Player Exception, also known as a "Trade Exception". Teams with a trade exception have up to a year in which they can acquire more salary in other trades (Trade #2, #3, etc.) than they send away, as long as the gulf in salaries for Trade #2, #3, etc. are less than or equal to the difference in salary for Trade #1. This exception is particularly useful when teams trade draft picks directly for a player; since draft picks have no salary value, often the only way to get salaries to match is to use a trade exception, which allows trades to be made despite unbalanced salaries. It is also useful to compensate teams for losing free agents, as they can do a sign and trade of that free agent to acquire a trade exception that can be used later. Note this exception is for single player trades only, though additional cash and draft picks can be part of the trade.

Good find then we'd meet one of the criteria

Priority to teams under the cap first

BRIGGS wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

VCoug wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:On the other forum someone mentioned that even if we are over the cap, we can use our trade exception(s) on him. It makes sense to a point, at least something like "Our cap minus the trade exception value is our ' true cap' as far as picking up a waived player and being under the cap to do so".

Anyone really know this rule?

I think Phil wants to absorb a salary with those 2 free roster spots and get an asset back. But Wolters, might be better than anything we can get as I think that kid really fits this system. Heck, we can always cut Larkin then.

No, that's not how trade exceptions work; we can't sign players or pick them up on waivers using them. We can only use them in trades and only by themselves.

Went back and read this again and the problem is

There is a difference between "Trade Exception" and "Traded Player Exception"

So I'm going back to what I said earlier now until I hear otherwise

We can't place a bid on Wolters because we don't meet the following criteria

A team can claim a player on waivers only if one of the following is true:

- The team is far enough under the salary cap to fit the player's entire salary.

- The team has a Disabled Player exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 25), and the player is on the last season of his contract.

- The team has a trade exception for at least the player's salary (see question number 85).

- The player has a minimum salary contract.

Dude he's a minimum salaried player.

Not quite sure according to this language if by "bonuses" includes the raise incentives each yr

Hence why I said it helps to look into Cap stuff

It can be very complicated and confusing

Other rules related to incentives:

- Minimum salary contracts cannot contain bonuses of any kind.

- The rules for raises (and decreases) also apply to incentives. When salary increases or decreases are limited to 4.5% or 7.5%, then likely and unlikely bonuses may each increase or decrease by 4.5% or 7.5%, respectively (see question number 55).

- If a contract with bonuses is extended (see question number 60), then the extension must have the same bonuses. The bonus amounts may increase or decrease by up to 7.5%, but they can't be left off.

- The Amnesty provision has specific rules related to incentives. See question number 69 for more information.

Needless to say looks like we qualify based on the TPEs

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/Jkarnes1/status/555177840929701889

Click here to view the Tweet

Supposedly Wolves had interest but no room on roster

F500ONE wrote:

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/Jkarnes1/status/555177840929701889

Click here to view the Tweet

Supposedly Wolves had interest but no room on roster

This franchise just can't get a break, even when one is handed to them.
To let this kid go over Amundson, is just ridiculous. We had first shot at him and this?
Good job Phil, put this one in your memory banks.